A Comparison Between the Modalities of Interpreting Tax Legislation Applied in South Africa and Australia

What the paper says

Grammatical, purposive, contextual, teleological and comparative interpretations are the most commonly used modalities for construing statutory texts. In Australia, interpretation of tax laws involves a combination of taking account of the law-text, its context, and its underlying purpose or policy. Ultimately, the meaning ascribed must be that which best reflects and gives effect to the legislature’s intention as emerging from the statute. A value-based (teleological) interpretive approach does not, as yet, have a strong foothold in Australian jurisprudence, except to a limited extent under, for example, s 30 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and s 32(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). In South Africa, on the other hand, the basic approach to interpreting tax legislation is that its words are to be construed by reading and understanding the whole text in the light of its broader context. A meaning assigned must be appropriate and consistent within the limits of (i) the language of the text, (ii) the context and purpose of the text, (iii) the overall objectives of the legislation, and (iv) the relevant values and/or fundamental rights arising from the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (‘the SA Constitution’). As a result of the SA Constitution’s supremacy and the provisions of s 39(2) therein, the meaning ascribed to a law-text must be that which, all legally relevant things considered, best promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.