Why “straightforward” tax returns are often anything but
It usually starts like this.
“My tax return is very straightforward.”
And then, almost as an afterthought:
“I work from home… and there’s some travelling as well.”
At that point, it is no longer a straightforward return.
The moment where it shifts
In most cases, the intention behind the statement is not incorrect.
From the taxpayer’s perspective:
- there is a single source of income
- the work environment feels simple
- the deductions being mentioned seem routine
Because of this, nothing about the situation feels complex.
The complexity only becomes visible when you unpack the details.
The work-from-home element
Working from home does not necessarily complicate a return.
However, what matters is:
- how often the taxpayer performs work from home
- what space they use
- whether the employer provides an alternative work environment
The taxpayer does not always consider these questions at the point where they describe the return as “straightforward”.
In many cases:
- the taxpayer works from a shared area
- they do not use the space exclusively
- or the arrangement has changed over time
Despite this, the assumption remains that the expense qualifies because work happens at home.
How the home office position drifts over time
In many of these situations, the original position was not unreasonable.
At some point:
- the taxpayer performed work from home more consistently
- they may have set aside a specific area
- the claim reflected that setup
Back then, the treatment aligned with how the work was being done.
Over time, however, the circumstances start to shift.
Work arrangements change:
- the employer introduces a hybrid model
- additionaly, the employer provides office space
- the area at home is no longer used in the same dedicated way
Because these changes happen gradually, they do not always trigger a reassessment of the original claim.
Consequently, the taxpayer continues to prepare the return the same way.
When SARS later reviews the return, the focus falls on what exists at that point.
Specifically, the detail starts to matter:
- Is there a clearly defined workspace?
- Does the taxpayer use it exclusively for work?
- Is there an alternative place of work available?
Where the current situation no longer meets those requirements, the claim does not hold.
The taxpayer may still have:
- photographs
- floor plans
- expense records
But those records reflect a setup that is no longer in place.
In other words, the documentation supports the original position — not the current one.
The travel element
A similar pattern often appears with travel.
The taxpayer usually describes “the travelling” in general terms.
However, only when you unpack the detail does it become clear that the travel consists mainly of:
- going to and from a regular place of work
- or following a routine pattern
Even where some work happens from home, this does not automatically change the nature of that travel.
How the travel position drifts
At some stage, the use of the vehicle supported a deductible claim.
The taxpayer:
- travelled between locations for work
- maintained a logbook
- and prepared the claim based on the nature of that travel
The taxpayer kept the records, and the process made sense at the time.
As circumstances evolve, however, the use of the vehicle changes.
Travel patterns shift:
- the taxpayer spends more time working from home
- meanwhile, movement becomes more routine
- the distinction between private and work-related travel becomes less clear
The taxpayer continues to maintain the logbook, but the underlying nature of the travel is no longer the same.
When SARS reviews the claim, the presence of a logbook does not determine the outcome.
Instead, what matters is:
what the recorded travel actually represents
And in many cases, the travel reflected is primarily:
- between home and a regular place of work
- or part of a routine that does not meet the requirements for a deduction
Where the disconnect happens
What the taxpayer describes as a straightforward tax return usually refers to:
the income structure
What they often overlook is:
how the deductions need to be assessed against the actual requirements
This is not about doing something incorrectly.
Rather, it is about:
- assumptions being carried forward
- without reconsidering whether they still apply
What this looks like in practice
By the time the taxpayer prepares the return:
- the structure feels familiar
- the information is available
- and the process appears simple
As a result, they describe the return with confidence:
“it’s very straightforward”
It is only when the return is looked at more closely — or tested — that the detail starts to matter.
Conclusion
A return can appear to be a straightforward tax return in form, but not necessarily in substance.
Once a home working arrangement and travel claims are introduced, these elements need to be considered in terms of how they actually function in practice.
Ultimately, the complexity is not always in how things are described.
Instead, it sits in how they align with the requirements once they are looked at more carefully.
Because what starts as a straightforward tax return does not always remain one — especially when circumstances have quietly changed.
About the author
I am a registered tax practitioner with SARS and hold the designation General Tax Practitioner (GTP(SA)) with the South African Institute of Tax Professionals.
Over the past 15 years, my experience has spanned bookkeeping, financial statements, payroll, and tax compliance across a range of industries and client types.
I own and run Schlebusch Tax & Accounting, a boutique practice based in Centurion, where I work primarily with individuals and sole proprietors who need structured, ongoing tax and accounting support.