DEREGISTRASIE VAN OMSETBELASTING

Die Sesde Skedule van die Wet op Inkomstebelasting[1] detailleer die werking van die omsetbelastingstelsel wat op mikrobesighede van toepassing is. Omsetbelasting is ’n opsionele stelsel (met voorkeur-belastingkoerse) en is in wese ’n vereenvoudigde belastingstelsel wat beskikbaar is vir mikrobesighede (besighede met ’n kwalifiserende omset van R1 miljoen of minder). Die Sesde Skedule handel oor persone wat kwalifiseer as mikrobesighede (wat natuurlike persone insluit), die toelaatbare aandele en belange wat die mikrobesighede mag besit en wat belasbare omset en uitsluitings daarvan, uitmaak. Alhoewel die stelsel wyd gebruik word, is daar ’n toenemende aantal belastingbetalers vir wie die stelsel nie meer optimaal is nie, en wat wil deregistreer en onderhewig wees aan die “normale belastingstelsel”.

Ingevolge paragraaf 9 van die Sesde Skedule is daar twee gronde waarop ’n persoon vir omsetbelasting gederegistreer kan word:

  1. Vrywillige deregistrasie

Vrywillige deregistrasie vind plaas wanneer die eienaar van ’n geregistreerde mikrobesigheid verkies om onder die “normale belastingstelsel” belas te word en kies om te deregistreer vir die omsetbelastingstelsel. ’n Vrywillige deregistrasie is toelaatbaar indien die belastingpligtige voor of aan die einde van ’n jaar van aanslag (28 of 29 Februarie) skriftelik kennis gee aan die Kommissaris. Deregistrasie sal van krag wees vanaf die begin van die volgende jaar van aanslag. Byvoorbeeld, ’n geregistreerde mikrobesigheid wat gekies het om te deregistreer vir die omsetbelastingstelsel deur op 21 Januarie 2019 ’n kennisgewing by die Kommissaris in te dien, sal met ingang 1 Maart 2019 (dit wil sê die belastingjaar 2020) gederegistreer word. Daar is tans geen voorgeskrewe vorm wat vir die kennisgewing gebruik moet word nie en daar word aanbeveel dat belastingbetalers hul naaste SAID-tak besoek en ’n formele versoek indien om te deregistreer (of hul belastingpraktisyn om hulp nader).

  1. Verpligte deregistrasie

Verpligte deregistrasie sal plaasvind indien ’n geregistreerde mikrobesigheid nie meer kwalifiseer om as sodanig geregistreer te wees nie. Twee faktore kan ’n verpligte deregistrasie noodsaak, naamlik

  1. as die kwalifiserende omset wat deur die mikrobesigheid verkry word uit besigheidsaktiwiteite gedurende ’n jaar van aanslag, die drempel van R1 miljoen oorskry of waarskynlik sal oorskry en die besigheid nie kan aantoon dat dit ’n nominale en tydelike gebeurtenis sal wees nie; of
  2. die persoon gediskwalifiseer word op grond van die bron van sy omset (byvoorbeeld professionele dienste) of die beleggings wat hy het.

’n Geregistreerde mikrobesigheid wat onderhewig is aan verpligte deregistrasie moet die SAID binne 21 dae vanaf die datum waarop dit nie meer as ’n mikrobesigheid kwalifiseer nie, in kennis stel. Versuim om die SAID in kennis te stel kan lei tot boetes wat teen die belastingpligtige gehef word.

Belastingbetalers moet ook onthou dat deregistrasie vir omsetbelasting ander administratiewe vereistes kan hê waaraan aandag gegee moet word, byvoorbeeld heroorweging van sy BTW-posisie, inkomstebelastingposisie, voorlopige belasting en ander nakoming.

[1] No. 58 van 1962

Hierdie artikel is ʼn algemene inligtingsblad en moet nie as professionele advies beskou word nie. Geen verantwoordelikheid word aanvaar vir enige foute, verlies of skade wat ondervind word as gevolg  van die gebruik van enige inligting vervat in hierdie artikel nie. Kontak altyd ʼn finansiële raadgewer vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies. (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

ARTIKEL 24C TOEKOMSTIGE UITGAWES

Die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens (“SAID”) het op 10 Januarie 2019 ’n bindende privaatbeslissing (“BPR 315”) in ooreenstemming met artikels 78(1) en 87(2) van die Wet op Belastingadministrasie[1], uitgereik. Hierdie beslissing bepaal die toepassing van die definisie van “toekomstige uitgawes” in artikel 24C (1) van die Wet op Inkomstebelasting[2], op ’n kommoditeits-koopooreenkoms.

Die aansoeker (’n inwonende maatskappy) en ’n nie-inwonende bedryfsmaatskappy (Opco) sal ’n tussenmaatskappy-ooreenkoms aangaan vir die verskaffing van koopkrediete verteenwoordigend van hoeveelhede van sekere kommoditeite wat deur Opco gemyn word. Die aansoeker sal op sy beurt hierdie koopkrediete aan die koper (ook ’n nie-inwonende bedryfsmaatskappy) verkoop kragtens ’n 40-jaar koopooreenkoms[3].

Die koper moet ’n voorskot aan die aansoeker betaal vir die verkoop en lewering van die krediete. Geen gedeelte van hierdie betaling sal terugbetaal word nie en die aansoeker moet dit gebruik om die uitgawes wat hy sal aangaan met die nakoming van sy kontraktuele verpligtinge, te finansier.

Die koper sal ook produksiebetalings in kontant maak met die lewering van die krediete. Die koopooreenkoms maak voorsiening vir ’n gedetailleerde berekening van hierdie betalings, met sekere bedrae wat teen die voorskotbedrag gekrediteer moet word. Enige voorskot wat aan die einde van die kontraktermyn oorbly, sal aangewend word as ’n bykomende koopprys vir krediete wat reeds kragtens die kontrak gelewer is.

Aangesien bedrae teen die vroegste van ontvangs of oploping belas word, sal die voorskot in die aansoeker se belasbare inkomste ingesluit word in die jaar wat dit ontvang is.

Artikel 24C bied verligting aan ’n belastingpligtige wat ’n voorskot ingevolge ’n kontrak ontvang het, en wat in die toekoms uitgawes sal aangaan onder daardie kontrak. Die korting kan nie die bedrag ontvang of opgeloop ingevolge die kontrak, oorskry nie en moet in die daaropvolgende jaar bygevoeg word by die belastingpligtige se belasbare inkomste. Die toelae is verder onderworpe aan die Kommissaris[4] se diskresie en belastingbetalers moet die uitgawes wat aangegaan moet word, akkuraat raam om hul verpligtinge ingevolge die spesifieke kontrak na te kom. Dog, ’n berekening wat gegrond is op die verhouding tussen die totale beraamde uitgawe en die beraamde bruto inkomste uit die kontrak (d.w.s die kontrak se bruto winspersentasie) word algemeen aanvaar.

Met hierdie beslissing het die SAID bevestig dat die uitgawes wat aangegaan word om die krediete te bekom, toekomstige uitgawes sal wees soos beoog in artikel 24C (1). Daar is egter nie beslis oor die bepaling van die korting soos beoog in artikel 24C (2) of enige prysing- en oordragprysingsaspekte nie.

[1] No. 28 van 2011.

[2] No. 58 van 1962. Enige verdere verwysings na “artikels” is na die artikels van hierdie Wet.

[3] Die kontrak kan verleng word vir opeenvolgende 10-jaar periodes totdat Opco ophou om te bedryf.

[4] Kommissaris van die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens (“SAID”).

Hierdie artikel is ʼn algemene inligtingsblad en moet nie as professionele advies beskou word nie. Geen verantwoordelikheid word aanvaar vir enige foute, verlies of skade wat ondervind word as gevolg  van die gebruik van enige inligting vervat in hierdie artikel nie. Kontak altyd ʼn finansiële raadgewer vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies. (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

TAX IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS

On 6 November 2018, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) issued a binding private ruling (“BPR 312”) in accordance with sections 78(1) and 87(2) of the Tax Administration Act.[1] This ruling set out the tax implications of varying employment contracts.

Here the applicant (a resident company) previously entered a profit share arrangement with Mr X, who was entitled to nominate certain employees (of two 100% held subsidiaries of the applicant) to also benefit from this arrangement. The parties subsequently entered into a cancellation agreement to terminate the profit share arrangement and to allow for certain payments to be made by the subsidiaries to the nominee employees.

Although the payments (and the subsequent tax implications thereof in terms of the Income Tax Act[2]) seems standard for this type of agreement, the ruling neatly confirms these implications of each of these payments for both the subsidiaries and the employees.

Firstly, the subsidiaries would pay a pre-determined cancellation fee to the affected employees as compensation for cancelling the profit share arrangement, including payments to other employees pursuant to the cancellation agreement even though they were not applicants to the ruling or parties to the cancellation agreement. The ruling confirmed that both these payments were deductible for income tax purposes under the general deduction formula.[3]

Secondly, a cash portion was retained by the applicant to be released to Mr X in August 2021. This amount was treated as security for Mr X to comply with certain obligations he had in terms of these agreements. The cash portion will be forfeited if Mr X is dismissed prior to the date of release.

SARS confirmed that the cash portion was a pre-payment subject to section 23H in the hands of the applicant.  Also, that both the cancellation fee and the retained cash portion should be included in the employees’ gross income.[4] Mr X will, however, qualify for a tax deduction should the amount be forfeited in terms of section 11(nA), which allows for a deduction of any voluntary award received by virtue of employment that was included in taxable income but is subsequently refunded.

Lastly, the cancellation agreement made provision for agreements that allowed for restraint of trade payments to be made to certain employees. The subsidiaries could deduct these amounts in terms of section 11(cA) while these payments were to be included in their gross income in terms of paragraph (cB) of the definition of “gross income” in section 1.

[1] No. 28 of 2011.

[2] No. 58 of 1962. Any subsequent references to “sections” are to the sections of this Act.

[3] Section 11(a) read with section 23(g).

[4] Paragraph (d) of the definition of “gross income” in section 1 which specifically allow for a payment as a result of a variation of employment.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

ZERO-RATING OF SERVICES TO NON-RESIDENTS

South African value-added tax (VAT) vendors are often unsure of the tax consequences of issuing invoices to foreign customers or clients and whether such services should be invoiced at the standard rate of 15% or be zero-rated. As is generally the case with tax (especially VAT), the answer is that it depends on the circumstances. Therefore, it is quite possible that services to a non-resident can be invoiced at the standard rate, or at a zero-rate.

Importantly, section 11 of the VAT Act,[1] which deals with the zero-rating of supplies, distinguishes between the supply of goods (section 11(1)) and services (section 11(2)). The default position in terms of section 11(2)(l), is that services rendered to persons who are not residents in the Republic should be made at the zero-rate. There are, however, three exceptions to this default rule, and specifically where the services are supplied directly:

  • in connection with land or improvements in the Republic;
  • in connection with moveable property situated in SA at the time that the service is rendered (except if the moveable property will be exported after the service, or forms part of a supply by the person to the vendor and the services are for the purpose of that supply); and
  • the person or any other person is in the Republic at the time the service is rendered.

The circumstances of the service should be tested against each rule, meaning that you cannot simply zero-rate a service if you meet only one of the criteria. All three tests should be met independently to zero-rate the service. This confirms the principle that the purpose of section 11(2)(l) is to ensure that when services are consumed in South Africa, VAT is payable at the standard rate.

The rules and exceptions in section 11(2)(l) are, however, still subject to some interpretation, especially if considered that for services to be at the standard rate of 15%, it should be directly in connection with one of the exceptions noted above. Accordingly, there is some debate on what constitutes directly.

There are, however, several court cases and interpretation notes available to provide taxpayers with some guidance:

  • Master Currency v CSARS 2014 (6) SA 66 (SCA);
  • XO Africa Safaris v CSARS (395/15) [2016] ZASCA 160;
  • SARS Interpretation Note 81; and
  • SARS Interpretation Note 85.

Taxpayers should also ensure that they comply with the documentation requirements for the zero-rating of services, which is at a minimum the following:

  • tax invoice;
  • written confirmation from the recipient that it is not a resident of the Republic;
  • proof of payment; and
  • proof of export (in respect of moveable goods) or a statement from the non-resident that the non-resident or any other person is not present in the Republic at the time that the services are rendered.

[1] The Value-Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

‘N VOORSPOEDIGE 2019

‘n Voorspoedige 2019 word vir al ons T Roos  kliënte en personeel toegewens! Mag julle elkeen ‘n jaar van onvoorwaardelike liefde, nimmereindigende vrede en tonne voorspoed en geluk geniet. Mag julle elke dag God se droom vir julle lewe uitleef.

‘n Vriendelike verwelkoming aan al ons personeel, ons vertrou julle het die feestyd geniet en lekker uitgerus.

‘n Vriendelike verwelkoming ook aan die nuwe personeel wat by ons T Roos “familie” aangesluit het, ons weet julle gaan dit baie geniet hier en vertrou dat julle ‘n aanwins tot die praktyk sal wees.

Hierdie artikel is ʼn algemene inligtingsblad en moet nie as professionele advies beskou word nie. Geen verantwoordelikheid word aanvaar vir enige foute, verlies of skade wat ondervind word as gevolg  van die gebruik van enige inligting vervat in hierdie artikel nie. Kontak altyd ʼn finansiële raadgewer vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies. (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2018: A YEAR IN TAX

As 2018 has come to an end, we reflect on some of the significant highlights (and lowlights) of the 2018 tax year.

Davis Tax Committee concludes its work

The Davis Tax Committee (DTC) was appointed by the Minister of Finance in 2013, to inquire into the role of the tax system in the promotion of inclusive economic growth, employment creation, development and fiscal sustainability. The committee published several in-depth reports, including VAT, corporate income tax, capital gains and wealth taxes. Many of their recommendations will undoubtedly be considered in the years to come. On 27 March 2018, after five years, the DTC held its final meeting. All reports are available at http://www.taxcom.org.za/library.html.

Significant judgements

Two important, precedent-setting judgements were delivered by our courts during 2018:

  • Sasol Oil: In November, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) found in Sasol’s favour when SARS challenged several transactions that they concluded, on the grounds that the transactions were simulated. The court re-affirmed the tests to be applied to determine if transactions are simulated and entering the realm of tax evasion. This was an R1.3 billion win for the taxpayer.
  • Volkswagen: Regarding the valuation of trading stock, the SCA indicated that valuing stock at net realisable value was contrary to two fundamental principles. Firstly, taxable income is determined from year to year by looking at events that have taken place during that year so that tax is backward-looking, while the net realisable value is forward-looking. Secondly, the effect of using net realisable value is that expenses that will only be incurred in a future year in the production of taxable income in that future year would become deductible in an earlier tax year. On this basis, the court found in SARS’s favour.

Changes to the Act

The yearly legislative cycle ended when the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill was published on 24 October 2018, ending a process that started with the Budget Speech in February. 94 organisations and individuals provided valuable inputs and comments on the draft bill, on issues ranging from venture capital companies to debt reduction. As always, the input from the public and organisations significantly shaped the amendments to the law.

Nugent Commission

In May, a commission into tax administration and governance at SARS was appointed under the leadership of Retired Justice Robert Nugent. Several concerning revelations have been made, which has led to the dismissal of Tom Moyane as Commissioner. A final report from the Commission is due shortly – which will hopefully set the scene for positive changes at SARS.

VAT increase and review

On the back of an increase in the VAT rate to 15% on 1 April 2018, a review was undertaken by a panel of experts on the zero-rating of several goods. It was finally decided that white bread flour, cake flour and sanitary pads will be zero-rated from 1 April 2019, at a revenue loss of R1.2 billion to the fiscus. 

Tribute

Sadly, two respected personalities in the tax fraternity passed away in 2018. Professors Matthew Lester and Lynette Olivier will be remembered for their valuable contributions to the field of tax over many years, both in academics and in commerce. Their works will continue to serve as authoritative sources for many years to come.

Undoubtedly, 2019 will bring as many, if not more exciting changes to the world of tax. It will be particularly interesting to see the political impact on our tax system, given that we are heading into an election year.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

ADMIN PENALTIES FOR OUTSTANDING CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS

In general, all registered companies must submit corporate income tax (“CIT”) returns within 12 months of the end of the company’s financial year-end. This is applicable to all companies that are resident in South Africa, that receive source income in South Africa, or that maintain a permanent establishment or a branch in South Africa.

On 29 November 2018, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) issued a media release confirming that SARS will soon start imposing administrative non-compliance penalties as provided for in Chapter 15 of the Tax Administration Act[1] for outstanding CIT returns. To date, these penalties were only imposed on individuals with outstanding income tax returns.

This announcement follows a media release earlier in November 2018 which stated that SARS is once again embarking on a nationwide awareness campaign to reinforce taxpayers’ obligations to submit outstanding tax returns, specifically targeting companies.

In this regard, the fixed amount penalties in terms of section 211 of the Tax Administration Act range from R250 (where the company is in an assessed loss position) to R16,000 (in instances where the company’s taxable income exceeds R50 million) for each outstanding return. Once the penalty has been imposed, the penalty will increase by the same amount for every month that the non-compliance continues.

In order to determine the amount of the penalty to be imposed, SARS will consider the year of assessment immediately prior to the year of assessment during which the penalty is assessed.

The penalties will furthermore be imposed by way of a penalty assessment. Any unpaid penalties will be recovered by means of the debt recovery steps.

According to the media release, the administrative non-compliance penalties will be imposed for outstanding CIT returns for years of assessment ending during the 2009 and subsequent calendar years. Please note that this will also apply to dormant companies with no receipts or assets.

SARS will, however, issue the relevant company with a final demand which will grant the company 21 business days from the date of the final demand to submit the outstanding returns before the penalties will be imposed.

Companies may request remittance of the penalties imposed from SARS and have the right to lodge an objection via eFiling should the request for remittance be unsuccessful.

The takeaway is that all companies with outstanding CIT returns (whether these companies have assessed losses for those outstanding years or not) should complete and submit these returns as soon as possible in order to avoid the administrative non-compliance penalties being imposed.

[1] No. 28 of 2011

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NON-RESIDENT SELLERS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 35A of the Income Tax Act[1] came into effect on 1 September 2007 and sets out the capital gains tax consequences of the sale of immovable property situated in South Africa in instances where the seller is not a South African tax resident.

In terms of these provisions, the purchaser of the immovable property is obliged to withhold the specified amount of tax from the purchase price payable, provided that the property is disposed of for an amount in excess of R2 million.

The amount to be withheld in these circumstances is 7.5% of the purchase price where the seller is a natural person, 10% of the purchase price where the seller is a company and 15% of the purchase price where the seller is a trust.

The amount of tax withheld in these circumstances must be paid to the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) within 14 days after the date on which the amount was so withheld in instances where the purchaser is a South African tax resident. The period is extended to 28 days should the purchaser not be a South African tax resident.

The non-resident seller of the immovable property may, however, request a tax directive from SARS confirming that tax be withheld at a lower or even zero rate, depending on the specific circumstances applicable to that non-resident seller. In this regard, SARS will take into account factors such as any security furnished for the payment of any tax due on the disposal of the immovable property, whether the seller is subject to tax in respect of such disposal and whether the actual tax liability of the non-resident seller is less than the amount to be withheld in terms of section 35A.

In order to request such a tax directive, the non-resident seller must complete the relevant form NR03 and submit this to SARS, together with the offer to purchase, the relevant capital gains tax calculation and all other relevant supporting documentation. According to SARS’ website, the processing of this declaration or directive application is 21 working days.

The amount withheld from any payment to the non-resident seller is an advance payment in respect of that seller’s liability for normal tax for the year of assessment during which the property is disposed of by the non-resident seller.

Please note that if the non-resident seller does not submit an income tax return in respect of that year of assessment within 12 months after the end of that year of assessment, the payment of the amount under section 35A is a sufficient basis for an assessment in terms of section 95 of the Tax Administration Act.[2]

[1] No. 58 of 1962

[2] No. 28 of 2011

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

MET DIE LAASTE NUUSBRIEF VAN 2018

Nog ‘n jaar is verby en met die laaste nuusbrief van  2018 wil ons al ons kliënte bedank vir hulle ondersteuning en ‘n baie geseënde feestyd en voorspoedige 2019 toewens. Aan al ons personeel baie dankie vir die hardewerk en suksesvolle 2018. Mag elkeen van julle die feestyd en ruskans geniet en kom veilig terug.

Hierdie artikel is ʼn algemene inligtingsblad en moet nie as professionele advies beskou word nie. Geen verantwoordelikheid word aanvaar vir enige foute, verlies of skade wat ondervind word as gevolg  van die gebruik van enige inligting vervat in hierdie artikel nie. Kontak altyd ʼn finansiële raadgewer vir spesifieke en gedetailleerde advies. (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

S129 NOTICE TO THE CONSUMER AND “DELIVERY”

There are many reasons why a consumer may default in his payments to a credit provider. Notwithstanding these reasons, the credit provider must follow certain procedures to enforce the agreement.

The first step, is for the credit provider to deliver to the consumer a written notice in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (“NCA”), notifying the consumer of the default and proposals as to what the consumer may do to resolve any disputes that he/she may have with the agreement or to work out a plan for the payments due under the agreement to be brought up to date. The consumer has ten business days to respond to the credit provider once he/she has received the letter. It must be noted though, that the consumer is under no obligation to respond to the notice in terms of Section 129(1)(a) (“the S129 notice”).

The consumer must be in default with his/her payment for at least twenty business days in terms of S130(1)(a) of the NCA, before the credit provider can deliver the S129 notice to the consumer.

The consumer must further be aware that the credit provider is legally bound to deliver the notice in terms of the S129 notice to the address of the consumer that is cited on the credit agreement – the address that the consumer chose when he/she signed the agreement.

The S129 notice, in terms of the Act, must be delivered to the consumer via registered post. The word “delivered” has been interpreted by the courts to give clarity, viz, the notice is to be dispatched to the correct post office for the address chosen by the consumer, when the credit agreement was signed, or to an adult at the location designated by the consumer, when the credit agreement was signed. Should the credit provider follow one of the above methods for delivery of the S129 notice, but the consumer failed to receive it by not collecting the notice from the post office, it would not be the fault of the credit provider and it would be deemed that the credit provider followed the “letter of the law” and would thus be within its rights to proceed with the issuing and serving of the summons.

Thus, it is not a defence for the consumer to raise that the notice was not delivered to him/her, as was explained by the Constitutional Court in the case of Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, after revisiting the majority decision held by the Constitutional Court in the case of Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another.

It falls upon the shoulders of the consumer to inform the credit provider, in writing, by hand or electronic mail, of any changes to his/her designated address in respect of receiving notices which defer from the credit agreement, to enable the credit provider to change the consumer’s records. Should the consumer not inform the credit provider of the new details, the credit provider will be bound to use the address as per the credit agreement and the consequence of this, is that the consumer will not receive the S129 notice, and when the ten business days have expired for the consumer to timeously give  the credit provider his intentions of how he/she wishes to deal with the default payments, the credit provider will be within its rights to proceed with the issuing and serving of the summons, incurring legal costs for the account of the consumer.

This was held in the court case of Robertson v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank.

Reference List:

  • National Credit Act 34 of 2005 read together with Amendment 19 of 2014
  • Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (2014) ZACC
  • Sebola v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2012(5) SA 142 (CC)
  • Robertson v Firstrand Bank t/a Wesbank (2015) ZAECGHC 7

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
« Older posts

© 2019 T Roos

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑