"Pay Now, Argue Later" Rule – Before and After the Tax Administration Act

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) is entrusted with the duty of collecting tax on behalf of the South African government. In order to ensure effective and prompt collection of taxes, the payment of tax is not suspended pending an objection or an appeal, unless directed otherwise. This is also known as the "pay now, argue later" rule, and, for value-added tax purposes, is provided for in terms of section 36 of the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991. The "pay now, argue later" rule in terms of section 36 of the Value-Added Tax Act prima facie infringes on a taxpayer's right of access to the courts as envisaged in section 34 of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that a taxpayer is obliged to pay tax before being afforded the opportunity to challenge the assessment in a court. In Metcash Trading Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, the Constitutional Court held the "pay now, argue later" rule in terms of section 36 to be constitutional. Olivier, however, does not agree with the court on several matters. Amongst the problems she indicates are that the taxpayer does not have access to the courts at the time the rule is invoked, and that the court did not consider the fact that there might be less invasive means available which would ensure that SARS's duty is balanced with the taxpayer's right of access to the courts. Guidelines were also issued which provide legal certainty regarding the factors SARS may consider in determining whether the payment of tax should be suspended or not. These guidelines also evoked some points of criticism. Since 1 October 2012, the "pay now, argue later" rule has been applied in terms of section 164 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011. The question arises whether this provision addresses the problems identified in respect of section 36 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the guidelines. In comparing these sections, only slight differences emerged. The most significant difference is that section 164(6) of the Tax Administration Act stipulates that the enforcement of tax be suspended for a period when SARS is considering a request for suspension. Section 164(6) does not provide a solution to the problems identified regarding section 36 of the Value-Added Tax Act. It is even possible that this section could give rise to further problems. Therefore, the legislature has failed to address the imbalance between the duties of SARS and the right of a taxpayer to access the courts.   

Introducing VTT-ConIot: A Realistic Dataset for Activity Recognition of Construction Workers Using IMU Devices

Sustainable work aims at improving working conditions to allow workers to effectively extend their working life. In this context, occupational safety and well-being are major concerns, especially in labor-intensive fields, such as construction-related work. Internet of Things and wearable sensors provide for unobtrusive technology that could enhance safety using human activity recognition techniques, and has the potential of improving work conditions and health. However, the research community lacks commonly used standard datasets that provide for realistic and variating activities from multiple users. In this article, our contributions are threefold. First, we present VTT-ConIoT, a new publicly available dataset for the evaluation of HAR from inertial sensors in professional construction settings. The dataset, which contains data from 13 users and 16 different activities, is collected from three different wearable sensor locations.Second, we provide a benchmark baseline for human activity recognition that shows a classification accuracy of up to 89% for a six class setup and up to 78% for a sixteen class more granular one. Finally, we show an analysis of the representativity and usefulness of the dataset by comparing it with data collected in a pilot study made in a real construction environment with real workers