SARS无证搜查和扣押:宪法侵犯纳税人隐私?-第一部分

F. Moosa
{"title":"SARS无证搜查和扣押:宪法侵犯纳税人隐私?-第一部分","authors":"F. Moosa","doi":"10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sec. 63 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) grants officials of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) access to taxpayers’ private and confidential information by, first, searching a taxpayer’s person and premises without a warrant and, secondly, permitting the seizure of taxpayers’ possessions and communications. Part One of this article (see Journal for Juridical Science 2021(1)) argued that the TAA is a “law of general application” as envisaged by the so-called “limitation clause” contained in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. 14 of the Constitution. In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, although the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, nevertheless to pass muster under sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, because of the justifiability of the limitation imposed on the right to privacy by these provisions.","PeriodicalId":292409,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Juridical Science","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Warrantless search and seizure by SARS: a constitutional invasion of taxpayers’ privacy? – Part One\",\"authors\":\"F. Moosa\",\"doi\":\"10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sec. 63 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) grants officials of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) access to taxpayers’ private and confidential information by, first, searching a taxpayer’s person and premises without a warrant and, secondly, permitting the seizure of taxpayers’ possessions and communications. Part One of this article (see Journal for Juridical Science 2021(1)) argued that the TAA is a “law of general application” as envisaged by the so-called “limitation clause” contained in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. 14 of the Constitution. In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, although the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, nevertheless to pass muster under sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, because of the justifiability of the limitation imposed on the right to privacy by these provisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":292409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Juridical Science\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Juridical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Juridical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《2011年第28号税收管理法》(TAA)第63条允许南非税务局(SARS)官员获取纳税人的私人和机密信息,首先,他们可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查纳税人的人身和房屋,其次,允许扣押纳税人的财产和通信。本文第一部分(见《司法科学期刊》2021(1))认为,根据1996年《宪法》第36(1)条所载的所谓“限制条款”的设想,TAA是一部“普遍适用的法律”,并且,就该条款规定的门槛分析阶段而言,第63(1)条和(4)条赋予的权力的行使限制了纳税人在《宪法》第14条中确立的宪法隐私权。在本文的第二部分中,我们将假设,尽管TAA第63(1)和(4)条中的搜查和扣押权不是绝对明确的起草模式,但就第一部分的调查结果引发的第二阶段调查而言,它们应该通过宪法第36(1)条的审查,因为这些条款对隐私权施加的限制是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Warrantless search and seizure by SARS: a constitutional invasion of taxpayers’ privacy? – Part One
Sec. 63 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) grants officials of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) access to taxpayers’ private and confidential information by, first, searching a taxpayer’s person and premises without a warrant and, secondly, permitting the seizure of taxpayers’ possessions and communications. Part One of this article (see Journal for Juridical Science 2021(1)) argued that the TAA is a “law of general application” as envisaged by the so-called “limitation clause” contained in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. 14 of the Constitution. In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, although the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, nevertheless to pass muster under sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, because of the justifiability of the limitation imposed on the right to privacy by these provisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信