SARS – SHAME MAN

I have noticed over the last few years that whenever anybody posts something on certain social media platforms about paying taxes in South Africa, there is often an army of keyboard warriors ready to defy SARS, to be the William Wallace, so to speak, of some form of pitiful tax revolt.

Their concerns seem to be based on corruption and lack of service delivery etc. Whilst these concerns are probably valid and concerns that I personally share, I find it amusing how people with very little knowledge of SARS’ actual job and powers can be so brazen, especially publicly. ?

If they knew what SARS’s powers are, they would not make some of the statements they do. Or perhaps they do know, and they are just very brave (and stupi… careless). But then, it’s easy to be brave when there is no real threat. I can, for example, very easily allege here that I am not afraid of those large multi-coloured grasshopper things, but if one of those f*ckers[1] were to reveal itself from behind my screen, I am going to scream like a little girl (I just double checked -there isn’t one). ?I would like to see what these keyboard warriors do when SARS comes out swinging for real. I have seen this. I have defended strong, powerful, very wealthy people in tax disputes. It’s no joke.

Also, these peoples’ anger is perhaps directed at the wrong crowd. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: SARS collects money. It does not spend it. Spending it is someone else’s job. ?Perhaps they should have stuck with the name “receiver of revenue” at least insofar as that may possibly have cleared up some confusion about their (main) function.

I am yet to see a court rule that a taxpayer is not liable for income tax because of corruption and lack of service delivery or because paying income tax is unfair.?Dare I venture to say that I probably never will. I have had people tell me that “paying tax is unfair if government is just stealing the money.” While I sympathise such these sentiments, they mean nothing in terms of a defence. In fact, if that’s the only argument you intend to raise in defence, you are going to lose, badly. ?If losing is your thing, good for you, I guess? It certainly isn’t mine.

If you have issues with the government, that’s something that, in my view, you try to address when it’s time to vote.[2] Don’t blame SARS, shame man.?And don’t confuse grievances about misappropriation of public money and lack of service delivery for a defence in a tax dispute, because “ag shame man” is likely all you are going to get (if you’re lucky) after your “argument” has been “noted”[3] and you nevertheless get slapped by the receiver.

[1] Caveat: I have no evidence to suggest that these grasshoppers are, objectively considered, f*ckers. I only mean to inform readers that I personally consider them to be f*ckers. ?

[2] In fact, you should vote.

[3] For those who don’t know, “noted” is often a more formal way of saying “whatever”.?