High Court Rules Self-Insurance Deposit Is Not Tax Deductible
This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
CSARS v Meiring Citrus (Pty) Ltd (A161/2025 IT 46080)
Meiring Citrus is a citrus farming company in the Eastern Cape. In 2017, they were facing real risks to their crops, mainly from two threats: Citrus Black Spot (a fungal disease) and False Codling Moth (a pest). Either could cause an entire export batch to be rejected and destroyed.
Previously, the company had used its own cash reserves to cover such losses. Then, in mid-2017, their accountant (Mr van Zyl from Moore Stephens) recommended a product offered by Santam called a "structured self-insurance" policy. The timing is important: the accountant and the company director (Ms Meiring) were meeting to prepare provisional tax calculations and were specifically looking for about R10 million in deductible expenses to reduce the company's tax bill.
Here is how the Santam product worked:
Meiring Citrus paid R10 million to Santam as a "premium"
R400,000 of that went to Santam as an underwriting fee
The remaining R9.6 million sat in an "experience account" held by Santam
The experience account earned interest for Meiring Citrus
Any crop insurance claims would be paid out of the experience account (essentially their own money)
If they cancelled the policy, they got the full balance back within 30 days
They could even pledge the policy as security for other loans.
Meiring Citrus claimed the full R10 million as a tax deduction in their 2017 return, reducing their taxable income from about R13.6 million to R3.6 million.
SARS flagged the massive jump in insurance expenses (from R220,000 in 2016 to over R10 million in 2017) and asked for supporting documents. The accountant sent only an application form, not the actual contract. The full contract was only provided in January 2021 when SARS launched a broader audit. In July 2021, SARS issued an additional assessment disallowing the deduction and adding a 10% understatement penalty.
Meiring Citrus objected, and the Tax Court originally ruled in their favour. SARS then appealed to the Western Cape High Court.
Issues the Court Had to Decide
Was the Santam contract actually an insurance contract?
Was the R9.6 million a legitimate tax deduction under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act?
Was SARS too late to issue the additional assessment (prescription)?
Was the 10% understatement penalty justified?
The Court's Findings
On whether it was real insurance: No, it was not.
The High Court found that the Santam product was not insurance in any meaningful legal sense. Real insurance works by spreading risk across many policyholders. Many people pay relatively small premiums, and when one of them suffers a loss, the insurer pays out from the pool of everyone's contributions.
This product did none of that. The key problems were:
Meiring Citrus was essentially paying claims from their own money sitting in the experience account, not from a shared risk pool
They could cancel at any time and get their money back, with interest, even after a risk had attached
They could pledge the account as security, meaning it was their asset
The premium amount was set by the client, not by Santam after a risk assessment
No risk assessment was done before the policy was issued
The "premium" earned interest, which expenses do not do
The court said the arrangement was more like a bank deposit than insurance. The only genuine insurance in the deal was the R2.4 million cover that Santam accepted in exchange for the R400,000 underwriting fee.
On whether the R9.6 million was deductible: No.
For a deduction under section 11(a), an amount must actually be "expenditure incurred." The court found that Meiring Citrus never truly spent the R9.6 million. They simply moved money from their own bank account into an experience account still effectively under their control, earning interest for their benefit, and fully recoverable on demand. That is not expenditure; it is just changing the form in which you hold an asset.
As confirmation, when Meiring Citrus cancelled the policy in 2021, they received back R11.3 million (more than they paid in, due to interest). The court also found that even if the payment had counted as expenditure, it would have been capital in nature (like buying an investment asset), which also disqualifies it from being deducted under section 11(a).
On prescription (was SARS too late?): No, SARS was not barred.
Normally SARS has three years from an original assessment to issue an additional one. The 2017 assessment was issued in December 2017, and the additional assessment came in July 2021, which is more than three years later. However, the law allows SARS to reopen a case after three years if there was fraud, misrepresentation, or non-disclosure of material facts.
The court found two problems with how Meiring Citrus handled SARS's requests:
The accountant never provided the full Santam contract when first asked, despite referring to it in his correspondence. Without the contract, SARS could not see the unusual features (like the experience account) that showed the arrangement was not genuine insurance.
The notional interest earned on the experience account was never declared as income, even though the company later conceded it was taxable.
The court found the accountant's explanation (that he did not know about the experience account) unconvincing for a chartered accountant who had attended the Santam roadshow presentation and received the product materials. These non-disclosures caused SARS to miss assessing the full tax owed, which justified reopening the assessment.
On the 10% understatement penalty: Confirmed.
Because the deduction was wrongly claimed and income was left out of the return, there was a "substantial understatement" (the shortfall exceeded both R1 million and 5% of the tax properly owed). The 10% penalty therefore stood automatically, without needing to show deliberate wrongdoing on Meiring Citrus's part.
The Outcome
SARS won the appeal. The High Court set aside the Tax Court's decision and confirmed:
The additional 2017 assessment stands
The R9.6 million deduction is disallowed
The 10% understatement penalty is confirmed
Meiring Citrus must pay SARS's legal costs on the higher Scale C rate (including two counsel), given the complexity and importance of the case.