Trusts firmly in SARS’s crosshairs

The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has indicated that it scheduled its implementation of administrative penalties for non-compliance with trust tax returns for the beginning of 2026. Trustees should take note of this deadline as trusts remain firmly on SARS’s radar.

All South African trusts must be registered for income tax with SARS to submit their tax returns yearly. It is irrelevant whether a trust is active or not. SARS will do a deep dive into the trusts’ tax return submissions, and if the trust has failed to submit its tax returns, SARS will proceed with issuing penalties, which negatively impact the financial position of the trust.

Trustees must also be aware that SARS is cross-referencing information with the Master of the High Court and other third-party data providers to establish which trusts have been registered with the Master of the High Court but have not been registered for tax with SARS. If a trust was registered with the Master of the High Court but not registered for tax with SARS, the trustees can expect to receive final demands from SARS for the trust to submit its tax returns. Failure to comply will result in penalties and unnecessary costs for a trust. Trustees must not wait until a final demand has been received from SARS. Trustees should take note that getting all compliance and tax documentation up to date and submitted is a lengthy process that should be started as soon as possible to meet the 2026 deadline of SARS.

It is therefore important that trustees register their trusts for income tax compliance with SARS and start submitting outstanding tax returns from the year that the trust was registered with the Master of the High Court. Tax return submissions don’t only require the financial statements of the trust but also accurate beneficial ownership compliance documentation, the minutes of the trust meetings, resolutions passed by the trustees of the trust and certain trust documentation.

To assist you in getting your trust affairs in order, don’t hesitate to get in touch with our Trust Office team.


Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

January 16, 2026
Love, then legacy

Love, then legacy

When parties decide to marry and enter an antenuptial contract, the discussion should not end with the choice of a matrimonial property regime. This is also the ideal stage for both parties to consider their estate planning. The reason is straightforward: the matrimonial property regime selected before marriage will influence their respective estates, define their rights and obligations toward one another, and affect the way their assets are dealt with upon death. It is also the point at which couples should begin planning not only for themselves, but for their future together and for any children they may have. The antenuptial contract and the estate plan should therefore be approached as part of a single, integrated process.

When payroll becomes a liability

When payroll becomes a liability

An emoluments attachment order (“EAO”), issued in terms of section 65J of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 (“the Act”), is a court order requiring a debtor’s employer (“the garnishee”) to deduct specified amounts from the debtor’s remuneration, salary and/or wages and to pay those amounts directly to the judgment creditor in whose favour the order was granted.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest