Publication: Pretoria News Issued: Date: 2007-02-27 Reporter: Tania Broughton Reporter: Karyn Maughan

Taxman Wants to Know What Zuma Has Earned

 

Publication 

Pretoria News
Date

2007-02-27

Reporter

 Tania Broughton, Karyn Maughan

Web Link

www.pretorianews.co.za

 

The taxman is putting pressure on Jacob Zuma to disclose exactly what he has earned over the past few years. A warrant of arrest has been issued - but stayed - twice against Zuma by a Durban magistrate this year while his lawyers attempt to negotiate with South African Revenue Service officials over a charge they have laid against him.

So far Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, has appeared in the tax court twice on his behalf.

According to the charge sheet, Zuma faces one count of contravening the Income Tax Act in that he "failed to comply with a written request for information".

Sars wrote to Zuma in July 2005 and again at the beginning of June 2006, demanding that he provide further information and documentation to back up his tax returns. It issued a final demand at the end of June after Zuma ignored the request. The contravention carries a penalty of a fine or up to 24 months' imprisonment *1.

According to the charge sheet, summons was served in the matter on December 15 last year for Zuma to appear in court in February.

On February 7, the charge sheet notes "the accused was in default at 11h48".

The magistrate noted that Hulley had appeared and stated that Zuma had had a commitment that day, organised prior to the service of the summons. Hulley told the court that Zuma had been aware of that trial date and he undertook to inform Zuma of the next trial date.

The warrant of arrest was authorised but its issue stayed until February 21.

On February 21, the only entry made on the charge sheet reflected that the warrant had again been stayed, this time until April 11.

Sars has declined to comment on the matter.

Tax returns are deemed "confidential" and cannot be used against someone in the formulation of any criminal charge except if Sars decides to press tax evasion charges.

A proper assessment of Zuma's tax obligations would be done once he has provided the information requested. Should he be found to have contravened any of the tax laws, he could be penalised financially or charged criminally, but this would be a separate matter to the Scorpions investigation.

Meanwhile, Judge Herbert Msimang's decision to strike the case against Zuma and French arms company Thint off the court roll was "open to criticism".

This was the view yesterday of a top Scorpions investigator, Johan du Plooy.

The senior Directorate of Special Operations member has described Zuma as "vague" and less than honest in his dealings with investigators - suggesting that convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik did not call Zuma to testify on his behalf because of the gruelling cross-examination Zuma would face from the State.

Du Plooy last week submitted a strongly worded affidavit in response to Shaik's claims, made to the constitutional court, that the way in which he had been investigated and prosecuted for corruption - including his solicitation of a R500 000 bribe for Zuma from Thint - had violated his rights to a fair trial.

According to Du Plooy, Zuma got special treatment when he and Shaik were being investigated for corruption - with prosecuting department heavyweights even dubbing the former deputy president "Mr X" to avoid him facing public embarrassment.

With acknowledgements to Tania Broughton, Karyn Maughan and Cape Times.