New SARS reporting puts trusts under the microscope

The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has had trusts under a microscope since April 2023 when the General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing) Amendment Act 22 of 2022 came into full effect. SARS has issued stern warnings to trustees to ensure the accurate and honest submission of trust tax returns and made it abundantly clear that trustees can no longer shift the responsibility of managing a trust’s tax affairs entirely to tax practitioners. Trustees must understand trust-specific tax rules to avoid penalties and legal consequences.

SARS has introduced a dedicated filing season for trusts, with the 2024 tax year spanning from 16 September 2024 to 20 January 2025. As part of SARS’ additional requirements for tax returns, trustees now have to ensure that they submit three resolutions during different months to SARS for trust tax submissions. 

  • First resolution: had to accompany trust tax returns (ITR12T) and was due 20 January 2025. The ITR12T applies to trusts with more than 10 beneficiaries at any time during the year of assessment. 
  • Second resolution for trust tax returns was due at the end of February 2025. This resolution has to indicate the estimated vested percentages that have been allocated to a specific beneficiary. 
  • The third resolution for trust tax declarations, IT3(t), is due at the end of September 2025. The goal of this resolution is for the representative taxpayer of the trust to supply specific information about the amounts vested in the beneficiaries for a particular year of assessment.

It is important to note that these resolutions cannot be backdated as SARS is in the process of implementing Artificial Intelligence to detect backdated resolutions and determine the actual date of preparation of a resolution. This measure reinforces the need for real-time trust administration and encourages trustees to manage their trust as a separate entity on a continuous basis. 

These resolutions are another mechanism employed by SARS to ensure that all trust income and distributions are accurately accounted for, to identify any inconsistencies or omissions in trust reporting and to ultimately strengthen SARS’ revenue collections.  

In addition to requirements of the resolutions for trust tax submissions, trusts are now required to provide comprehensive supporting documents when submitting their tax returns, including trust instruments, annual financial statements, resolutions and minutes of trustee meetings and beneficial ownership information. 

Starting from April 2025, SARS is expected to start imposing administrative penalties on trusts that fail to submit income tax returns or IT3(t) third-party data returns. These penalties can be applied retrospectively, emphasising the urgency for trusts to align their systems and information with SARS’ requirements. It is also important to note that failure by trustees to disclose the beneficial ownership information of the trust to both the Master of the High Court and SARS may also result in substantial penalties and/or sanctions for the trustees. 

Trustees must remember to manage trust tax compliance proactively, ensuring timely and accurate submissions to both the Master of the High Court and SARS. The additional requirements implemented by SARS have enhanced regulation and emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability making it essential for trustees to familiarise themselves with these requirements. Trustees can avoid penalties and legal repercussions by taking the necessary steps to ensure they comply with the requirements set out by SARS. 

Should you require legal advice on trusts and these new requirements, reach out to our Trust Office Team for assistance.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that 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 on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

March 31, 2025
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest