Rules of engagement

In this article I continue along the time frame to a place where the taxpayer has now effectively been compelled to give information, after SARS have satisfied the transparency, impartiality, without bias, accountability and professional conduct points.

In the first article

Our Constitution PROVIDES. You cannot be placed in a situation, particularly where our system of law is adversarial, where you are compelled to give evidence, both oral and documentary, that may be used against you to impose any criminal sanction for non-compliance with the provisions of the taxing statutes. Criminal sanctions would include the imposition of penalties.

What this means, is that you may be compelled to give information, documents or things to the Revenue Service. If this is then used to ultimately complete any outstanding taxes, then the Revenue Service cannot also use this information against you as evidence for a conviction or imposition of a penalty for non-compliance.

There are numerous instance where subjects have in company enquires been compelled to give self – incriminating evidence, with the … imposed by the Constitutional court: the evidence cannot be used against the subject concerned. A subject cannot be expected to provide the evidence under self-compulsion to enable the State to impose the criminal or penalty sanction. It is a fundamental right – for the State, it is the sacrifice that State makes for being able to obtain the evidence quickly, without having to launch its own independent investigation through third parties.

In that way everyone gets their fair share of retribution, and the balance is maintained in the system.

(This article is based in s35(3)(h) & (j) of the Constitution, read with s35(5) of the Constitution and report by Australian Law Commission on the admissibility of self-incriminating evidence. Reliance has also be placed on a variety of Constitutional Court and Australian cases)