Author: Mareli Treurnicht (Director at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). On 19 July 2017 National Treasury published the Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2017 (Bill) in terms of which it proposes to clarify the tax implications arising when a person assumes contingent liabilities under the corporate reorganisation rules contained in s41 to s47 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) (Corporate Reorganisation Rules).
Author: Heinrich Louw (Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Judgment was delivered in the tax court on 30 May 2017 in the matter of M v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (case number 14005, as yet unreported). The case dealt with the familiar question of whether proceeds had accrued in a particular year of assessment, even though payment was only received in a subsequent year of assessment. While the judgment is not by any means ground-breaking, it serves as additional authority for some of the established principles, and touches on some finer points, regarding the suspension of performance. In this case the taxpayer had sold certain immovable properties during its 2013 year of assessment. It was a term of the agreements of sale that the buyer would only make payment of the purchase consideration against transfer of the relevant immovable property a term that is relatively common. Transfer was only given Read More …
The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has sought to provide guidance on a difficult tax issue: the assumption (taking over) of contingent liabilities on the acquisition of a business as a going concern. In this regard SARS has issued Interpretation Note 94 dated 19 December 2016 (IN). The matter is best discussed by way of examples. Example 1: The seller (S) runs a toy shop. He owns the shop building and a stock of toys. The value of the building is R60 and the value of the stock is R30. He owes a supplier R15. S has two employees:
Authors: Louis Botha, Heinrich Louw and Mark Morgan. On 4 November 2016 judgment was handed down by the Tax Court of South Africa (held in Cape Town) in the matter of ABC Holdings (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, Case number ITI13772. In this case the court had to consider whether the taxpayer, ABC Holdings (Pty) Ltd, was entitled to claim a deductible allowance of enhancement income of R9,354,458.00 received in terms of a contract for future expenditure in terms of s24C of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) for its 2011 year of assessment. The other issue that arose in this case and which is the focus of this article, was whether the South African Revenue Service (SARS) was correct to levy an understatement penalty in the circumstances.
Renewable energy is seen as the long term future to the planet’s energy demands as a result of the increasing effects of climate change due to the long term use of fossil fuels. South Africa, in particular, has certain obligations as a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to ensure the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and to incentivise investments in low carbon, clean energy. In addition to the environmental factors, South Africa’s load shedding and insufficient power supply has resulted in a further demand for the greater procurement and use of renewable energy.
The Venture Capital Company (VCC) Tax Regime was introduced into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (Act) to encourage investment into small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and junior mining companies. Since its inception in 2008 and despite subsequent amendments in 2011, there has been limited take-up in the market, with only a handful of VCC funds having become fully funded and operational.
Authors: Gigi Nyanin and Mark Morgan. On 8 July 2016, National Treasury (Treasury) released a draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB) and specific draft regulations related thereto, all of which aim to give effect to the various tax proposals announced in the 2016 National Budget Speech. One of these proposals relates to the extension of the small business corporations (SBCs) tax regime to personal liability companies (PLCs).
Authors: Gigi Nyanin and Nicole Paulsen. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) released Binding Private Ruling No 230 (Ruling) on 4 May 2016, which deals with successive corporate reorganisation transactions. The Ruling concerns the tax consequences of the disposal of an asset in terms of an ‘asset-for-share’ transaction as defined in s42(1) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) within 18 months of its acquisition in terms of an ‘intra-group transaction’ as contemplated in s45(1)(a) of the Act. The Ruling concerns the tax consequences of the disposal of an asset in terms of an ‘asset-for-share’ transaction as defined in s42(1) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) within 18 months of its acquisition in terms of an ‘intra-group transaction’ as contemplated in s45(1)(a) of the Act.
As a basic principle, under section 102(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (the TAA), the onus of proof that an amount is not taxable or that an amount is deductible, rests on the taxpayer, whereas under section 102(2) of the TAA, the onus of proof pertaining to the facts upon which an understatement penalty is imposed, is upon the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Too often, upon the conclusion of investigations or reviews, SARS threatens exorbitant understatement penalties for seemingly innocuous and easily resolvable queries. A good example is the classic turnover/expenditure reconciliation process which could produce, in certain instances, horrendous results for a taxpayer where the calculations are devoid of commercial logic.
Author: Alan Lewis (Practitioner in Private Practice). We look at exceptions to SARS’ pay now, argue later rule and how they are being applied At first glance, it appears that the “pay now, argue later-rule” approach, which applies when SARS’ demands payment of all outstanding or assessed taxes, is set in stone. In terms of Section 164 (1) of Tax Administration Act (TAA), a taxpayer’s obligation to pay taxes, and SARS’ right to recover taxes, is not suspended by an objection, appeal, or pending the decision of the Tax Court. This means that, in most cases, a taxpayer’s pleas for an extension of their obligation to pay these taxes falls on deaf ears.