Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Some deals come with hidden reporting duties. Find out when your transactions could trigger SARS disclosure rules, and how to stay compliant. You may have heard the term “reportable arrangement” in tax conversations around commercial transactions. It sounds technical, and it is, but at its core, it’s about transparency. The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) seeks information on certain transactions that could be used to avoid or reduce tax. If you enter a reportable arrangement, you may be legally required to report it. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties.

A reportable arrangement is any transaction or structure that SARS believes could give rise to unusual or significant tax benefits. These include arrangements that result in a tax benefit of more than R5 million, the use of hybrid instruments that look like debt but are treated as equity (or vice versa), share buybacks linked to new share issues, and certain cross-border arrangements, especially where money is shifted to a low-tax jurisdiction. The aim is to flag certain transactions that may be structured in a way to avoid tax.

The duty to report usually falls on the promoter of the arrangement (the person or firm that designs or markets it) or on the participant (the person who acquires the tax benefit). You may rely on your tax advisor to guide you, but if no one reports when required, SARS can still hold you accountable.

The penalties for failing to disclose are significant. If a participant fails to provide the required information, the penalty is R50,000.00 per month that the failure to report continues (up to 12 months). If the promoter fails to report, the penalty is R100,000.00. The penalties increase if the anticipated tax benefit is larger: they are doubled if the benefit exceeds R5 million and tripled if it exceeds R10 million. Beyond the financial cost, not reporting can raise a red flag with SARS and may trigger audits or further investigations.

For most commercial transactions, there is generally no issue. For complex, cross-border, or tax-efficiently structured transactions, it’s worth pausing to consider whether reporting may be required. Proactive compliance not only avoids penalties but also builds trust with SARS.

Reportable arrangements may sound intimidating, but the principle is straightforward: SARS wants to be aware of certain kinds of tax planning. By identifying and reporting these upfront, you stay on the right side of the law and avoid costly penalties. If you are considering a restructuring, a cross-border deal, or a financing arrangement, contact our Tax Advisory team. We can assist you in navigating complex transactions and ensure you remain fully compliant.

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). 

November 24, 2025
Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Employee share schemes are often introduced to reward, retain, or align employees with long-term business growth. However, under section 8C of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the “Income Tax Act”), these arrangements can create significant and unexpected tax liabilities for employees when equity instruments vest. This article explains how section 8C operates, what qualifies as an “equity instrument,” and why careful structuring of share schemes is essential to avoid punitive tax outcomes.

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The South African legislative framework regards backdated shares as a suspicious and illegal practice, as it arises when a share issue or transfer is recorded as having occurred on an earlier date than the actual transaction. While backdating may be viewed as an administrative oversight, the consequences may constitute compliance risk, serious misconduct on directors, beneficial owners and compliance officers who authorise the backdating of share transactions. This is because backdated shares may manipulate the timing of funds, obscure the source of funds, and distort a company’s beneficial ownership structure.

Tinsel, trolleys, and traps: Outsmarting the Black Friday storm

Tinsel, trolleys, and traps: Outsmarting the Black Friday storm

As Black Friday specials and festive-season sales saturate the market, retailers compete with promises of “unbeatable” discounts and “blink-and-you-miss-it” deals. But even in the frenzy, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the “CPA”) still applies. Designed to curb deceptive advertising, ensure fair pricing, and guarantee that goods remain of acceptable quality, the CPA sets the rules of the game. Understanding these rights is essential for both suppliers and shoppers, helping prevent year-end discounts from turning into disputes.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest