Got a SARS assessment wrong? Here's when you don't need a full dispute

Picture this: SARS issues an assessment, and something on it is simply wrong: an expense added back twice, a donation receipt captured incorrectly, or a processing slip on SARS's end. Your first instinct might be to object. However, launching a formal objection has its own deadlines, forms and procedures, and if you get the process wrong, you can lose your right to challenge the assessment altogether.

There is often a simpler route: section 93 of the Tax Administration Act ("TAA"). Used correctly, it allows SARS to issue a reduced assessment to correct a genuine error, without you having to "manufacture" a dispute. Used incorrectly, it can waste time, cause you to miss deadlines, and leave you worse off than if you had objected in the first place.

So, when does section 93 actually help, and when is it the wrong tool?

What section 93 actually does

Section 93 gives SARS the power to reduce an assessment in several specific situations. The two that matter most in practice:

• Section 93(1)(d) – SARS may reduce an assessment where there is a "readily apparent undisputed error", made either by SARS or by the taxpayer.
• Section 93(1)(e) – A senior SARS official may reduce an assessment where it was based on a wrong or missing return from an employer or third party, a processing error by SARS, or a fraudulently submitted return.

(Section 93(1)(f) also deals separately with estimated assessments and links to section 95(6), which is a more specialised scenario.)

The key feature is that section 93(2) lets SARS correct an assessment even if you never lodged an objection or appeal. That's the whole appeal of the mechanism — it's a shortcut for fixing a clear mistake, not a mini-version of the dispute process.

The phrase that decides everything: "readily apparent undisputed error"

This wording isn't an accident. Parliament tightened it in 2016 because the law previously said only "apparent," and because taxpayers used section 93 to smuggle in substantive disputes and dodge the normal objection deadlines.

SARS's October 2025 draft Interpretation Note explains what "readily apparent" means in practice: the error must be identifiable from the return, the assessment, and the supporting documents, with at most some straightforward checking. SARS shouldn't have to run an investigation or resolve a genuine dispute of fact or law to find it.

Importantly, this isn't limited to typos or arithmetic slips. SARS's own examples include an expense mistakenly deducted twice, an amount wrongly transcribed from supporting documents, and an incorrect figure on a section 18A donation receipt that's later corrected. The test isn't "how small is the mistake". It's "can the correct position be shown clearly and objectively, without having to settle an actual disagreement".

"Undisputed" doesn't mean SARS can just say "we disagree"

There's an important safeguard here for taxpayers. SARS can't defeat a valid section 93 request simply by asserting disagreement, because the law requires SARS to reach this decision lawfully and rationally, like any other administrative decision.

This came up directly in Rampersadh v Commissioner for SARS (2018). The taxpayers let their appeal rights lapse, then made repeated section 93 requests claiming errors, but without properly identifying or proving them (for example, alleging "duplication" without ever pointing to the duplicated amounts). The court sided with SARS. The judgment, however, also noted something significant for taxpayers. Where SARS is satisfied that a readily apparent, undisputed error exists, it likely doesn't have free discretion to refuse to fix it. SARS's new draft guidance now reflects that, once the requirements are met, SARS must issue the reduced assessment. Section 93 is a right, not a favour.

When section 93 is the wrong tool

Crookes Brothers Limited v Commissioner for SARS illustrates the flip side. The taxpayer applied transfer pricing rules to loans to a foreign subsidiary, then asked SARS to reduce the resulting assessments under section 93(1)(d), arguing it had made an error. Determining whether an error existed required interpreting loan and subordination agreements and section 31 of the Income Tax Act, which are genuinely contested legal questions. SARS disagreed with the taxpayer's reading, and the High Court agreed with SARS.

The lesson: if establishing the "error" requires choosing between competing legal interpretations or resolving disputed facts, it isn't "readily apparent and undisputed", and it belongs in the objection and appeal process, not a section 93 request.

Don't let section 93 become a late objection in disguise

This is probably the single most important warning in this whole area. If you miss your objection deadline, you cannot use section 93 to get SARS to reconsider the merits of the original assessment, simply because that is exactly what went wrong for the taxpayers in Rampersadh, and exactly the loophole the 2016 "readily apparent" amendment was designed to close.

Section 93 corrects an error. It does not revive a dispute you didn't pursue in time.

Practical tip: if you're unsure which route applies, don't let your objection window close just because you've lodged a section 93 request. SARS itself is clear that the reduced-assessment process doesn't replace objections and appeals. So if you're unsure, protect your formal dispute rights in parallel while SARS considers the section 93 request.

What about assessments from years ago?

Timing matters, and it works differently depending on which part of section 93 you're relying on:

• For section 93(1)(d), section 99 generally stops SARS from issuing a reduced assessment once the relevant period has expired unless SARS became aware of the error before that period expired, in which case section 99(2)(d)(iii) still allows SARS to act on it afterwards. So, flagging the error to SARS can be just as important as what the error is.
• For section 93(1)(e), SARS's current guidance says a request may still be possible even after the section 93(1)(d) window has closed.

In short: don't just ask "does section 93 apply?" Ask "which specific part of section 93 applies, and does my timing work for that part?"

What makes or breaks a section 93 request in practice

A strong request does SARS's job for it: identify the assessment, pinpoint the exact error, explain how it happened, show what the correct figure should be, and attach the documents that prove it. SARS's current online process (the Request for Reduced Assessment, or "RRA") specifically asks for the amount on the assessment, the amount it should be, the grounds for the request, and supporting documents.

In our experience, these requests are won or lost here. Legal argument alone can't turn a genuine dispute into an "undisputed error," but a clean reconciliation backed by source documents can make a very strong case.

If SARS refuses your request

This is procedurally tricky, so it's worth flagging rather than glossing over. In Rampersadh, the court held that a refusal of a section 93(1)(d) request is not a decision that goes through the normal objection-and-appeal channel (section 104). Still, the High Court can instead review it under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). More recently, the Constitutional Court's judgment in the United Manganese of Kalahari line of cases has provided further guidance on how this interacts with section 105 of the TAA, which you need to consider upfront whenever a taxpayer seeks to challenge an assessment or decision outside the normal Chapter 9 dispute process.

The right remedy depends on exactly what SARS decided and what you're seeking to challenge. This is genuinely a "get advice before you act" situation, not a do-it-yourself form to resubmit.

The bottom line

Section 93 exists for good reason, as not every error should require a full objection, appeal, and potentially a Tax Court hearing. Where the mistake is clear and objectively verifiable, it's a faster, cheaper way to get to the right number.

But it has real limits. Before reaching for a section 93 request, ask yourself:

"Can I show, from the assessment, the return, and the supporting evidence, that this is the kind of clear-cut error section 93 was built to fix?"

If yes, a reduced assessment could resolve this without a dispute at all. If the honest answer involves a debate about the facts or the law, you're in objection-and-appeal territory, and the sooner you identify that, the less risk of missing a deadline.

Intellectual property disclaimer: The contents of any article published by Pieterse Sellner Erasmus should not be construed as professional legal advice.