What should a buyer ask when a seller will not provide authority to check tax status?

Clarify exactly which tax check is being refused

A seller may understand a request for tax access as a request for their personal login or the company's entire tax file. Explain the purpose and scope. Identify the company, the status being checked and the evidence needed for the purchase decision.

Ask whether the concern is confidentiality, lack of authority, an access problem or unwillingness to disclose a known issue. These explanations call for different next steps. A refusal alone does not prove fraud or debt, but it leaves a question that should not be treated as resolved.

Record the request and response accurately. Avoid a vague note saying tax checked when all that occurred was a conversation. The buyer needs to understand what evidence exists, what was independently verified and what remains based only on the seller's statement.

Separate VAT registration from tax compliance and history

Do not accept a document answering one question as though it answers all four. An old VAT notice can be authentic while still leaving current compliance and earlier periods unexamined.

Match each piece of evidence to the correct company. Similar names, shared directors or a group relationship do not make another entity's status relevant proof for the company being purchased.

Propose an authorised verification method

The SARS Tax Compliance Status guide describes the verification functionality and taxpayer-controlled process. Ask the seller or authorised representative to use the appropriate route for the information the buyer needs.

A TCS PIN is an authorisation mechanism for the relevant status check, not the seller's personal eFiling password. Keep the scope clear and handle the information appropriately. Do not request one-time codes, recovery secrets or unrestricted access as a substitute for proper authorisation.

Where an adviser assists, agree their mandate and reporting scope. A statement that an accountant looked at the account should identify what was reviewed, when and with what limitations. The buyer needs an understandable result, not merely the name of a professional who was involved.

Address confidentiality without abandoning the check

Ask what information the seller considers sensitive and whether a proportionate arrangement can resolve the concern. An agreed adviser review, controlled disclosure or confidentiality agreement may help, depending on the transaction and evidence required.

Keep the information request limited to the decision. A buyer does not need personal credentials or unrelated taxpayer records to assess the named company. At the same time, confidentiality should not turn a material company issue into an assumption that the buyer must simply accept.

Agree who can receive the information and how it will be retained. If documents are redacted, check whether the remaining content still answers the question. Agree in advance which identifiers and result fields the reviewer needs to see, and whether sensitive supporting records can remain with an authorised adviser. The resulting report should still connect its findings to the correct entity and period. A confidentiality arrangement is useful only if it preserves enough evidence for the decision it is meant to support. A record that removes the entity, period or result may no longer provide meaningful evidence for the proposed purchase.

Distinguish a practical access problem from a verified result

The company may have an outdated representative record, inaccessible contact details or an unresolved practitioner handover. Ask for the precise obstacle and the plan to correct it. The SARS representative process may be relevant to restoring proper authority.

Record the case reference, responsible person and next action. A support request can show that work is underway, but it does not establish the tax status or resolve every historical question. Keep those outcomes separate in the due-diligence record.

Consider the effect on the intended handover. If the current owner cannot obtain authorised access, the buyer should understand how the incoming company representative will receive notices and maintain compliance. Do not assume access will become easy solely because the share sale has completed.

Ask for the historical records relevant to the stated company history

Request a written explanation of the company's activities, registrations, filed returns, assessments and known disputes. Ask how the statement no trading fits with any bank activity, expenses or tax filings. No sales does not necessarily mean no obligations.

Have an appropriately qualified reviewer assess material gaps. The review may need underlying financial records as well as tax documents. A current favourable status does not prove that all commercial liabilities have been disclosed or that every transaction was correctly treated.

Keep the scope proportionate and explicit. Identify the periods and tax types reviewed and those not reviewed. If the seller cannot provide the evidence, record that limitation rather than replacing it with a general clean-company assurance in the purchase recommendation.

Discuss the effect of missing evidence on the transaction

Take unresolved matters to the adviser reviewing the proposed agreement. Discuss whether evidence must be provided before completion and how responsibilities for earlier periods will be addressed. The appropriate response depends on the facts and terms.

Do not assume a seller's warranty removes the need for investigation. A contractual statement and the practical ability to enforce a remedy are separate considerations. Ask the adviser to explain the proposed protection and its limits in language the buyer understands.

A deposit, reservation or earlier communication may already have consequences even before the final agreement is signed. Keep those records and obtain advice before assuming money can be recovered or commitments ignored. The article does not establish a universal refund or cancellation right.

Use a clear evidence record for an illustrative refusal

Suppose a seller supplies an old VAT registration notice but declines to arrange a current status check. The buyer asks whether the issue is confidentiality or missing representative access. The seller then explains that the registered contact is a former accountant and a correction request is pending.

The buyer can record the old notice as registration evidence, the access issue as unresolved and the proposed correction as work in progress. It should not record current compliance as verified. The purchase decision should take account of both the missing status result and the practical handover problem.

If the correction succeeds, the buyer can obtain the authorised check and update the record. If it does not, the uncertainty remains. Neither optimism nor an approaching commercial deadline changes the evidence available.

Make the decision from the evidence actually available

Prepare a short summary of completed checks, unresolved questions and the seller's responses. Identify any item essential to the intended use of the company. Decide with the appropriate advice whether to continue reviewing, seek different terms or consider another entity.

VAT registered company purchase support can help organise the information request and route. Confirm the actual review scope and do not assume the service includes a legal or forensic assurance about every historical matter.

The key question is whether the buyer has enough reliable information to make an informed commitment. A seller's refusal may have an explainable cause, but an explanation is not the same as the missing verification. Keep that distinction visible through agreement and handover.

Preserve the dated evidence and any later update so the incoming accountant can understand the decision. If a check is completed after the initial review, record the new result without rewriting the earlier uncertainty as though verification existed from the start.