Taxpayers often assume that any assessment error can be swiftly corrected under section 93(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011 (“the TAA”). Sars’s latest Draft Interpretation Note on section 93(1)(d) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA) (“Draft IN”) published for public comment makes it clear that this is not the case. Only obvious, factual mistakes qualify, and Sars must be “satisfied” before any reduced assessment is made.

Sars’s new Draft IN provides long-awaited clarity on what constitutes a “readily apparent undisputed error.” This phrase governs when Sars may issue a reduced assessment, a simplified remedy intended to correct objective mistakes without resorting to the full objection and appeal process under Chapter 9 of the TAA.

A narrow gateway for correction

Section 93(1)(d) was introduced to allow taxpayers to fix genuine, undisputed errors, such as miscalculations or data entry mistakes, without the cost and complexity of a formal dispute. However, Sars has noted that the provision has been misused to reopen substantive disagreements or revive time-barred objections. The Draft IN therefore reinforces that this route applies only to clear, uncontested factual errors, and not to interpretive or debatable issues.

Sars must be objectively “satisfied”

Before issuing a reduced assessment, Sars must be “satisfied” that the error is both readily apparent and undisputed, a standard that requires objective proof, not persuasion. Case law such as Rampersadh and Another v CSars confirms that this discretion must be exercised reasonably and based on verifiable facts. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof to substantiate the request with documentation that demonstrates the mistake without further inquiry or argument.

Defining “readily apparent” and “undisputed”

The Draft IN interprets “readily apparent” to mean that the error must be visible at face value, capable of being confirmed without extensive verification or interpretive debate. The term “undisputed” requires that the mistake is not open to reasonable challenge and is accepted by Sars as factually correct.

Examples include:

• A taxpayer who inadvertently duplicated a disallowed expense or entered the wrong figure from a certificate; and/or
• An incorrect donation amount where the Public Benefit Organisation reissued a corrected section 18A receipt.

By contrast, complex reclassifications or claims requiring interpretive judgment will not qualify.

Errors of omission and commission

Sars recognises that both errors of commission (doing something wrong) and omission (failing to do something) may qualify, provided they are objectively verifiable and uncontested. However, taxpayers cannot use section 93(1)(d) to retroactively adjust prior assessments for later events, such as contract cancellations in subsequent years, as these do not constitute errors.

Timing remains crucial

Sars may process a reduced assessment under section 93(1)(d) even after the standard three-year prescription period, provided it became aware of the error before the period expired. Requests must be lodged in writing or via eFiling using forms RRA01 (for individuals) or RRA02 (for companies), with clear reasons and supporting evidence. This further demonstrates the importance of enlisting the assistance of seasoned tax practitioners and tax attorneys to ensure missteps are avoided. 

Clarity that protects both sides

The Draft IN reinforces that section 93(1)(d) is not an alternative to formal disputes but a narrow remedy for correcting objective, uncontested mistakes. It promotes administrative efficiency while ensuring that taxpayers cannot bypass prescribed procedures.

Acknowledging Sars’s efforts

The Draft IN reflects a constructive effort by Sars to educate taxpayers and increase transparency around administrative remedies. The agency’s investment in publishing detailed interpretation notes, inviting public comment, and improving taxpayer understanding is commendable and reflects a maturing compliance environment.

That said, it is reasonable to expect that, as taxpayers become more informed, the volume of formal disputes may increase. Not due to confrontation, but as a natural result of greater awareness and engagement with the dispute resolution framework. This, in turn, will likely lead to a more robust and transparent compliance culture overall.

Key takeaway

Taxpayers and tax practitioners should carefully assess whether a proposed correction meets all three criteria:

1. It is an actual error (not a difference of opinion),
2. It is readily apparent from the record, and
3. It is undisputed by Sars.

Where the issue requires interpretation or judgment, the proper route remains the formal objection and appeal process under Chapter 9 of the TAA.

Taxpayers who believe an assessment contains a genuine, factual mistake should act promptly to request a reduced assessment under section 93(1)(d). For guidance on preparing a compliant request and ensuring the error qualifies as “readily apparent and undisputed,” consult a qualified tax attorney or advisor experienced in Sars administrative remedies before submitting.

Written by André Daniels, Head of Tax Controversy & Dispute Resolution at Tax Consulting SA; and Richan Schwellnus, Senior Tax Attorney at Tax Consulting SA