Introduction
The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) delivered a judgment on 12 May 2026, which represents a significant procedural development in South African tax litigation. The SCA dismissed the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service’s (“SARS”) appeal and confirmed that taxpayers may be represented in the Tax Court by duly authorised non‑legal practitioners such as accountants; tax practitioners; bookkeepers or auditors.
While the case concerns a narrow procedural question, namely, whether non-legal practitioners may appear in the Tax Court on behalf of taxpayers, its implications are far‑reaching. It directly challenges SARS’ litigation posture, reshapes the dynamics of tax dispute resolution, and enhances access to justice for taxpayers.
The Core Legal Issue
The central issue before the SCA was whether sections 12 and 125 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“TAA”), read with rule 44(7) of the Tax Court Rules, restrict representation in the Tax Court to admitted legal practitioners.
SARS argued that the Tax Court is a “court of law” within the meaning of section 166 of the Constitution, and therefore subject to the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, which limits rights of appearance to admitted practitioners.
The SCA’s Findings
The SCA rejected SARS’ argument and held:
- Neither section 12 nor section 125 of the TAA requires that a taxpayer’s representative be a legal practitioner.
- The (now deleted) section 125(2) expressly allowed representation by an “appellant or the appellant’s representative”, without restricting that term to lawyers, and its deletion did not remove that entitlement.
- Rule 44(7) of the Tax Court Rules does not impose a requirement that representatives be legal practitioners; the phrase “a person authorised to appear” includes any duly authorised individual.
Importantly, the Court affirmed that the Tax Court is not a conventional “court of law” as the Tax Court is not listed in section 166 of the Constitution. Therefore, the SCA confirmed that the Tax Court is a specialised statutory forum established by a President through means of a Proclamation, therefore, the Tax Court allows for more flexible procedural rules.
The SCA accordingly found that the Tax Court erred in excluding the taxpayer’s representative and in proceeding as though the taxpayer had failed to appear. Therefore, individuals vested with the taxpayer’s authority may appear on behalf of a taxpayer in the Tax Court as taxpayers approach accounts, auditors and bookkeepers when tax disputes arise.
Implications for SARS
The judgment significantly limits SARS’ ability to rely on procedural technicalities to exclude taxpayer representatives.
Historically, SARS has adopted an increasingly formalistic litigation approach, often raising technical objections regarding representation and procedure. The SCA’s ruling makes clear that such objections cannot be used to prevent duly authorised non‑legal representatives from appearing.
This may reduce SARS’ ability to secure default‑style victories arising from technical non‑compliance, as occurred in the Tax Court in Poulter.
By allowing non‑legal practitioners to represent taxpayers, the judgment lowers the cost barrier to Tax Court litigation.
Taxpayers—particularly individuals and small and medium enterprises—are no longer compelled to brief attorneys or advocates. This is likely to:
- increase the number of disputes taken to the Tax Court;
- embolden taxpayers to challenge assessments rather than settle; and
- reduce SARS’s leverage in early-stage dispute resolution.
For SARS, this translates into higher litigation volumes and greater resource demands.
The decision also introduces a broader category of representatives into Tax Court litigation, including accountants, tax practitioners, and other specialists.
This has at least three consequences for SARS:
- Substantive focus: disputes may become more technically grounded in accounting and tax principles rather than purely legal argument.
- Reduced predictability: non‑legal representatives may adopt less conventional litigation strategies.
- Operational adjustments: SARS officials and legal teams may need to adapt their approach to engage effectively with non‑lawyer representatives.
Conclusion
Commissioner for SARS v Poulter marks a decisive shift in the procedural landscape of tax litigation by affirming the right of taxpayers to be represented by non‑legal practitioners, the SCA has curtailed SARS’s reliance on procedural formalism and strengthened taxpayers access to justice as taxpayers may appoint non-legal practitioners.
For SARS, the implications are significant: increased litigation exposure, reduced procedural leverage, and the need to recalibrate its dispute resolution strategy. Going forward, SARS will need to engage more substantively with taxpayer disputes and adapt to a more accessible, and potentially more contested, Tax Court environment.
Authors:
Aristidis Perivolaris – Partner – Dispute Resolution / Litigation
Botlhale Kganakga – Senior Associate – Dispute Resolution / Litigation
