危险评估的制定与争议:行政法视角

S. D. de Lange
{"title":"危险评估的制定与争议:行政法视角","authors":"S. D. de Lange","doi":"10.47348/slr/2022/i2a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) is authorised by section 94(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“TAA”) to make a jeopardy assessment in advance of the date on which the return is normally due, if the Commissioner for the SARS is satisfied that it is required to secure the collection of tax that would otherwise be in jeopardy. As making a jeopardy assessment amounts to “administrative action” as defined in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”), it must meet the administrative justice requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness as provided for in section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, read together with PAJA. This article analyses what is required of SARS when making a jeopardy assessment to meet these administrative justice requirements. However, should an aggrieved taxpayer not be satisfied with the making of a jeopardy assessment, the remedies which are available to the taxpayer to dispute a jeopardy assessment should be determined. Therefore, this article also sets out the various ways in which an aggrieved taxpayer can dispute a jeopardy assessment with reference to objection and appeal as provided for in the TAA, the special statutory review provided for in the TAA (which specifically allows that an application to review a jeopardy assessment may be made to the High Court on the grounds that its amount is excessive or circumstances that justify a jeopardy assessment do not exist), and the more general PAJA review process.","PeriodicalId":325707,"journal":{"name":"Stellenbosch Law Review","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making and disputing jeopardy assessments: An administrative law perspective\",\"authors\":\"S. D. de Lange\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/slr/2022/i2a3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) is authorised by section 94(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“TAA”) to make a jeopardy assessment in advance of the date on which the return is normally due, if the Commissioner for the SARS is satisfied that it is required to secure the collection of tax that would otherwise be in jeopardy. As making a jeopardy assessment amounts to “administrative action” as defined in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”), it must meet the administrative justice requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness as provided for in section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, read together with PAJA. This article analyses what is required of SARS when making a jeopardy assessment to meet these administrative justice requirements. However, should an aggrieved taxpayer not be satisfied with the making of a jeopardy assessment, the remedies which are available to the taxpayer to dispute a jeopardy assessment should be determined. Therefore, this article also sets out the various ways in which an aggrieved taxpayer can dispute a jeopardy assessment with reference to objection and appeal as provided for in the TAA, the special statutory review provided for in the TAA (which specifically allows that an application to review a jeopardy assessment may be made to the High Court on the grounds that its amount is excessive or circumstances that justify a jeopardy assessment do not exist), and the more general PAJA review process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stellenbosch Law Review\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stellenbosch Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/slr/2022/i2a3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stellenbosch Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/slr/2022/i2a3","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

根据2011年《税收管理法》第28条(“TAA”)第94(1)条,南非税务局(“SARS”)有权在通常的纳税申报截止日期之前进行风险评估,如果SARS局长认为需要确保税收的征收,否则将处于危险中。根据2000年第3号《促进行政司法法》(PAJA)的定义,进行危险评估相当于“行政行为”,因此必须符合1996年《南非共和国宪法》(与PAJA一起解读)第33条规定的合法性、合理性和程序公正性的行政司法要求。本文分析了在进行危害评估以满足这些行政司法要求时对SARS的要求。但是,如果受损害的纳税人对风险评估不满意,则应确定纳税人对风险评估提出异议的补救办法。因此,本条文亦列明受损害的纳税人可透过各种方式,就风险评估提出异议及上诉,包括风险评估协议所订明的异议及上诉、风险评估协议所订明的特别法定覆核(特别允许申请人以风险评估金额过高或不存在风险评估的合理情况为由,向高等法院提出覆核风险评估的申请);以及更普遍的PAJA审查过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making and disputing jeopardy assessments: An administrative law perspective
The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) is authorised by section 94(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“TAA”) to make a jeopardy assessment in advance of the date on which the return is normally due, if the Commissioner for the SARS is satisfied that it is required to secure the collection of tax that would otherwise be in jeopardy. As making a jeopardy assessment amounts to “administrative action” as defined in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”), it must meet the administrative justice requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness as provided for in section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, read together with PAJA. This article analyses what is required of SARS when making a jeopardy assessment to meet these administrative justice requirements. However, should an aggrieved taxpayer not be satisfied with the making of a jeopardy assessment, the remedies which are available to the taxpayer to dispute a jeopardy assessment should be determined. Therefore, this article also sets out the various ways in which an aggrieved taxpayer can dispute a jeopardy assessment with reference to objection and appeal as provided for in the TAA, the special statutory review provided for in the TAA (which specifically allows that an application to review a jeopardy assessment may be made to the High Court on the grounds that its amount is excessive or circumstances that justify a jeopardy assessment do not exist), and the more general PAJA review process.
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