2011年第28号税收管理法中的“先付后辩”方法是否侵犯了纳税人不被任意剥夺财产的权利?

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
C. Fritz, R. Brits
{"title":"2011年第28号税收管理法中的“先付后辩”方法是否侵犯了纳税人不被任意剥夺财产的权利?","authors":"C. Fritz, R. Brits","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Davis Tax Committee declared that the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011, which applies when a taxpayer disputes an assessed tax liability, infringes on a person’s right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily as entrenched in s 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the property clause). In this article we set out to analyse whether this is indeed the case by first outlining the legislative provisions pertaining to the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach and the jurisprudence surrounding the right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily. Thereafter, we evaluate whether the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach complies with the requirements for a valid deprivation of property and conclude that this approach does not infringe upon the rights of taxpayers in terms of the property clause. We show that the statutory provisions surrounding the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach impose a deprivation of property, but that the deprivation is neither procedurally nor substantively arbitrary.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"36 1","pages":"200 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 infringe on a taxpayer’s right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily?\",\"authors\":\"C. Fritz, R. Brits\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Davis Tax Committee declared that the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011, which applies when a taxpayer disputes an assessed tax liability, infringes on a person’s right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily as entrenched in s 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the property clause). In this article we set out to analyse whether this is indeed the case by first outlining the legislative provisions pertaining to the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach and the jurisprudence surrounding the right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily. Thereafter, we evaluate whether the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach complies with the requirements for a valid deprivation of property and conclude that this approach does not infringe upon the rights of taxpayers in terms of the property clause. We show that the statutory provisions surrounding the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach impose a deprivation of property, but that the deprivation is neither procedurally nor substantively arbitrary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"200 - 220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1810113","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要戴维斯税务委员会宣布,2011年第28号《税务管理法》中的“先付后议”方法,适用于纳税人对评估的纳税义务提出质疑的情况,侵犯了1996年《南非共和国宪法》第25(1)条(财产条款)中规定的个人不被任意剥夺财产的权利。在这篇文章中,我们首先概述了与“先付后辩”方法有关的立法规定,以及围绕不被任意剥夺财产权利的判例,以此来分析情况是否属实。此后,我们评估了“现在支付,以后争论”的方法是否符合有效剥夺财产的要求,并得出结论,这种方法没有侵犯纳税人在财产条款方面的权利。我们表明,围绕“先付后议”方法的法定条款规定了对财产的剥夺,但这种剥夺既不是程序上的,也不是实质上的任意性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 infringe on a taxpayer’s right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily?
Abstract The Davis Tax Committee declared that the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach in the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011, which applies when a taxpayer disputes an assessed tax liability, infringes on a person’s right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily as entrenched in s 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the property clause). In this article we set out to analyse whether this is indeed the case by first outlining the legislative provisions pertaining to the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach and the jurisprudence surrounding the right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily. Thereafter, we evaluate whether the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach complies with the requirements for a valid deprivation of property and conclude that this approach does not infringe upon the rights of taxpayers in terms of the property clause. We show that the statutory provisions surrounding the ‘pay now, argue later’ approach impose a deprivation of property, but that the deprivation is neither procedurally nor substantively arbitrary.
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
×
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