Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review
Thesis (MCom)--Stellenbosch University, 2019.
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | en_ZA |
| Published: |
Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613868569657344 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Burger, Frances |
| author2 | Van Heerden, Linda |
| author_browse | Burger, Frances Van Heerden, Linda |
| author_facet | Van Heerden, Linda Burger, Frances |
| author_sort | Burger, Frances |
| collection | Thesis |
| dc_rights_str_mv | Stellenbosch University |
| description | Thesis (MCom)--Stellenbosch University, 2019. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/106998 |
| institution | Stellenbosch University (South Africa) |
| language | en_ZA |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:42:59.065Z |
| license_str | Other — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateRange | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| publisherStr | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| spelling | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/106998 Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review Burger, Frances Van Heerden, Linda Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. School of Accountancy. Civil procedure -- South Africa Civil procedure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Constitutional courts -- South Africa Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa UCTD Thesis (MCom)--Stellenbosch University, 2019. ENGLISH SUMMARY: Section 179 of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) gives the South African Revenue Service (SARS) the power to issue a notice to any person who holds or owes, or will hold or owe any money for or to a taxpayer. That person is then required, in terms of the notice, to pay the money to the SARS in satisfaction of the taxpayer’s outstanding tax debt. This is known as a third party appointment. Third party appointments can be made without the supervision of a court of law (referred to as a judicial oversight in this research). The main problem identified in this research was whether third party appointments are constitutional due to the lack of judicial oversight. This was investigated by conducting a comparative study. Third party appointments, a fiscal debt collection measure, were compared and evaluated against emoluments attachment orders (EAOs), a civil debt collection procedure. EAOs are contained in section 65J of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) and allow for the attachment of the judgment debtor’s emoluments held by an employer of the judgment debtor to satisfy an outstanding judgment debt. The Constitutional Court, in the case of University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others, found that EAOs in terms of section 65J(2) of the MCA were invalid and unconstitutional to the extent that it failed to guarantee judicial oversight when each EAO is issued. A non-empirical study was conducted by reviewing legislation, case law and existing academic writing that relate to the collection of debt owed by debtors from third parties in South African tax and civil procedure law. The principles established in the aforementioned case law, together with the conclusions drawn from the comparative study, was applied to determine whether section 179 of the TAA is constitutional and consistent with section 34 of the Constitution, providing taxpayers the right to have access to courts. It was shown that third party appointments and EAOs, though not identical, were similar in nature. Both allow for the attachment of money held by third parties owing to the taxpayer or judgment debtor, respectively, to satisfy outstanding debt. It was shown that the Constitutional Court in the University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic-case confirmed that the attachment of property should always be subject to judicial oversight, and that the attachment of emoluments also amounted to the attachment of property. The Constitutional Court found that, to the extent that the attachment of property to satisfy a judgment debt is not subject to judicial oversight, it is invalid and unconstitutional. In light hereof, it is questionable whether third party appointments are still valid and constitutional, as it also allows for the attachment of property to satisfy an outstanding tax debt, without judicial oversight. It was found that there should be no reason why the findings of Constitutional Court in the University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic-case should not equally apply to third party appointments. It is suggested that should third party appointments reach the attention of our courts, it may be found that third party appointments are no longer constitutional due to the lack of judicial oversight. AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 179 van die Wet op Belastingadministrasie gee aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens (SAID) die mag om ’n kennisgewing uit te reik aan enige persoon wat enige gelde vir of aan ’n belastingpligtige hou, skuld, of sal hou of sal skuld. Daar word dan ingevolge die kennisgewing van die persoon vereis om die geld aan die SAID te betaal ter betaling van die belastingpligtige se belastingskuld. Dit staan bekend as ’n derde party aanstelling. Derde party aanstellings kan sonder die toesig van ’n geregshof (bekend as geregtelike toesig in hierdie werkstuk) gemaak word. Die hoof probleem geidentifiseer in hierdie navorsing was of derde party aanstellings grondwetlik is weens die gebrek aan geregtelike toesig. Dit is ondersoek deur ’n vergelykende studie te doen. Derde party aanstellings, ’n fiskale skuldinvorderingsprosedure, is vergelyk en geevalueer teen besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevele, ’n siviele skuldinvorderingsprosedure. Besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevele is vervat in artikel 65J van die Wet op Landdroshowe en maak voorsiening vir beslaglegging op ’n vonnisskuldenaar se besoldiging wat deur sy werkgewer gehou word om die uitstaande skuld van die vonnisskuldenaar te betaal. Die Konstitusionele Hof het, in die saak van University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others, bevind dat besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevele ingevolge artikel 65J(2) van die Wet op Landdroshowe ongeldig en ongrondwetlik is, tot die mate wat die wetsbepaling nie geregtelike toesig waarborg wanneer elke besoldigingsbeslagbeveel uitgereik word nie. ’n Nie-empiriese studie is gedoen deur wetgewing, regspraak en bestaande akademiese literatuur wat met die invordering van skuld deur derde partye in die Suid-Afrikaanse belasting- en siviele prosesreg verband hou, te ondersoek. Die beginsels vasgestel in voorgenoemde regspraak, sowel as die afleidings gemaak uit die vergelykende studie, is gebruik om te bepaal of artikel 179 van die Wet op Belastingadministrasie grondwetlik en in ooreenstemming met artikel 34 van die Grondwet, wat belastingpligtiges die reg van tot toegang tot howe verleen, is. Daar was aangedui dat derde party aanstellings en besoldigingsbeslagleggingsbevele, alhoewel nie identies nie, soortgelyk van aard is. Beide prosedures maak voorsiening vir die beslaglegging op geld wat deur derde partye gehou word en aan die belastingpligtige of vonnisskuldenaar onderskeidelik verskuldig is, ten einde uitstaande skuld te betaal. Daar is aangedui dat die Konstitusionele Hof in die University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic-saak bevestig het dat die beslaglegging van eiendom altyd aan geregtelike toesig onderhewig moet wees, en dat die beslaglegging op besoldiging ook die beslaglegging van eiendom uitmaak. Die Konstitusionele Hof het bevind dat, tot die mate wat die beslaglegging op eiendom ten einde vonnisskuld te delg, nie aan geregtelike toesig onderhewig is nie, dit ongeldig en ongrondwetlik is. Op grond hiervan, word dit bevraagteken of derde party aanstellings nog geldig en grondwetlik is, aangesien dit ook voorsiening maak vir die beslaglegging op eiendom om uitstaande skuld te betaal, sonder geregtelike toesig. Daar is bevind dat daar geen rede behoort te wees waarom die uitspraak in die University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic-saak nie ook op derde party aanstellings van toepassings moet wees nie. Daar is dus voorgestel dat sou derde party aanstellings deur ons howe oorweeg word, dit nie grondwetlik gevind sal word nie, weens die versuim om voorsiening te maak vir geregtelike oorsig. Masters 2019-08-19T07:15:09Z 2019-12-11T06:42:25Z 2023-01-04T03:00:10Z 2019-12 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/106998 en_ZA Stellenbosch University xi, 121 pages application/pdf Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| spellingShingle | Civil procedure -- South Africa Civil procedure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Constitutional courts -- South Africa Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa UCTD Burger, Frances Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title | Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title_full | Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title_fullStr | Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title_short | Third party appointments in South African tax law : a comparison with South African civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| title_sort | third party appointments in south african tax law a comparison with south african civil procedure law and a constitutional review |
| topic | Civil procedure -- South Africa Civil procedure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Constitutional courts -- South Africa Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa UCTD |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/106998 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT burgerfrances thirdpartyappointmentsinsouthafricantaxlawacomparisonwithsouthafricancivilprocedurelawandaconstitutionalreview |