The issues were whether:
(a) the test of gross negligence or bad faith was relied on;
(b) the legal requirements for awarding personal costs against a representative litigant were met;
(c) correct legal principles for awarding costs on an attorney and client scale were relied on and complied with; and
(d) there is any basis for interfering with the costs order.
The court discussed the test for personal costs orders against representative litigants. Furthermore, important phrases such as the test for gross negligence and bad faith was also discussed.
We can use this when we try to make out an argument for punitive cost order against government officials.
The court had to confirm the High Court’s declaration of invalidity of Section 1 of the Land Affairs General Amendment Act and Section 25A of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Act.
In its judgment the court had to interpret the provisions and determine what they mean. Once this was done, it had to measure the provisions against the relevant clauses of the Constitution.
Although this case is not applicable to PAJA or Tax Law, we refer to it whenever we would like to challenge the validity and constitutionality of legislation, especially certain provisions of the TAA.
This case is interesting because it deals with 2 questions:
Although this case is not really applicable to our line of work, it might be interesting to read.
This case dealt with utterances made by Malema against Gordhan and the Court had to decide whether it contravenes Section 10 of the Equality Act. Interestingly, the court found that the attack/utterances was personal in nature only.
This is not applicable to our line of work, but might be interesting to read if you want to stay updated with the political developments in SA.
The question at the centre of this appeal is whether payments totalling R6 795 540 made by BMWSA to tax consulting firms KPMG, Price Waterhouse Coopers and Raffray Tax Consultants CC (the firms) in relation to services rendered to expatriate employees in respect of their domestic tax obligations, constitute a taxable benefit and consequently forms part of gross income in respect of which the employees are liable to taxation.
Simply put, the question is whether the payments to the firms fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘gross income’ in s 1(i) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act), read with paragraphs 2(e) or (h) of the Seventh Schedule thereto.
The Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act) requires opening and closing trading stock to be taken into account when determining taxable income derived from carrying on any trade in any year of assessment. Section 22(1) of the Act is concerned with the value of trading stock held and not disposed of at the end of the relevant year of assessment, which is determined with reference to the diminution thereof.
Sections 22(1)(a) and (b) of the Act prescribe the basis upon which taxpayers are to value trading stock at the beginning and end of each year of assessment.
This appeal by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS), against a judgment of the Tax Court, Johannesburg (Opperman J, sitting with assessors), turns on the interpretation and application of those provisions.
The dispute relates to whether the value of the taxpayer’s trading stock had diminished, entitling SARS to make a just and reasonable allowance under s 22(1)(a) of the Act.
Of the recent articles published, I think the following might be very interesting. I still want to read through them and I will report to you once done.