Questions over alleged tax evasion, undeclared benefits and criminal investigations linked to Jacob Zuma have resurfaced. The South African Revenue Service (Sars) has complained in court papers that records involving the former president and his ties to Royal Security were inconsistently dealt with in an enforcement notice compelling the tax authority to disclose documents relevant to his tax affairs.The dispute, now before the Johannesburg high court, centres on attempts by UK-based financial journalist Warren Thompson to access Zuma’s tax records for 2010 to 2018. Allegations had been made that Zuma may have received taxable income, fringe benefits, and other financial advantages that were allegedly not fully declared or properly accounted for during his presidency and thereafter. The records sought by Thompson included VAT documents, audit findings, correspondence between Sars and Zuma or his attorneys, and records linked to alleged tax evasion investigations.Particular focus was placed on records involving Royal Security, identified in the papers as Zuma’s employer or client during portions of the relevant period.Papers filed by Sars on May 12 show it is seeking to review and set aside an enforcement notice issued by the Information Regulator in November 2025, which directed the tax authority to release several categories of records linked to Zuma’s finances.In its founding affidavit by deputy information officer Siyabonga Nkabinde, Sars said the regulator’s order compels it to disclose documents to Thompson, who “has sought access to the former president’s tax records for a number of years”.The papers further show that the Information Regulator sought clarity from Sars on whether Zuma had declared fringe benefits and whether legal action had ever been instituted against him for unpaid taxes between 2010 and 2018.But Sars now claims the enforcement notice issued by the regulator is contradictory and legally defective.According to the affidavit, references to criminal investigations involving Zuma and Royal Security appeared in parts of the regulator’s findings but were omitted from the operative sections of the enforcement notice itself, creating uncertainty over whether those records were ultimately meant to be disclosed.“Sars recognises its legal duty to comply with an enforcement notice issued by the Information Regulator unless it has a sound legal basis to challenge such a notice,” the affidavit states.“It has been necessary for Sars to launch this application to set aside the Information Regulator’s enforcement notice because that notice is not capable of meaningful compliance. It is internally contradictory, irrational, and incompatible with the common law.”Thompson first sought access to Zuma’s income tax returns in 2019 in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia).Sars initially refused the request, citing taxpayer confidentiality. Thompson’s internal appeal was later dismissed before the broader issue of taxpayer secrecy was dealt with by the Constitutional Court in the landmark Arena Holdings matter.The Constitutional Court subsequently ruled that taxpayer confidentiality is not absolute and that records may be disclosed in the public interest under section 46 of Paia in certain circumstances.Armed with that judgment, Thompson renewed his request in June 2023, arguing that disclosure of Zuma’s records would reveal evidence of substantial contraventions of the law and possible tax noncompliance, but Sars again declined the request.In a refusal letter attached to the court papers, the revenue service siad it had considered the Constitutional Court ruling, Zuma’s objections and the relevant legislative provisions before concluding that the records remained confidential taxpayer information.Nkabinde concluded that the records did “not reveal evidence of a substantial contravention or failure to comply with the law as contemplated in section 46 of Paia”.The dispute escalated after Thompson lodged complaints with the Information Regulator challenging Sars’ refusal to release the documents.A pre-investigation report compiled by the regulator indicates investigators examined whether there was sufficient public interest to override taxpayer confidentiality protections in Zuma’s case.The regulator later issued an enforcement notice directing Sars to disclose several categories of records linked to Zuma’s tax affairs.However, Sars now claims the notice is riddled with contradictions, including orders to provide records that may not exist or cannot be located.“It is, therefore, an enforcement order based on bad reasons,” the affidavit states.“The reasons are so bad that they cut across the entire enforcement order. They leave Sars unclear about what it is required to do and how it is supposed to comply.”Sars further warned that the notice potentially exposes its officials to criminal sanctions for failing to produce documents the institution says it does not possess.“Despite being ordered to produce these records, on pain of criminal sanction, the enforcement notice itself provides no reasoning for why the Information Regulator saw fit to go behind the common cause position of the parties and direct Sars to produce documents that it does not have,” the affidavit reads.Sars argues the case raises broader constitutional questions about the powers of the Information Regulator, the principle of legality and the extent to which taxpayer confidentiality can be lifted in matters involving allegations of public interest tax misconduct.“The Information Regulator acts consistently with the rule of law and the principle of legality is an issue of significance beyond the parties affected by this application,” the affidavit states.“Sars therefore brings this case not only in its own interests, but also in the public interest.”