SARS’s response to Mr Lucky Montana’s deceptive public statements

11 October 2025 — SARS must state upfront that when this matter arose in 2011 Mr Tshepo Lucky Montana was not a political consultant, and this matter can subsequently by no means be about his politics or a political witch-hunt.

Mr Tshepo Lucky Montana (“Mr Montana”), a member of Parliament, initiated a public assault on the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) in current days by way of the information company Independent Online (“IOL”).

Other information retailers subsequently repeated the claims to some extent or one other. Mr Montana’s false claims are particular. According to IOL, he claimed the next:

1. That SARS “abused it powers”;
2. “Maladministration” by SARS;
3. That SARS carried out a “politically motivated witch hunt”; and
4. That SARS “fraudulently doctored a fake court judgement to justify a hefty tax bill (sic)”

According to IOL, Mr Montana, based mostly on the above claims, “laid charges” towards SARS representatives for “fraud” with the South African Police Service (“SAPS”).

On 8 October 2025, SARS responded in a normal press assertion rejecting the claims as false (annexure 1). SARS proceeded to concern a proper discover to Mr Montana when it comes to part 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“the Tax Administration Act”).

In phrases of part 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act, SARS is empowered to publicly disclose taxpayer data the place it’s essential to counteract false statements that will undermine the integrity and public confidence within the tax system. The discover afforded Mr Montana the chance to retract his statements and false allegations inside 24 hours. Mr Montana failed to take action.

To the extent essential for now, SARS will set out the salient factual sequence of occasions, with particular reference to the false claims Mr Montana made.

The false claims of “abuse of power”, “maladministration” and “a politically motivated witch hunt”:

Mr Montana made these exact same claims earlier than the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria within the matter of Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749. Mr Montana had all the chance to supply substance to his claims however didn’t. The judgment on this case speaks for itself (annexure 2).

The courtroom dominated, amongst different facets as follows:

“In Par 28.5, Mr Montana accuses SARS of maladministration and abuse of power. In par 29.4 and par 42 he accuses SARS of indulging in a witch hunt against him, motivated by a political agenda… All these allegations are scandalous and vexatious… The allegations are emotive and intemperate, unsupported by facts and constitute gratuitous abuse…While the court is mindful not to stifle robust debate, such allegations fall to be deprecated as irrelevant, unhelpful and calculated to harm. Such conduct warrants a punitive cost order.”

The factual sequence of occasions:

Mr Montana did not submit his revenue tax returns in respect of the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years of evaluation. SARS initiated an audit in respect of his 2009 to 2019 years of evaluation.

Mr Montana was formally notified of this on 5 November 2020. In the extraordinary course and by operation of legislation, as with all different taxpayer beneath audit, Mr Montana was requested to supply data for the audit by no later than 4 December 2020.

Mr Montana requested, and SARS granted him, an extension to submit the required related materials and knowledge by 1 February 2021.

Mr Montana then did not ship the requested documentation. This is a violation of the legislation.

On 2 February 2021, SARS issued a remaining demand to Mr Montana to submit the requested related materials and knowledge.

Again, Mr Montana did not comply in contravention of the legislation.

The audit concluded within the extraordinary course as in such circumstances for any taxpayer in audit culminating on 7 July 2021 in a Letter of Findings (“LOF”) to Mr Montana.

Mr Montana was knowledgeable that SARS meant to lift further revenue tax assessments to the worth of roughly R15,5 million in respect of his 2009 to 2019 years of evaluation. (Capital solely).

SARS discovered that Mr Montana had unlawfully evaded his tax legal responsibility by under-declaring taxable revenue he acquired from varied sources over the related durations of audit. This is a violation in legislation.

Again, as within the extraordinary course for any taxpayer in such a place, Mr Montana was afforded 21 enterprise days to answer the audit findings.

On 11 August 2021, Mr Montana requested and was granted an extension till 16 August 2021 to answer the findings.

On 16 August 2021, Mr Montana responded to a restricted extent solely, failing to cope with the majority and essence of the audit findings.

Instead of utilizing the chance, Mr Montana elected to assault SARS by making unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations towards SARS, accusing it of “vindicative action” and conducting a “witch hunt”.

SARS denied the allegations, advising that it’s going to proceed to finalise the assessments with due consideration of his submissions.

SARS issued Mr Montana with a progress report on 11 October 2021.

Further exchanges between Mr Montana and SARS’s attorneys passed off after this.

On 11 April 2022, SARS issued a Finalisation of Audit letter to Mr Montana, advising him that SARS proceeded to lift the assessments.

Mr Montana was knowledgeable in absolute element what the premise of the assessments was.

Mr Montana was at this stage assessed for tax of roughly R28 million (comprising of capital and penalties ) in respect of the 2009 to 2019 years of evaluation for underdeclared revenue.

Mr Montana was suggested that if he felt aggrieved by or disagreed with the assessments, he may formally object to the extra assessments by no later than 26 May 2022. This is accessible to any taxpayer in such a place.

The formal strategy of objection is contained in part 104 of the Tax Administration Act learn with Rule 7.2 of the Tax Court guidelines. The objection should be filed in a prescribe kind ADR1 and lodged on the taxpayer’s eFiling profile

On 27 May 2022, Mr Montana requested and was granted an extension to lodge his objection by no later than 31 May 2022.

On 31 May 2022, SARS acquired Mr Montana’s “partial objection” which, but once more, made unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations towards SARS.

At this level, Mr Montana appointed new auditors/tax representatives and proceeded to request an extra extension to lodge an objection to 1 July 2022. SARS granted the request.

On 1 July 2022, Mr Montana and/or his newly appointment representatives didn’t file the objection as had been undertaken. Instead, they requested an extra 30-day extension to answer the assessments/file an objection.

On 11 July 2022, SARS declined the extension request. Mr Montana didn’t request a suspension of cost of his assessed tax legal responsibility as envisaged when it comes to part 164(1) of the Tax Administration Act. The excellent tax debt was subsequently due and payable and SARS issued Mr Montana with a remaining demand to pay on 11 July 2022. SARS Mr Montana nonetheless didn’t pay, SARS proceeded with the restoration steps detailed later herein

On 22 July 2022, SARS supplied copies of Mr Montana’s financial institution statements to Mr Montana’s representatives, as requested by them.

On 20 September 2022, Mr Montana submitted an extra letter to SARS to elaborate on his “objection to the audit raised in his letter dated 31 May 2022”. Significantly, the letter recorded that:”[we] have famous that SARS has subsequently obtained a default judgment towards us. We additional reserve our proper to answer the default judgment obtained by SARS as soon as now we have had time to peruse and consider the judgment”. He stated that he would tackle this “under separate cover”. This submission nonetheless not complied with the necessities for an objection when it comes to the Tax Administration Act, learn with the Tax Court guidelines.

On 23 September 2022, Mr Montana addressed an extra letter to SARS to answer the default judgment SARS obtained towards him. In this letter Mr Montana amongst others recorded what transpired when SARS on 15 September 2020 executed the default judgment on him. The letter recorded that:

“Apparently, SARS had obtained a Default Judgment against me at the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) for the total amount of R44,927,320.23. I was not home at the time of the raid nor aware of an impending Court action by SARS. No summons was served on me in this regard.”

The letter continued to state that he was suggested that the default judgment was obtained at greatest by misrepresentation to the High Court and might be rescinded. The indisputable fact that Mr Montana has in any case this time nonetheless not utilized to the High Court for the tax judgment to be rescinded is important. It is by now now not open for him to take action.

On 30 November 2022, SARS’s attorneys issued a letter informing Mr Montana that his purported objection was invalid and was thus not accepted. Mr Montana was granted till 31 January 2023 to submit a sound objection. Mr Montana’s allegations relating to the default judgment was additionally addressed on this letter and denied. SARS’s attorneys defined within the letter the due course of SARS adopted when it comes to the Tax Administration Act to acquire the default judgment towards him.

On 22 December 2022, Mr Montana knowledgeable SARS that he didn’t intend to file any correct objection and continued together with his earlier contentions. According to him, he thought of his 20 September 2022 submission enough.

On 23 January 2023, SARS responded to Mr Montana and knowledgeable him that no additional alternatives to file a late objection(s) could be granted.

Mr Montana has nonetheless, as at date hereof, not filed a sound objection.

In phrases of part 100 of the Tax Administration Act, the extra assessments have subsequently develop into remaining and are now not open to dispute.

Mr Montana’s competition that he solely just lately grew to become conscious of the total extent of his tax legal responsibility is subsequently false and dishonest.

Debt assortment course of adopted:

The Tax Administration Act imposes on SARS the statutory obligation to make sure the environment friendly and efficient assortment of tax.

Before the audit referred to above commenced, Mr Montana already had an excellent assessed tax legal responsibility for the 2015 12 months of evaluation. This was when it comes to an evaluation SARS raised on 1 July 2017. By October 2019, the excellent tax amounted to R1,800,762.38. Since this quantity remained, SARS on 2 October 2019 filed a licensed assertion when it comes to part 172 of the Tax Administration Act, with the Registrar of the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) beneath case quantity 72501/19 (“the Registrar”, “the High Court” and “the 2019 certified statement/tax judgment” respectively) as required by the Tax Administration Act.

In phrases of part 174 of the Tax Administration Act, gives that such licensed assertion should be considered a civil judgment if lawfully given within the High Court in favour of SARS for the quantity specified within the assertion.

It is settled legislation {that a} licensed assertion of a tax debt submitted by SARS to the Registrar or Clerk of a reliable courtroom is the same as a civil judgment.

On 11 April 2022, SARS raised the assessments towards Mr Montana referred to above, with remaining calls for issued on 28 June 2022 and 11 July 2022.

As a results of Mr Montana having not made cost in the direction of the assessed tax legal responsibility, an amended licensed assertion was when it comes to part 172 was filed with the Registrar of the High Court on 11 August 2022. This totalled the overdue outdated and the brand new tax money owed (“the 2022 certified statement/tax judgement”). SARS is permitted to do that when it comes to part 175 of the Tax Administration Act. The judgement quantity when it comes to the 2022 licensed assertion/tax judgment was R44,927,320. Interest proceed to accrue on this quantity.

The Registrar issued warrants of execution respectively on 29 October 2019 (based mostly on the 2019 licensed assertion/tax judgment) and 15 August 2022 (based mostly on the 2022 licensed assertion/tax judgment”), to be executed within the extraordinary course of debt assortment as is the place with any taxpayer.

Due to the numerous bodily addresses Mr Montana supplied, the Sheriff executed the warrants of execution on 20 November 2019, 22 November 2019, 25 November 2019, 15 January 2020, and 15 September 2022 respectively, on the varied addresses.

Mr Montana was solely current on the execution tackle when the warrant was executed on 15 January 2022.

Due to Montana’s non-payment of his tax money owed, and the side when it comes to the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (“the Insolvency Act”) being glad, SARS launched an software for the sequestration of Mr Montana’s property on 22 May 2023.

The software was premised on Mr Montana’s excellent tax debt, which remained unpaid.

Mr Montana’s allegation of SARS “fraudulently doctoring a fake court judgment to justify a hefty tax bill” (sic) is fake.

Copies of the licensed statements have been supplied to Mr Montana on varied events. They are additionally connected as annexures to SARS’s sequestration software towards Mr Montana.

The SARS software spells this out in no unsure phrases:

“On 2 October 2019, SARS filed a certified statement with the Registrar of the High Court…In terms of section 174 of the Tax Administration Act, the statement has thereupon the effect of a civil judgment granted in SARS’ favour in this Court for the amount in question… On 11 August 2022, SARS filed a certified statement with the Registrar of the High Court…In terms of section 174 of the Tax Administration Act, the statement has thereupon the effect of a civil judgment granted in this Court against the taxpayer…”

The High Court will sooner or later think about the sequestration software.

Attempts to serve the sequestration software on the completely different bodily addresses that Mr Montana supplied, proved to be unsuccessful.

SARS subsequently had no different choice however to launch an software within the High Court to acquire go away from the Court to serve the applying on him by way of his e mail tackle and by publication of the discover of movement in a neighborhood newspaper.

Approximately a 12 months later, particularly on 5 June 2024, beneath circumstances the place Mr Montana had nonetheless not filed his answering affidavit within the sequestration software, Mr Montana launched an software to condone the late submitting of his answering affidavit.

SARS opposed the condonation software and Mr Montana delivered a replying affidavit. In the replying affidavit, Mr Montana once more made unsubstantiated, unfounded scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant allegations relating to SARS.

On 14 August 2024, SARS launched an software to strike out the impugned allegations from Mr Montana’s replying affidavit.

On 21 July 2025, the High Court dismissed Mr Montana’s software for condonation with a punitive price order.

The courtroom additionally granted SARS’s software to strike out the scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant allegations from Mr Montana’s replying affidavit.

Mr Montana has utilized for go away to attraction towards this judgment. This software might be heard sooner or later.

Recently, on 8 August 2025, Mr Montana submitted a compromise provide to SARS, providing the sum of roughly R 5.4 million to fulfill the whole tax debt excellent which at present stands at R55,133,282.94.

A prerequisite when it comes to the Tax Administration Act for SARS to think about a compromise provide, is that the tax debt might not be disputed. In different phrases, the taxpayer should settle for that the tax is due and payable.

On 30 September 2025, SARS responded to Mr Montana’s attorneys, requesting Mr Montana to handle the authorized and formal necessities for such a compromise.

The requested data is due on 14 October 2025.

It is subsequently untenable for Mr Montana to publicly assault SARS and its officers, while concurrently in search of a compromise of a tax debt he accepts.

Dependent on the compromise course of Mr Montana initiated and the end result thereof, SARS intends to set the sequestration software down for listening to within the High Court.

Mr Montana has nonetheless not filed his answering affidavit within the sequestration software. SARS’s said place towards him subsequently stands uncontested.

Significantly, SARS’s actions towards Mr Montana have all through, and can proceed to be, topic to judicial scrutiny.

SARS stays dedicated to upholding the rule of legislation and guaranteeing that every one taxpayers are handled equitably.

To this finish, the Commissioner for SARS has knowledgeable the Commissioner of the SAPS and the National Director of Public Prosecutions that he, and the opposite SARS officers concerned within the enforcement of the tax legal guidelines regarding Mr Montana (and every other taxpayer for that matter), will co-operate absolutely ought to an investigation comply with from Mr Montana’s grievances. In addition, SARS has requested SAPS to handle the abuse of sources and complaints procedures by individuals who search to distract, divert and create pointless drama.

This public assertion will not be meant to impinge on any potential investigation(s) that the SAPS or the NPA could think about inside this context, and is solely issued with the intent to guard SARS and its officers as supplied for in legislation.

The Commissioner for SARS laments that Mr Montana’s allegations and hostile public commentary towards SARS harms the very important establishment of the State, which is prime to sustaining our nation’s democracy and addresses our social and financial challenges.

SARS urges members of the general public to be circumspect, to confirm data by means of official SARS channels, and to chorus from disseminating unsubstantiated claims within the public area.

SARS reserves the correct to amplify or add to this public assertion if it turns into essential, which can embrace making public any information and paperwork, the place deemed applicable.

Issued by: South African Revenue Service (SARS)

For additional data, please contact [email protected].