The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has delivered a damning judgment against Mthatha attorney Fikile Ntayiya, dismissing his decade-long fight with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and confirming that his submission of six consecutive “nil returns” amounted to intentional tax evasion.
The ruling, handed down this December 2025, not only dismissed Ntayiya’s appeal but also rejected his attempt to introduce new evidence ordering him to foot the bill for SARS’s legal costs, including the fees of two senior counsel.
Pinning blame on former accountants
Ntayiya had hauled Sars to the SCA wanting a reversal of high court order dismissing his application for an order against SARS to pay back R762 335 that the taxman took from his firm’s bank account with interest from December 13 2019 to the date of payment.
He argued that he submitted nil returns between 2008 and 2013 based on “erroneous calculations” by his former accountants, MNG Business Consultants.
But the SCA was scathing. Justice SP Mothle wrote that Ntayiya’s explanation was “woefully inadequate” and that his claim of unintentional error “is unconvincing”.
The court found it “inconceivable that he would have been unaware of the fact that he earned income during that period,” emphasising that as the person who ran the law firm, “any drawings would have been authorized by him”.
SARS’s 2014 audit uncovered a significant mismatch between the nil returns and Ntayiya’s actual income.
The audit “revealed that the appellant had, in fact, earned taxable income in each of the six years of assessment,” despite declaring otherwise.
Big spender
The SCA highlighted SARS’s basis for imposing the 150% understatement penalty, quoting the revenue service’s findings that Ntayiya had:
- Submitted nil returns while receiving income;
- Deposed to a 2012 affidavit falsely claiming he earned nothing between 2008 and 2013,
- Purchased a Mercedes-Benz ML350, a Toyota Hilux and an Audi A6 during the years he said he earned no income.
These facts, the court said, justified SARS’s conclusion that “the appellant had grossly understated his income”.
Abandoning key parts of application
A critical turning point came when Ntayiya abandoned the key parts of his application—including seeking to set aside the 2014 assessments upon which the penalties were based.
The SCA said this decision was “fatal to his case”. “The consequence of the abandonment… confirmed the finality of the 2014 assessments, and left the submitted nil returns… uncontested,” said the court.
The court added that neither SARS nor any competent body had set aside those assessments.
“The 2014 assessments remain final and binding… until abandoned by SARS or set aside by a competent authority.”
The attorney also wanted the court to overturn the 10% tax SARS applied to his private use of vehicles.
But after failing to provide logbooks or evidence of business mileage, the court said he had no basis to complain.
Tax estimate proposed by own accountants
It noted that the 10% estimate had actually been proposed by his own accountants, APAC.
“The appellant can hardly complain about taxation raised by SARS on the basis proposed by his agent.”
Ntayiya attempted to introduce new evidence suggesting SARS wrongly attached funds from his firm’s account instead of his personal account.
But the court refused, noting that the law firm was not a litigant in the appeal.
“The law firm is not part of the proceedings… The proposed new evidence would not be practically conclusive and final.”
The court also criticised him for conflating his firm’s money with his personal tax calculations:
“It would thus be a contradiction in terms for the appellant to contend that SARS should be ordered to pay back the amount attached from the law firm’s account, and simultaneously plead that this Court must allow SARS to keep that amount for the purposes of the calculation.”
With all arguments failing, the SCA made its order clear.
“The application for leave to present new evidence is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.”
“The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.”
