SARS hits back at Lucky Montana in fight over unpaid tax bill of R55m

As any journalist worth their salt will tell you, SARS never shares taxpayer information and usually cites "confidential information" as its reason.

However, as the ongoing situation between former Prasa boss and now uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) MP Lucky Montana and the SA Revenue Service (SARS) has escalated, his tax affairs have been made public — something SARS says can be done, according to law, where deemed “necessary to counteract false statements that may undermine the integrity and public confidence in the tax system”.

In other words, if you make false public statements about your tax affairs, SARS can and will correct the record.

On Saturday, 11 October, it did just that when it revealed that Montana owed the revenue service just over R55-million.

According to SARS, in August, Montana submitted a compromise offer of approximately R5.4-million on the debt.

Montana has posted on social media that he plans to host a media briefing on Monday, 13 October at which he will provide his version of events.

The hubbub began this month when IOL  reported that Montana had opened a criminal case against the SARS commissioner, Edward Kieswetter, accusing Kieswetter and other SARS officials of fraudulently doctoring a court judgment to justify the hefty tax bill.

The tax authority has hit back, pointing out that Montana made the same claims before the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service. 

The court ruling included the following:

“Mr Montana accuses SARS of maladministration and abuse of power … 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 background 

The dispute between Montana and SARS dates back more than 10 years.

He had an outstanding assessed tax liability of more than R1.8-million for the 2015 tax year. When SARS files a certified statement with the Registrar of the High Court against a taxpayer, it has the same effect as a civil judgment. SARS filed two such certified statements against Montana — one on 2 October 2019 and another on 15 August 2022.

SARS revealed that, as Montana had provided several physical addresses, the sheriff served warrants of execution at the various addresses on the following dates:

• 20 November 2019;
• 22 November 2019;
• 25 November 2019;
• 15 January 2020; and
• 15 September 2022.

Montana was only present for the execution of the warrant on 15 January 2020, according to SARS.

“Due to Montana’s non-payment of his tax debts … SARS launched an application for the sequestration of Mr Montana’s estate on 22 May 2023,” said SARS.

“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’ is false.”

SARS said copies of certified statements were provided to Montana on various occasions.

“Attempts to serve the sequestration application at the different physical addresses that Mr Montana provided proved to be unsuccessful,” read the statement issued by SARS.

“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.”

On Tuesday, 7 October, SARS issued a public statement warning that it would invoke section 67(5) of the Tax Administration Act, which allows SARS to disclose taxpayer information that would otherwise be treated as confidential, to “address the false claims” made against SARS and its processes.

SARS said it would make no further comment on the issue if Montana publicly withdrew “these false, scandalous and vexatious claims” within 24 hours.

If Montana failed to do so, said the revenue service, “SARS will be compelled to disclose the otherwise confidential taxpayer information to correct the misperception.”

Montana took to social media, claiming that it would be an “abuse of power” if SARS disclosed his tax information without “due legal process. I am perplexed by their response.”

Here is a copy of my response to SARS_7 October 2025. pic.twitter.com/1qbdDNoTuR

— Lucky Montana (@LuckyMontana_MP) October 8, 2025

The revenue service noted that the matter dated from long before Montana was a political representative. “This matter can therefore never be about his politics or a political witch-hunt,” said SARS.

The timeline

SARS revealed the following timeline detailing Montana's debt:

Montana failed to submit personal tax returns for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years of assessment. SARS then initiated an audit for Montana’s assessments for the years 2009-2019.

5 November 2020: Montana was formally notified and asked to provide information required for the audit by 4 December 2020.

Montana requested, and was granted, an extension to submit the required information by 1 February 2021.

1 February 2021: Montana failed to submit the required information.

2 February 2021: SARS issued a final demand to Montana to submit the requested information.

7 July 2021: After Montana once again failed to comply, SARS issued a “letter of findings”.

Montana was informed that SARS intended to raise additional income tax assessments to the value of approximately R15.5-million for the tax years 2009 to 2019.

SARS found that Montana had unlawfully evaded his tax liability by under-declaring taxable income he received from various sources over the relevant audit periods.

He was given 21 business days to respond to the audit findings.

11 August 2021: Montana requested and was granted an extension until 16 August 2021 to respond.

16 August 2021: Montana responded to a limited extent only, failing to deal with the bulk and essence of the audit findings

SARS said that instead of using the opportunity, Montana elected to attack SARS by making unsubstantiated allegations against SARS, accusing it of “vindicative [sic] action” and conducting a “witch hunt”.

SARS denied his allegations, advising that it would proceed to finalise the assessments with due consideration of his submissions.

Progress report

11 October 2021: SARS issued Montana with a progress report. Further exchanges between Montana and SARS’ attorneys took place after this.

11 April 2022: SARS issued a Finalisation of Audit letter to Montana.

At this stage, Montana was assessed for tax of approximately R28-million (comprising capital and penalties) for under-declared income for the 2009 to 2019 tax years.

“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,” read the statement from SARS.

27 May 2022: Montana requested and was granted an extension to lodge his objection by no later than 31 May 2022.

31 May 2022: SARS received Montana’s “partial objection”, which, yet again, made unsubstantiated allegations against SARS.

At this point, Montana appointed new auditors/tax representatives and requested a further extension until 1 July 2022 to lodge an objection. SARS granted the request.

1 July 2022: Montana and/or his newly appointed representatives failed to file the objection and asked for a further 30-day extension to do so.

11 July 2022: SARS declined this request. Montana did not request a suspension of payment of his assessed tax liability as per the Tax Administration Act. The outstanding tax debt was therefore due and payable, and SARS issued Montana with a final payment demand. When he failed to make payment, SARS proceeded with recovery steps.

22 July 2022: SARS provided copies of Montana’s bank statements to Montana’s representatives, as requested by them.

11 August 2022: SARS filed an amended certified statement with the Registrar of the High Court. This totalled the overdue old and the new tax debts to arrive at a judgment amount of R44.9-million. SARS noted that interest continues to accrue on this amount.

20 September 2022: Montana submitted a letter to SARS to elaborate on his “objection to the audit raised in his letter dated 31 May 2022”.

Significantly, the letter recorded: “[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.”

'Misrepresentation'

23 September 2022: Montana sent a letter to SARS responding to the default judgment. He wrote: “Apparently, SARS had obtained a default judgment against me at the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) for the total amount of R44.9-million. 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.”

He wrote that he had been advised that the default judgment was obtained by misrepresentation to the high court and could be rescinded.

“The fact that 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,” said SARS at the briefing over the weekend.

30 November 2022: SARS’ attorneys issued a letter informing Montana that his purported objection was invalid and not accepted.  Montana was granted until 31 January 2023 to submit a valid objection. His allegations regarding the default judgment were also addressed in this letter and denied. SARS’ attorneys explained the due process SARS had followed in terms of the Tax Administration Act to obtain the default judgment against him.

22 December 2022: 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 submission of 20 September 2022 to be sufficient.

23 January 2023: SARS responded to Montana and informed him that no further opportunities to file a late objection(s) would be granted.

“Montana has still ... not filed a valid objection,” SARS told the media at the weekend. Under the Tax Administration Act, the additional assessments had therefore become final and were no longer open to dispute.

“Montana’s contention that he only recently became aware of the full extent of his tax liability is therefore false and dishonest,” said SARS.

Condonation application

June 2024: 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… He made unsubstantiated, unfounded, scandalous, vexatious and irrelevant allegations regarding SARS,” said SARS.

14 August 2024: SARS launched an application to strike out the impugned allegations from Montana’s replying affidavit.

21 July 2025: The high court dismissed Montana’s application for condonation with a punitive costs order.

“The court also granted SARS’ application to strike out the scandalous, vexatious and irrelevant allegations from Mr Montana’s replying affidavit,” read SARS’ statement.

Montana has applied for leave to appeal against this judgment. This application will be heard in due course.

8 August 2025: Montana submitted a “compromise” offer to SARS and offered a sum of approximately R5.4-million to satisfy the total tax debt of more than R55-million.

According to SARS: “A prerequisite … 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.”

30 September 2025: SARS responded to Montana’s attorneys and asked Montana to address the legal and formal requirements for such a compromise.

According to SARS, “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.”

Red flags 

Within the sequestration application submitted by SARS, questions around undeclared income, the purchase of luxury cars and Montana’s properties have raised red flags. These are not the first red flags raised about Montana’s properties. At the Zondo Commission’s hearings, questions were raised about whether money flowed from Prasa, where he was chief executive, to properties in the Tshwane area.

Journalist Pieter-Louis Myburgh’s report is available here about the property transactions between Montana and lawyer Riaan van der Walt, who had a relationship with Montana and did legal work for Siyangena Technologies, which received tenders from Prasa.

When Daily Maverick approached Montana to give him a right of reply to this article, he responded via text that he was in a meeting with his political party and unavailable for a call. He said he would respond to SARS at his own media briefing on Monday, 13 October. DM