top of page
  • King-Essack & Associates

'Double Jeopardy' for Tax Evasion – Penalties plus Prosecution

'Administrative penalties and criminal proceedings do not serve the same purpose. The [one] is aimed at strengthening internal controls of the administrative authority and to promote compliance while the other is aimed at correcting a behaviour that caused harm to the society.' (Extract from judgment below)


SARS has announced major crackdowns on tax defaulters, and a recent High Court decision highlights the dangers of being caught out for 'intentional tax evasion'.




R1,3m prejudice to SARS

  • A close corporation (CC) registered for both income tax and VAT (value added tax) rendered 'nil' returns to SARS over a four-year period, indicating that no income had been generated and no expenses incurred.

  • After a tax audit, SARS determined (and the CC admitted) that the returns were false and that SARS had in consequence suffered prejudice of R819 607 on VAT and R493 600 on Income Tax.

  • SARS levied 10% late payment penalties and further imposed a 150% understatement penalty on both Income Tax and VAT. The 150% was imposed for 'intentional tax evasion'.

  • Both the CC and the member were then also charged criminally for intentional tax evasion.

Both penalties and prosecution – is that 'Double Jeopardy'?


They applied to the High Court for a declaration that the relevant sections of the Tax Administration Act are invalid, arguing that it is inconsistent with the constitution to 'criminally punish the taxpayer twice for the same criminal offence of intentional tax evasion'.


Which raised the question of whether or not this was a case of 'double jeopardy' - the legal rule that 'no one may be punished for the same offence twice'. You cannot, in other words, be repeatedly prosecuted for the same offence.


But, held the Court, 'nothing precludes civil administrative proceedings and criminal proceedings from the single act'. Double jeopardy does not apply in a case such as this where 'calling the taxpayer to account for the wrongdoing before an administrative body as well as the criminal are two distinct processes'.


In other words, both the CC and the member, having been subjected already to hefty administrative penalties (that 150% understatement penalty must hurt particularly badly!) now face criminal prosecution as well. Criminal records, substantial fines and direct imprisonment are all on the table.


21 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page