How Have the Courts Decided What De Minimis is in Tax Law?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17480

Keywords:

De minimis non curat lex, trivial, trifling, tax law, judicial discretion, interpretation of statutes

Abstract

This article analyses how South African courts have decided the applicability of the de minimis non curat lex maxim and, more broadly, considered the de minimis concept in tax law. A doctrinal research methodology is employed with the focus on an analysis of predominantly reported judicial decisions. The applicability of the maxim is found to be decisive in only one tax case: the Diageo SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service case of 5 July 2023. Consequently, this study thus also reviews judicial precedent in respect of the applicability of the maxim in other areas of the law with consideration of the relevance to tax law. Further, several tax cases that refer to the broader de minimis concept or to trivial or trifling matters are examined. As there is no one definitive test to determine the applicability of the maxim, the courts have used several factors to guide their determination. Through inductive reasoning, the following conclusions are drawn. (i) In respect of statutory interpretation: First, the primary factor in the determination of the applicability of the maxim is the purpose of the provision. This is aptly demonstrated in the Diageo judgment. Secondly, where the statute sets a clear, objectively verifiable limit or amount, there is essentially no room for the application of the maxim in interpreting the statute. Where, however, no such verifiable basis is provided, a purposive interpretation is paramount – which may in fact require the application of the maxim. (ii) The use of the de minimis concept in tax law appears to depend on whether the matter is one of principle (substance) or practicality (administrability). In the former case, the amount (the factor of extent or value) is irrelevant whereas in the latter, the de minimis concept has been applied.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Silke De Lange, Stellenbosch University

    BAccLLB MComm (Taxation) Admitted Attorney and Notary. Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

  • Monique Tessa Malan, Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law

    BAcc, BAcc(Hons), PGDip (Fin Plan), LLM CA(SA), CFP®. Research and Teaching Associate and doctoral candidate in the Doctoral Programme in International Business Taxation, Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, Department of Public Law and Tax Law, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Literature

Arendse J, Williams R and Klue S Silke on Tax Administration (LexisNexis Durban 2019)

Ashworth A and Horder J Principles of Criminal Law 7th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2013)

Burchell J Principles of Criminal Law 5th ed (Juta Cape Town 2016)

Burchell EM and Milton JRL "Criminal Law" 1980 Annu Surv SA L 381-405

Claassen RC and Claassen M Claassen's Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases (LexisNexis Durban July 2022 – SI 25)

Croome BJ and Olivier L Tax Administration 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2015)

Du Plessis W et al Introduction to Law and Legal Skills in South Africa (Oxford University Press Oxford 2012)

Du Toit IE Pharos Tweetalige Polisiewoordeboek / Bilingual Police Dictionary (Pharos Books Cape Town 1994)

Feinberg J Harm to Others (Oxford University Press New York 1984)

Hoctor SV "Assessing the De Minimis Non Curat Lex Defence in South African Criminal Law" in Schwikkard PJ and Hoctor SV (eds) A Reasonable Man: Essays in Honour of Jonathan Burchell (Juta Cape Town 2019) 119-150

Hoctor SV "Criminal Law" in Faris JA and Harms LTC (eds) The Law of South Africa 3rd ed replacement (LexisNexis Durban 2023) vol 11

Hoctor SV Snyman's Criminal Law 7th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2021)

Inesi A "A Theory of De Minimis and a Proposal for Its Application in Copyright" 2006 Berkeley Tech LJ 945-996

Labuschagne JMT "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" 1973 Acta Juridica 295-302

Mukheibir A et al The Law of Delict in South Africa 3rd ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2017)

Nemerofsky J "What is a 'Trifle' Anyway?" 2001 Gonz L Rev 315-341

Ruedin X "De Minimis Non Curat the European Court of Human Rights: The Introduction of a New

Veech ML and Moon CR "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" 1947 Mich L Rev 537-570

Case law

AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Sibothobotho 1981 4 SA 593 (A)

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2004 4 SA 490 (CC)

Benoni Town Council v Meyer 1961 3 All SA 294 (W)

Commissioner of Taxes v Shein 1958 3 SA 14 (FC)

Commissioner of Taxes v Taxpayer 1982 1 BLR 33 (CA)

Delange v Costa 1989 2 All SA 267 (A)

Department of Land Affairs v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) Ltd 2007 6 SA 199 (CC)

Diageo Proprietary Limited v the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (unreported) case number 93168/2019 of 17 March 2021

Diageo SA (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services 2023 JDR 2422 (GP)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Klue 2003 1 All SA 306 (E)

Goulding v Ferrell 117 NW 1046 (Minn 1908)

Income Tax Case 1092 1966 28 SATC 228 (R)

Income Tax Case 1670 1998 62 SATC 34 (G)

Income Tax Case 1838 2009 72 SATC 6 (W)

Income Tax Case 1939 2020 83 SATC 157 (case number VAT 1712)

Income Tax Case 489 1941 12 SATC 68 (U)

Income Tax Case 749 1952 18 SATC 319 (T)

Income Tax Case 824 1956 21 SATC 79 (T)

Independent Community Pharmacy Association v Clicks Group Ltd 2023 JDR 1121 (CC)

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA)

Nesongozwi v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service 2022 JDR 3077 (SCA)

Ochberg v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1931 AD 215

Pharma Valu Sunnyside BK v Pretorius 2010 JDR 1037 (GNP)

Poulter v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service 2024 2 All SA 876 (WCC)

R v Maguire 1969 4 SA 191 (RA)

R v Stone 1959 1 SA 125 (SR)

R v Walton 1958 3 SA 693 (SR)

S v Bester 1971 4 SA 28 (T)

S v Dimuri 1999 1 SACR 79 (ZH)

S v Kgogong 1980 3 SA 600 (A)

S v Magidson 1984 3 SA 825 (T)

S v Nedzamba 1993 1 SACR 673 (V)

S v Seweya 2004 1 SACR 387 (T)

S v Visagie 2009 2 SACR 70 (W)

South African Nursing Council v Khanyisa Nursing School (Pty) Ltd 2023 JDR 1900 (SCA)

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964

Income Tax Act 31 of 1941

National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011

Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991

Government publications

GN 1196 in GG 39490 of 17 December 2015

Internet sources

Merriam-Webster date unknown Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/ accessed 18 December 2023

Oxford English Dictionary 2022 Oxford English Dictionary 3rd ed https://www.oed.com/ accessed 18 December 2023

SAFLII 2024 Southern African Legal Information Institute http://www.saflii.org/ accessed 7 July 2024

South African Revenue Service 2023 Dispute Resolution Process https://www.sars.gov.za/legal-counsel/dispute-resolution-judgments/dispute-resolution-process/ accessed 18 December 2023

Published

31-10-2024

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

De Lange, S., & Malan, M. T. (2024). How Have the Courts Decided What De Minimis is in Tax Law?. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 27, (Published on 31 October 2024) pp 1-29. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a17480

Similar Articles

1-10 of 1174

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.