Abstract
This thesis critically examines the submission and management of tax disputes through the
South African Revenue Service’s (SARS) eFiling system, with a focus on procedural inefficiencies
and systemic shortcomings that hinder effective dispute resolution.
It investigates how these limitations undermine taxpayers’ rights as enshrined in the Tax
Administration Act 28 of 2011 and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996,
particularly the rights to administrative justice and access to courts.
Whilst the eFiling system was designed to streamline tax administration and facilitate access to
remedies, its inconsistent implementation, recurring technical disruptions, and administrative
opacity frequently compromise procedural fairness. Although recent reforms - such as the
March 2023 amendments to dispute resolution rules and the piloting of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms - represent steps toward greater efficiency, this thesis argues that
critical gaps remain. These include the absence of enforceable safeguards when system failures
prevent timely objection or appeal submission, and the lack of accountability for SARS’s noncompliance
with statutory timelines, as highlighted in judgments such as F Taxpayer v CSARS.
The thesis also undertakes a focused analysis of the personal liability and repatriation provisions
under sections 185 to 187 of the Tax Administration Act. It explores the constitutional
implications of SARS’s expansive discretion to hold individuals personally liable for tax debts and
to compel the repatriation of offshore assets, drawing on jurisprudence and administrative
practice. As such, the analysis raises concerns about potential infringements on the rights to
property (section 25) and to lawful, procedurally fair administrative action (section 33).
In conclusion, the thesis proposes targeted legal and administrative reforms aimed at enhancing
transparency, procedural safeguards, and constitutional compliance in SARS’s dispute
resolution and enforcement frameworks.