146.    Circumstances where settlement is appropriate

The Commissioner may, if it is to the best advantage of the state, ‘settle’ a ‘dispute’, in whole or in part, on a basis that is fair and equitable to both the person concerned and to SARS, having regard to-

(a)     whether the ‘settlement’ would be in the interest of good management of the tax system, overall fairness, and the best use of SARS’ resources;

(b)     SARS’ cost of litigation in comparison to the possible benefits with reference to the prospects of success in court;

[Paragraph (b) substituted by section 55 of Act 23 of 2015 effective on 8 January 2016]

(c)     whether there are any-

(i)      complex factual issues in contention; or

(ii)     evidentiary difficulties,

which are sufficient to make the case problematic in outcome or unsuitable for resolution through the alternative ‘dispute’ resolution procedures or the courts;

(d)     a situation in which a participant or a group of participants in a tax avoidance arrangement has accepted SARS’ position in the ‘dispute’, in which case the ‘settlement’ may be negotiated in an appropriate manner required to unwind existing structures and arrangements; or

(e)     whether ‘settlement’ of the ‘dispute’ is a cost-effective way to promote compliance with a tax Act by the person concerned or a group of taxpayers.