How Incomplete Records Led to an R87 Million Tax Nightmare
A recent Tax Court judgment has once again spotlighted tax compliance, the importance of proper record-keeping, and the legal framework surrounding tax audits. The case involved Dr X, a specialist neurologist, and his company, Dr X Inc., which was audited by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) over multiple tax years. The dispute raised critical issues about whether SARS had the right to demand access to financial records and whether the taxpayer’s objections to the assessment were valid.
The Background of the Case
The SARS audit of Dr. X and his company began in 2021 focusing on gross income, capital gains tax (CGT), and VAT compliance for the 2016 to 2020 tax years. SARS requested extensive financial records, including bank statements, investment portfolio details, and a breakdown of income streams.
Dr. X’s company used Xero Accounting Software and a medical records system to document financial transactions. However, these systems were not integrated nor adequately reconciled, leading to discrepancies in financial reporting. Additionally, the company’s financial statements were not audited (nor independently reviewed), but were instead they were ‘internally’ compiled. This raised concerns for SARS, as internal reports do not provide the same reliability and assurance as externally audited (or reviewed) financial statements.
SARS insisted on having direct access to these accounting records to conduct an accurate audit. Dr. X initially refused to grant access, citing concerns over data security. Instead, he offered extracted data, which SARS rejected, insisting on direct verification to ensure data accuracy and compliance with tax laws.
Taxpayer is ‘High Compliance Risk’ due to lack of audit
Under Section 29(1) of the Tax Administration Act (TAA), a taxpayer is required to keep records, books of account, and other documents necessary to:
1. Enable SARS to determine tax liability and ensure compliance with tax laws.
2. Ensure accuracy of financial reporting for tax assessment purposes.
3. Support any tax returns submitted by the taxpayer.
SARS viewed Dr. X Inc.'s reliance on internal compilation reports instead of an external audit as a compliance risk, leading to extensive SARS audits and tax adjustments. SARS argued that the financial statements should have been audited to verify the accuracy of reported figures and ensure that all taxable income and VAT obligations were properly accounted for. Instead, an accountant compiles the financial statements internally, which does not provide the required assurance. SARS believed that proper auditing would have likely identified the significant income discrepancies found during the audit.
Key Findings from the SARS Audit
After analysing transactions from Dr. X’s bank and investment accounts, SARS identified several concerns:
Undeclared income as tax returns did not report large deposits in Dr. X’s bank account.
Salary misreporting as the company paid Dr X salaries totalling R4.3 million (2017), R8.8 million (2018), and R9.8 million (2019), but he did not declare them as personal income.
Incorrect VAT reporting as VAT was understated by R3.28 million, due to the fact that the company had netted off salaries against deposits when calculating output tax.
SARS raised an assessed tax liability of R87.4 million, which included income tax, VAT, donations tax, understatement penalties, and interest.
SARS Can Demand Access to Financial Records
One of the major disputes in this case was whether SARS had the right to demand direct access to the Healthbridge system.
Under Section 46 of the Tax Administration Act (TAA), SARS can request access to relevant financial records to assess a taxpayer’s liability. SARS can demand access to accounting software, bank statements, and other financial records, even if the taxpayer prefers to submit extracted data.
Dr. X initially refused to grant access and only offered printed reports. SARS argued that this method did not allow them to verify the integrity of the financial data. The court ruled in favour of SARS, confirming that the tax authority had the right to verify financial data to ensure direct compliance.
The Validity of the Taxpayer’s Objections
Dr. X and his company objected to the tax assessments on several grounds. However, SARS invalidated the objections due to non-compliance with Rule 7(2)(b) of the Tax Court Rules. Dr. X’s objections indeed lacked detailed supporting documents, and some explanations were inconsistent. The court upheld SARS’s decision to invalidate objections, meaning Dr. X could not appeal until a valid objection was filed.
A valid objection should:
Clearly specify which parts of the assessment they disagree with.
Provide supporting documents to substantiate their claims.
Submit records that were not previously provided to SARS.
Court Judgment and Its Implications
The court ultimately ruled in favour of SARS, finding that:
The taxpayers objections were invalid due to a lack of proper documentation.
SARS had the authority to demand direct access to the Healthbridge system.
The taxpayer’s non-cooperation justified the estimated assessments.
A 200% understatement penalty was warranted due to non-disclosure and obstructive behaviour.
Key Lessons for Accountants and Tax Practitioners
This case highlights several takeaways for accountants and tax professionals:
Complete and transparent financial records with properly integrated accounting systems can prevent discrepancies that may trigger tax audits.
SARS has the authority to request direct access to financial records. Refusing access can lead to estimated assessments.
Valid objections require proper documentation. Taxpayers who dispute an assessment must submit clear, detailed, and properly substantiated objections.
External audits/reviews provide protection, ensure compliance and reduce the risk of disputes with SARS.
Penalties for non-compliance can be severe. A 200% understatement penalty in this case demonstrates that tax evasion or obstruction carries significant financial consequences.
Conclusion
This Tax Court ruling reinforces SARS’s power to enforce tax compliance and shows the high burden of proof placed on taxpayers. Accountants and tax practitioners must educate clients on the importance of record-keeping, direct cooperation with SARS, and proper documentation when filing objections. Failing to do so can result in severe penalties and financial consequences.
For professionals in the field, this case is a clear reminder that tax compliance is non-negotiable, and proper financial management is critical in avoiding costly disputes with SARS.
Enroll for CIBA’s Monthly Compliance: Legislative Update and get up to date on legal and compliance matters!
What you will learn
Keeping up with changing laws and regulations can feel overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be. This one-hour live webinar will break down the latest accounting, tax, and compliance updates—giving you exactly what you need to stay on top of your game. We’ll cover key changes from local regulators like SARS, CIPC, FIC, FSCA, and PPRA, plus major updates from international bodies like IFAC, ISSB, and IESBA.
No jargon, no fluff—just clear, practical insights to help you stay compliant and confidently adjust your practice. Join us and stay ahead of the curve!
