根据 2011 年第 28 号《税收征管法》和 2000 年第 2 号《信息获取促进法》,纳税人信息的保密和法院命令的披露

S. De Lange
{"title":"根据 2011 年第 28 号《税收征管法》和 2000 年第 2 号《信息获取促进法》,纳税人信息的保密和法院命令的披露","authors":"S. De Lange","doi":"10.38140/jjs.v48i2.7909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The secrecy provisions of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (hereinafter, the TA Act) provide that taxpayer information may generally not be disclosed by the South African Revenue Service (hereinafter, SARS). One of the exceptions to the preservation of secrecy is when a court orders disclosure following an application regulated by secs. 69(2)(c), 69(3), 69(4), and 69(5) of the TA Act. This article considers this exception to taxpayer secrecy in terms of the TA Act, with a focus on the circumstances provided in sec. 69(5) of the TA Act, which must be met before the court may order disclosure. This is done by first considering the previous provisions relating to secrecy and the exception thereof by an order of court found in, for example, the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, which applied before the commencement of the TA Act. The case law on the previous provisions and the more recent cases on the TA Act secrecy provisions are analysed. This article also considers the disclosure of taxpayer information by a court in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (hereinafter,the PAI Act), in light of the recent finding by the Constitutional Court in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others.1 In this case, the majority of the court declared certain provisions of the PAI Act and the TA Act constitutionally invalid, which results in the mandatory disclosure of taxpayer information when it is in the public interest, as contemplated in sec. 46 of the PAI Act. The PAI Act, in addition to the TA Act, now allows for a court order to disclose information in terms of the public interest procedure if access was refused by SARS. This begs the question: What is the interaction between a TA Act court order to disclose taxpayer information and a PAI Act court order to disclose taxpayer information if the requirements ofsec. 46 of the PAI Act are applicable and if access was refused by SARS?","PeriodicalId":292409,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Juridical Science","volume":"348 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secrecy of Taxpayer Information and the Disclosure thereof by an Order of Court in Terms of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 and the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000\",\"authors\":\"S. De Lange\",\"doi\":\"10.38140/jjs.v48i2.7909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The secrecy provisions of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (hereinafter, the TA Act) provide that taxpayer information may generally not be disclosed by the South African Revenue Service (hereinafter, SARS). One of the exceptions to the preservation of secrecy is when a court orders disclosure following an application regulated by secs. 69(2)(c), 69(3), 69(4), and 69(5) of the TA Act. This article considers this exception to taxpayer secrecy in terms of the TA Act, with a focus on the circumstances provided in sec. 69(5) of the TA Act, which must be met before the court may order disclosure. This is done by first considering the previous provisions relating to secrecy and the exception thereof by an order of court found in, for example, the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, which applied before the commencement of the TA Act. The case law on the previous provisions and the more recent cases on the TA Act secrecy provisions are analysed. This article also considers the disclosure of taxpayer information by a court in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (hereinafter,the PAI Act), in light of the recent finding by the Constitutional Court in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others.1 In this case, the majority of the court declared certain provisions of the PAI Act and the TA Act constitutionally invalid, which results in the mandatory disclosure of taxpayer information when it is in the public interest, as contemplated in sec. 46 of the PAI Act. The PAI Act, in addition to the TA Act, now allows for a court order to disclose information in terms of the public interest procedure if access was refused by SARS. This begs the question: What is the interaction between a TA Act court order to disclose taxpayer information and a PAI Act court order to disclose taxpayer information if the requirements ofsec. 46 of the PAI Act are applicable and if access was refused by SARS?\",\"PeriodicalId\":292409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Juridical Science\",\"volume\":\"348 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"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/10.38140/jjs.v48i2.7909\",\"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/10.38140/jjs.v48i2.7909","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《税收征管法》(以下简称《税收征管法》)的保密条款规定,南非税务局 (以下简称 SARS)一般不得披露纳税人信息。保密的例外情况之一是,法院在收到第 69(2)(c)、(2)(d)和(2)(e)条规定的申请后命令披露。其中一个例外情况是,法院在收到《税收征管法》第 69(2)(c)、69(3)、69(4) 和 69(5) 条规定的申请后命令披露信息。本文从《税收征管法》的角度探讨了纳税人保密的例外情况,重点是《税收征管法》第 69(5)条规定的情况。本文从《税收征管法》的角度探讨了纳税人保密的例外情况,重点是《税收征管法》第 69(5)条规定的情况。要做到这一点,首先要考虑与保密有关的先前规定以及法院命令的例外情况,例如 1962 年第 58 号《所得税法》,该法在《税务法》生效之前就已适用。本文分析了有关以前条款的判例法以及有关《所得税法》保密条款的最新案例。本文还根据宪法法院最近在 Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others 案1 中的裁决,考虑了法院根据 2000 年第 2 号《信息公开促进法》(以下简称《信息公开法》) 披露纳税人信息的问题。PAI 法》第 46 条。除了《税法》之外,《公共利益法案》现在还允许在 SARS 拒绝公开信息的情况下,法院可 以根据公共利益程序下令公开信息。这就引出了一个问题:如果适用《公共利益法》第 46 条的要求,那么披露纳税人信息的《 TA 法》法院命令和披露纳税人信息的《 PAI 法》法院命令之间的互动关系是什么?这就提出了一个问题:如果适用《公共信息权法》第 46 条的要求,并且 SARS 拒绝披露纳税人信息,那么《公共信息权法》法院披露纳税人信息的命令与《公共信息权法》法院披露纳税人信息的命令之间有什么相互影响?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Secrecy of Taxpayer Information and the Disclosure thereof by an Order of Court in Terms of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 and the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000
The secrecy provisions of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (hereinafter, the TA Act) provide that taxpayer information may generally not be disclosed by the South African Revenue Service (hereinafter, SARS). One of the exceptions to the preservation of secrecy is when a court orders disclosure following an application regulated by secs. 69(2)(c), 69(3), 69(4), and 69(5) of the TA Act. This article considers this exception to taxpayer secrecy in terms of the TA Act, with a focus on the circumstances provided in sec. 69(5) of the TA Act, which must be met before the court may order disclosure. This is done by first considering the previous provisions relating to secrecy and the exception thereof by an order of court found in, for example, the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, which applied before the commencement of the TA Act. The case law on the previous provisions and the more recent cases on the TA Act secrecy provisions are analysed. This article also considers the disclosure of taxpayer information by a court in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (hereinafter,the PAI Act), in light of the recent finding by the Constitutional Court in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others.1 In this case, the majority of the court declared certain provisions of the PAI Act and the TA Act constitutionally invalid, which results in the mandatory disclosure of taxpayer information when it is in the public interest, as contemplated in sec. 46 of the PAI Act. The PAI Act, in addition to the TA Act, now allows for a court order to disclose information in terms of the public interest procedure if access was refused by SARS. This begs the question: What is the interaction between a TA Act court order to disclose taxpayer information and a PAI Act court order to disclose taxpayer information if the requirements ofsec. 46 of the PAI Act are applicable and if access was refused by SARS?
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信