Transfer duty: The rules have changed

In the past, sellers and buyers could obtain a transfer duty receipt without providing key information such as income tax reference numbers, as this was not a mandatory requirement when completing and submitting a Transfer Duty Declaration. The South African Revenue Service (SARS), however, has recently enhanced these requirements. While the changes are aimed at improving compliance, they also introduce important practical considerations that can directly affect the progress of property transfers.

Transfer duty, payable by the purchaser on properties above the prescribed threshold (currently R1 210 000 as of 1 April 2025), remains a fundamental step in the transfer process. A property transfer cannot be registered in the Deeds Office unless the applicable transfer duty has been paid and a transfer duty receipt or exemption certificate has been issued. To obtain this, conveyancers must complete and submit a Transfer Duty Declaration (TDC01).

With the recent updates, the TDC01 process now includes significantly stricter validation measures. Incomplete or inconsistent information is now more likely to result in immediate rejection of the submission. This contrasts with the past, when errors could be corrected at a later stage. The implication for property transfers is clear: the accuracy and completeness of information gathered at the outset of a transaction is now critical to ensuring a smooth and timely transfer.

One of the most notable changes is the mandatory requirement for valid income tax reference numbers for all parties involved (buyers, sellers, and even estate agents). Without valid income tax numbers, the submission simply cannot proceed. 

Previously, when a tax number was not available, it was possible to rely on a declaration of annual income. This is no longer an option as SARS has removed the annual income field from the TDC01 form entirely. This change reduces reliance on self-declared financial information and aligns the process more closely with SARS’ internal taxpayer records.

In cases where an income tax number is genuinely not available, SARS has introduced a “not registered for income tax” option. When selecting this, the user must provide a valid reason. 

These reasons include:

  • Minor
  • Unemployed
  • Earning below the income tax threshold
  • Divorce order
  • Foreign individual

Once a reason is selected, the system automatically generates a warning highlighting that providing false information constitutes a criminal offence under the Tax Administration Act. It is important to note that this option is currently available only to purchasers. It is thus important that any reason given must be properly supported. 

Although supporting documents are no longer required in every instance, SARS may request them at short notice. Delays in responding to these requests can delay the issuance of a transfer duty receipt and, ultimately, delay registration.

A proactive approach is therefore essential. By ensuring clients are compliant, documents are ready, and potential issues are identified early, conveyancers, estate agents, and other stakeholders can help keep transactions on track and avoid unnecessary delays.

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).

May 21, 2026
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest