SARS rebuts Mr Lucky Montana’s false allegations

Key topics:SARS refutes Mr Montana's claims of abuse and political witch-hunt.Montana failed to comply with tax obligations; debt now R55M+.Court upheld SARS actions; sequestration and compromise underway..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Issued by: South African Revenue Service (SARS).Pretoria, 11 October 2025 — SARS needs to state upfront that when this matter arose in 2011 Mr Tshepo Lucky Montana was not a political representative, and this matter can therefore never be about his politics or a political witch-hunt.Mr Tshepo Lucky Montana (“Mr Montana”), a member of Parliament, initiated a public attack on the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) in recent days via the news agency Independent Online (“IOL”).Other news outlets subsequently repeated the claims to some extent or another. Mr Montana’s false claims are specific. According to IOL, he claimed the following:That SARS “abused it powers”;“Maladministration” by SARS;That SARS conducted a “politically motivated witch hunt”; andThat SARS “fraudulently doctored a fake court judgement to justify a hefty tax bill (sic)”.According to IOL, Mr Montana, based on the above claims, “laid charges” against SARS representatives for “fraud” with the South African Police Service (“SAPS”).On 8 October 2025, SARS responded in a general press statement rejecting the claims as false (annexure 1). SARS proceeded to issue a formal notice to Mr Montana in terms of section 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (“the Tax Administration Act”).In terms of section 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act, SARS is empowered to publicly disclose taxpayer information where it is necessary to counteract false statements that may undermine the integrity and public confidence in the tax system. The notice afforded Mr Montana the opportunity to retract his statements and false allegations within 24 hours. Mr Montana failed to do so..Read more:.SARS hits back at Lucky Montana’s “false and scandalous” claims.To the extent necessary for now, SARS will set out the salient factual sequence of events, with specific 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 very same claims before the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria in the matter of Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749. Mr Montana had all the opportunity to provide substance to his claims but did not. The judgment in this case speaks for itself (annexure 2).The court ruled, among other aspects 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 events:Mr Montana failed to submit his income tax returns in respect of the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years of assessment. SARS initiated an audit in respect of his 2009 to 2019 years of assessment.Mr Montana was formally notified of this on 5 November 2020. In the ordinary course and by operation of law, as with any other taxpayer under audit, Mr Montana was requested to provide information for the audit by no later than 4 December 2020.Mr Montana requested, and SARS granted him, an extension to submit the required relevant material and information by 1 February 2021.Mr Montana then failed to deliver the requested documentation. This is a contravention of the law.On 2 February 2021, SARS issued a final demand to Mr Montana to submit the requested relevant material and information.Again, Mr Montana failed to comply in contravention of the law.The audit concluded in the ordinary course as in such cases for any taxpayer in audit culminating on 7 July 2021 in a Letter of Findings (“LOF”) to Mr Montana.Mr Montana was informed that SARS intended to raise additional income tax assessments to the value of approximately R15,5 million in respect of his 2009 to 2019 years of assessment. (Capital only).SARS found that Mr Montana had unlawfully evaded his tax liability by under-declaring taxable income he received from various sources over the relevant periods of audit. This is a contravention in law.Again, as in the ordinary course for any taxpayer in such a position, Mr Montana was afforded 21 business days to respond to the audit findings.On 11 August 2021, Mr Montana requested and was granted an extension until 16 August 2021 to respond to the findings.On 16 August 2021, Mr Montana responded to a limited extent only, failing to deal with the bulk and essence of the audit findings.Instead of using the opportunity, Mr Montana elected to attack SARS by making unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations against SARS, accusing it of “vindicative action” and conducting a “witch hunt”.SARS denied the allegations, advising that it will 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 took place after this.On 11 April 2022, SARS issued a Finalisation of Audit letter to Mr Montana, advising him that SARS proceeded to raise the assessments.Mr Montana was informed in absolute detail what the basis of the assessments was.Mr Montana was at this stage assessed for tax of approximately R28 million (comprising of capital and penalties ) in respect of the 2009 to 2019 years of assessment for underdeclared income.Mr Montana was advised that if he felt aggrieved by or disagreed with the assessments, he could formally object to the additional assessments by no later than 26 May 2022. This is available to any taxpayer in such a position.The formal process of objection is contained in section 104 of the Tax Administration Act read with Rule 7.2 of the Tax Court rules. The objection must be filed in a prescribe form ADR1 and lodged on the taxpayer’s eFiling profileOn 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 received Mr Montana’s “partial objection” which, yet again, made unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations against SARS.At this point, Mr Montana appointed new auditors/tax representatives and proceeded to request a further 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 did not file the objection as had been undertaken. Instead, they requested a further 30-day extension to respond to the assessments/file an objection.On 11 July 2022, SARS declined the extension request. Mr Montana did not request a suspension of payment of his assessed tax liability as envisaged in terms of section 164(1) of the Tax Administration Act. The outstanding tax debt was therefore due and payable and SARS issued Mr Montana with a final demand to pay on 11 July 2022. SARS Mr Montana still did not pay, SARS proceeded with the recovery steps detailed later hereinOn 22 July 2022, SARS provided copies of Mr Montana’s bank statements to Mr Montana’s representatives, as requested by them.On 20 September 2022, Mr Montana submitted a further 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 noted that SARS has subsequently obtained a default judgment against us. We further reserve our right to respond to the default judgment obtained by SARS once we have had time to peruse and evaluate the judgment”. He said that he would address this “under separate cover”. This submission still not complied with the requirements for an objection in terms of the Tax Administration Act, read with the Tax Court rules.On 23 September 2022, Mr Montana addressed a further letter to SARS to respond to the default judgment SARS obtained against 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 advised that the default judgment was obtained at best by misrepresentation to the High Court and could be rescinded. The fact that Mr Montana has after all this time still not applied to the High Court for the tax judgment to be rescinded is significant. It is by now no longer open for him to do so.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 until 31 January 2023 to submit a valid objection. Mr Montana’s allegations regarding the default judgment was also addressed in this letter and denied. SARS’s attorneys explained in the letter the due process SARS followed in terms of the Tax Administration Act to obtain the default judgment against him.On 22 December 2022, Mr Montana informed SARS that he did not intend to file any proper objection and persisted with his previous contentions. According to him, he considered his 20 September 2022 submission sufficient.On 23 January 2023, SARS responded to Mr Montana and informed him that no further opportunities to file a late objection(s) would be granted.Mr Montana has still, as at date hereof, not filed a valid objection.In terms of section 100 of the Tax Administration Act, the additional assessments have therefore become final and are no longer open to dispute.Mr Montana’s contention that he only recently became aware of the full extent of his tax liability is therefore false and dishonest.Debt collection process followed:The Tax Administration Act imposes on SARS the statutory obligation to ensure the efficient and effective collection of tax.Before the audit referred to above commenced, Mr Montana already had an outstanding assessed tax liability for the 2015 year of assessment. This was in terms of an assessment SARS raised on 1 July 2017. By October 2019, the outstanding tax amounted to R1,800,762.38. Since this amount remained, SARS on 2 October 2019 filed a certified statement in terms of section 172 of the Tax Administration Act, with the Registrar of the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) under case number 72501/19 (“the Registrar”, “the High Court” and “the 2019 certified statement/tax judgment” respectively) as required by the Tax Administration Act.In terms of section 174 of the Tax Administration Act, provides that such certified statement must be regarded as a civil judgment if lawfully given in the High Court in favour of SARS for the amount specified in the statement.It is settled law that a certified statement of a tax debt submitted by SARS to the Registrar or Clerk of a competent court is equal to a civil judgment.On 11 April 2022, SARS raised the assessments against Mr Montana referred to above, with final demands issued on 28 June 2022 and 11 July 2022.As a result of Mr Montana having not made payment towards the assessed tax liability, an amended certified statement was in terms of section 172 was filed with the Registrar of the High Court on 11 August 2022. This totalled the overdue old and the new tax debts (“the 2022 certified statement/tax judgement”). SARS is permitted to do this in terms of section 175 of the Tax Administration Act. The judgement amount in terms of the 2022 certified statement/tax judgment was R44,927,320. Interest continue to accrue on this amount.The Registrar issued warrants of execution respectively on 29 October 2019 (based on the 2019 certified statement/tax judgment) and 15 August 2022 (based on the 2022 certified statement/tax judgment”), to be executed in the ordinary course of debt collection as is the position with any taxpayer.Due to the many physical addresses Mr Montana provided, 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, at the various addresses.Mr Montana was only present at the execution address when the warrant was executed on 15 January 2022.Due to Montana’s non-payment of his tax debts, and the aspect in terms of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (“the Insolvency Act”) being satisfied, SARS launched an application for the sequestration of Mr Montana’s estate on 22 May 2023.The application was premised on Mr Montana’s outstanding 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 false.Copies of the certified statements have been provided to Mr Montana on various occasions. They are also attached as annexures to SARS’s sequestration application against Mr Montana.The SARS application spells this out in no uncertain terms:“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 in due course consider the sequestration application.Attempts to serve the sequestration application at the different physical addresses that Mr Montana provided, proved to be unsuccessful.SARS therefore had no other option but to launch an application in the High Court to obtain leave from the Court to serve the application on him via his email address and by publication of the notice of motion in a local newspaper.Approximately a year later, namely on 5 June 2024, under circumstances where Mr Montana had still not filed his answering affidavit in the sequestration application, Mr Montana launched an application to condone the late filing of his answering affidavit.SARS opposed the condonation application and Mr Montana delivered a replying affidavit. In the replying affidavit, Mr Montana again made unsubstantiated, unfounded scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant allegations regarding SARS.On 14 August 2024, SARS launched an application to strike out the impugned allegations from Mr Montana’s replying affidavit.On 21 July 2025, the High Court dismissed Mr Montana’s application for condonation with a punitive cost order.The court also granted SARS’s application to strike out the scandalous, vexatious, and irrelevant allegations from Mr Montana’s replying affidavit.Mr Montana has applied for leave to appeal against this judgment. This application will be heard in due course.Recently, on 8 August 2025, Mr Montana submitted a compromise offer to SARS, offering the sum of approximately R 5.4 million to satisfy the total tax debt outstanding which currently stands at R55,133,282.94.A prerequisite in terms of the Tax Administration Act for SARS to consider a compromise offer, is that the tax debt may not be disputed. In other words, the taxpayer must accept that the tax is due and payable.On 30 September 2025, SARS responded to Mr Montana’s attorneys, requesting Mr Montana to address the legal and formal requirements for such a compromise.The requested information is due on 14 October 2025.It is therefore untenable for Mr Montana to publicly attack SARS and its officials, whilst simultaneously seeking a compromise of a tax debt he accepts.Dependent on the compromise process Mr Montana initiated and the outcome thereof, SARS intends to set the sequestration application down for hearing in the High Court.Mr Montana has still not filed his answering affidavit in the sequestration application. SARS’s stated position against him therefore stands uncontested.Significantly, SARS’s actions against Mr Montana have throughout, and will continue to be, subject to judicial scrutiny..Read more:.SARS and OTO unite to fight eFiling hijacks and protect taxpayers.SARS remains committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all taxpayers are treated equitably.To this end, the Commissioner for SARS has informed the Commissioner of the SAPS and the National Director of Public Prosecutions that he, and the other SARS officials involved in the enforcement of the tax laws concerning Mr Montana (and any other taxpayer for that matter), will co-operate fully should an investigation follow from Mr Montana’s grievances. In addition, SARS has requested SAPS to address the abuse of resources and complaints procedures by persons who seek to distract, divert and create unnecessary drama.This public statement is not intended to impinge on any potential investigation(s) that the SAPS or the NPA may consider within this context, and is solely issued with the intent to protect SARS and its officials as provided for in law.The Commissioner for SARS laments that Mr Montana’s allegations and adverse public commentary against SARS harms the vital institution of the State, which is fundamental to sustaining our country’s democracy and addresses our social and economic challenges.SARS urges members of the public to be circumspect, to verify information through official SARS channels, and to refrain from disseminating unsubstantiated claims in the public domain.SARS reserves the right to amplify or add to this public statement if it becomes necessary, which may include making public any records and documents, where deemed appropriate..Issued by: South African Revenue Service (SARS)Annexure 1 – Public Statement: Alleged claims by Mr L Montana MP as reported in Independent Newspapers on 7 October 2025https://www.sars.gov.za/issued-notice-of-motion-and-founding-affidavit-lt-montana/https://www.sars.gov.za/montana-v-sars-judgment-12/https://www.sars.gov.za/issued-sequestration-application-of-lt-montana-annexures/

SARS rebuts Mr Lucky Montana’s false allegations

Related Stories

BNC#9: Rare insights. High altitude.

Swimming SA suspensions raise hard questions about McKenzie's oversight

Is a genius-level IQ a gift or a curse?

Kallie Kriel: AfriForum’s legal eagles to swoop on “Land Grab” Malema