Vonnisbespreking: Sintaktiese uitleg van die BTW-wet bepaal wanneer goud teen die nulkoers verkoop mag word. ’n Besinning van ’n positiewe taalkundige benadering

Abstract

Syntactic interpretation of the VAT Act determines when gold may be sold at the zero rating. A consideration of a positive linguistic approach In terms of section 11(1)(f) of the Value Added Tax Act 89 of 1991, gold sold to a closed list of entities in its unwrought form is levied at the zero rate. To qualify for Value Added Tax levied at the zero rate, the gold must be provided in one of the eight prescribed forms, and it may only have been refined and processed once for provision to the listed purchasers. The applicant in this case is a purchaser and trader of gold. It buys second-hand gold products like jewellery, scrap gold and the like from members of the public after which it has the gold refined and cast into acceptable forms like gold bars. Once the gold is processed to the acceptable standard, it is sold to entities within the closed list. The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (CSARS) views the applicant’s gold as having undergone more than one process and therefore believes that VAT should not be levied at the zero rate. The applicant disputes this and seeks a declaratory order in which section 11(1)(f) is clarified. To illuminate the relevant subsection, Davis J used the interpretation standards set by Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA) as well as Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard 2014 4 SA 474 (CC) and AfriForum v University of the Free State 2018 2 SA 185 (CC), which in particular guide linguistic interpretation. Amongst other things and although brief, Davis J addressed the importance of the relative clause (and the relative pronoun which) that centres on the heart of the dispute. In doing so, his declaration supports CSARS’s view and confirms that gold qualifies for the zero rating only if it was processed solely for provision to the closed list of entities. The purpose of this case discussion is primarily to confirm Davis J’s method of interpretation. In doing so, the focus will be on three linguistic devices as a means to endorse his decision. Keywords: Endumeni; ordinary grammatical meaning; semantics; statutory interpretation; syntax