A Catch-22 Situation: Bringing an Interim Application to Have a High Court Tax Dispute Heard Behind Closed Doors - SMI v CSARS [2023] ZAECGHC 115

Abstract

The phrase “a catch-22” situation was coined in the popular novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller to illustrate the absurd constraints put on soldiers during World War II. The character, Doc Daneeka, invokes the phrase to explain that pilots who request mental evaluations in order to be declared unfit (not sane enough) to fly an aircraft (to escape dangerous missions) are paradoxical, as the pilots had the rationality of mind to make the request for the medical evaluation in the first place (Heller Catch-22 (1961) ch 5). The phrase typically refers to a contradictory situation where one cannot escape the relevant rules or regulations.

Such a paradoxical event occurred in SMI v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services ([2023] ZAECGHC 115) (SMI v CSARS HC) where an interlocutory (interim) application was launched in the court a quo to avoid having the main application proceed in open court, but the interim application was, itself, heard in an open court – effectively disclosing the secret taxpayer information which the applicant was attempting to keep out of the public eye in the first place.

This note analyses the abovementioned judgment and provides suggestions on how taxpayers can avoid such a “catch-22” situation where an interim application is made to the court to have a tax dispute heard behind closed court doors (in camera; Classen RD Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases (2002)) due to the sensitive nature of the taxpayer information.