If US President Donald J Trump could have a book, The Art of the Deal, written by journalist Tony Schwartz and credited to him, then why can I not have a column credited to me that South African Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana essentially wrote?

You will not have read about what follows in Godongwana’s 2026 National Budget speech, delivered on February 25; rather, what appeared in the Budget Review’s ‘Annexure C: Additional Tax Policy And Administrative Adjustments’.

French artist Edgar Degas once famously said: “Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” So, in that vein, what can I make you see? First off, under ‘Customs and Excise Duty’, there is an increase in the ‘sin tax’ on goods. Truth be told, you might have seen or heard about the headlines in the Finance Minister’s speech.

Next off are the headlines ‘Tax administration: Customs and Excise Act’ and ‘Providing enabling provisions relating to ATA Carnets’. The instalment of this column published on February 13 was titled ‘Carnets kick into digital gear’. In the Budget, it was noted: “The ATA Carnet system, established under the ATA and Istanbul Conventions, enables the temporary admission of certain goods, such as commercial samples, professional equipment, and exhibition items, into foreign territories without the payment of duties or taxes.

“Carnets were historically issued in paper form by the national guaranteeing associations and processed manually at border posts. “The World Customs Organisation and the International Chamber of Commerce have launched an electronic ATA Carnet project, which mandates fully digitised carnets. “To ensure that South Africa can implement the new requirements of the international agreement, an amendment to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, is proposed to enable the South African Revenue Service commissioner to issue rules governing the issuance, use and submission of international Carnets for goods temporarily imported or exported.”

Under ‘Amendments to facilitate the administration of carbon tax refunds’, it is noted: “The insertion in the Carbon Tax Act, 2025, provides for a refund where an entity complies with carbon budgets over a five-year period. Carbon Tax refunds are administered in terms of the Act, 1964, and a two-year prescription period applies for customs and excise refund claims. “It is therefore proposed that the Act, 1964, be amended to facilitate the administration of Carbon Tax refunds claimed over a longer period.”

With reference to ‘Discretion to exempt non-compliance in relation to rebates in Schedules No 3, 4 and 6’, it is noted: “The Act, 1964, gives the commissioner broad discretion to exempt or condone non-compliance by taxpayers who fail to meet conditions or requirements prescribed by rule or in the notes to the schedules of the Act, 1964, in respect of any goods specified in an item of these schedules. “The modern legislative approach is to move away from broad discretion and to provide criteria for its exercise, enhancing clarity and certainty. It is proposed that the discretion be redrafted accordingly.”

The Budget also addresses ‘Separating the carbon fuel levy from the general fuel levy, noting: “When the carbon fuel levy was introduced under the Carbon Tax Act, 2025, the systems were not designed to facilitate separate payment of these levies. “As a result, the carbon fuel levy applicable to petrol and diesel was included as part of the general fuel levy provided for in the Act, 1964. Since the implementation of the carbon fuel levy, new tariff items attracting this levy have been introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2024. “Systems changes were required to accommodate the integration of these new tariff items, and the carbon fuel levy can now be separated from the general fuel levy. It is proposed that a new part is inserted into the Act, 1964, to provide separately for the administration of the carbon fuel levy.”

Concerning ‘Amendments in relation to electronic heated tobacco products’, it is noted: “Taxing electronic heated tobacco products based on tobacco content rather than by stick is considered a more effective public health strategy because it reduces the industry’s ability to control the tax base and encourages healthier consumer choices. “It is proposed that the statistical unit of measure ‘per 10 sticks’ be changed to ‘per kilogram net’ for electronic heated tobacco products.”

And now you have seen what, I bet, others have not seen.