Abstract

Sec. 63 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) grants officials of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) access to taxpayers’ private and confidential information by, first, searching a taxpayer’s person and premises without a warrant and, secondly, permitting the seizure of taxpayers’ possessions and communications. Part One of this article (see Journal for Juridical Science 2021(1)) argued that the TAA is a “law of general application” as envisaged by the so-called “limitation clause” contained in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. 14 of the Constitution. In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, although the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, nevertheless to pass muster under sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, because of the justifiability of the limitation imposed on the right to privacy by these provisions.

Highlights

  • Part One of this article (see Journal for Juridical Science 2021(1)) argued that the Tax Administration Act of 2011 (TAA) is a “law of general application” as envisaged by the so-called “limitation clause” contained in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. 14 of the Constitution

  • In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, to pass muster under sec. 36(1) of the Constitution, because of the justifiability of the limitation imposed on the right to privacy by these provisions

  • This two-part article has shown that sec. 63 of the TAA achieves an appropriate balance between the powers exercisable by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) at a warrantless search and the limitation of the constitutional right to privacy in light of the formula in sec. 36(1) of the Constitution

Read more

Summary

SUMMARY

36(1) of the Constitution, 1996 and that, in terms of the threshold stage of analysis prescribed by this provision, the exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 63(1) and (4) limits a taxpayer’s constitutional right to privacy as entrenched in sec. In this Part Two of the article, it will be hypothesised that, the search and seizure powers in sec. 63(1) and (4) of the TAA are not models of drafting with absolute clarity, they ought, in terms of the second stage of enquiry that is triggered by the findings in Part One, to pass muster under sec. THE SECOND (“JUSTIFICATION”) PHASE OF THE ENQUIRY UNDER THE “LIMITATION CLAUSE” AS CONTAINED IN SEC. 36(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION1

Is a warrantless search and seizure antithetical to democratic values?
The timing of a warrantless search and seizure
The location of a warrantless search and seizure
The scope of the powers exercisable at a warrantless search and seizure
Legal principles applicable to determining the proportionality of means used
Availability of other less invasive means than warrantless searches
CONCLUSION
10. POSTSCRIPT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call