27/08/2026
A technically correct tax argument can still fail if the procedural strategy is wrong.
The Constitutional Court’s judgment in United Manganese of Kalahari v CSARS [2025] ZACC 2 lmakes this plain. Section 105 of the Tax Administration Act is a real gatekeeper. The Tax Court remains the default forum, and High Court intervention is only available where there is sufficient justification and the Court directs that the ordinary Chapter 9 process may be departed from.
Procedural unfairness by SARS does not automatically open that door, and isolating a pure legal question can create years of fragmented litigation without resolving the underlying assessment.
This is precisely where specialist guidance becomes decisive.
At Fyncor Advisory we support taxpayers, CFOs and boards from the earliest stages of a material SARS engagement. We help identify the true character of the dispute, whether substantive, legal, procedural or a combination, before forum decisions are locked in.
Our focus is to align the technical tax position with the procedural architecture so that the right issues are heard in the right forum, without unnecessary delay or cost.
In complex tax disputes, procedure is not administration around the edges. It can determine whether the substantive case is ever properly heard.
If you are currently dealing with a significant SARS audit, additional assessment or potential High Court strategy, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss how a disciplined forum approach can protect both the technical position and the commercial outcome.
Read the full article now on our LinkedIn page.