The capital v revenue question in the context of government grants: The SCA decides in favour of the motor manufacturing industry

Author: Louis Botha and Louise Kotze. In the recent case of Volkswagen South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service 80 SATC 179, the age-old question of whether a receipt is capital or revenue in nature was addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), in the context of government grants paid to motor vehicle manufacturers.

SARS issues new guide to understatement penalties – a march toward further certainty?

Author: Jerome Brink (Senior Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). The Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA) was promulgated with effect from 1 October 2012. The rationale behind the introduction of the TAA was that it would streamline, modernise and align the previous tax administration provisions to ultimately lower the cost and burden of tax administration in South Africa. One of the key changes to the tax administration regime in South Africa pursuant to the promulgation of the TAA was the conversion from the imposition of additional tax by SARS to the understatement penalty regime.

Major new tax burden introduced

Author: David Warneke (Partner and head of Tax Technical at BDO South Africa). The Taxation Laws Amendment Act of 2017 (Act 17 of 2017) which was promulgated on 18 December 2017 contains provisions, namely section 22B of the principal Income Tax Act and paragraph 43A of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, that will result in a significant compliance burden for companies, even in cases in which they do not result in additional taxation. The provisions deal with disposals of shares in a company (say A) that are held by another company (say B) in circumstances in which B held a significant portion of the equity shares (which the Amendment Act defines as a qualifying interest) in A at any time within the 18 months preceding the disposal. Section 22B applies in situations in which the shares that are the subject of the provision are held as trading Read More …

Deductibility of legal expenses

Author: Gigi Nyanin (Associate at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). For purposes of determining the taxable income derived by any person from carrying on a trade, s11(c) of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962 (Act) provides for the deduction of legal expenses which arise in the course of or by reason of a taxpayers ordinary trading operations. More specifically, any legal expenses actually incurred by a taxpayer in respect of any claim, dispute or action at law arising in the course of or by reason of the ordinary operations undertaken by the [taxpayer] in the carrying on of [its] trade will be deductible.

The shoe is on the other foot: The High Court orders SARS to discover documents in the context of a review application

Authors: Louis Botha and Nandipha Mzizi(Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). It seldom happens that the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is compelled to provide documents to a taxpayer, while SARS is conducting an audit. In Carte Blanche Marketing CC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (26244/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 253 (26 May 2017), the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria had to decide whether SARS should be compelled to produce certain documents requested by the applicants (Taxpayers) in the context of a review application brought by the Taxpayers. The main proceedings in this matter involve a review application which the Taxpayers brought against SARS seeking to set aside the decision of SARS to audit them in terms of s40 of the Tax Administration Act, No 28 of 2011 (TAA).

Can SARS limit legal professional privilege?

Authors: Natalie Napier and Phillip Lourens (Hogan Lovells). New rules have come into effect for how legal professional privilege is regulated, we look at what effects they may have in practise. Amendments have been made to the Tax Administration Act (the TAA) by the insertion of a new section 42A with effect from 8 January 2016. Section 42A prescribes the procedures and requirements that must be followed by the taxpayer in order to claim legal professional privilege in respect of relevant material required by SARS, during an inquiry or during the conduct of a search and seizure by SARS. 

SARS looks to clear up misconceptions relating to tax exemption for foreign employment income

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued Draft Interpretation Note 16 (Issue 2) (Draft IN) for public comment recently. When compared to the current Interpretation Note 16 (IN16), the Draft IN indicates a marked shift, on certain aspects, in SARS’s interpretation of the tax exemption that applies to foreign employment income, under s10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act).

Interpretation of the term ‘substantially the whole’

Authors: Nicole Paulsen and Gigi Nyanin. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) released Binding General Ruling No. 20 (issue 2) (BGR 20) on 20 January 2016, which provides clarity on the interpretation of the term ‘substantially the whole’ as referred to in specific sections of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act).

Proposed unilateral extension of prescription by SARS

Section 99 of the Tax Administration Act, 28 of 2011 (“Tax Admin Act”) regulates prescription in relation to tax assessments and provides for a three year prescription period in respect of income tax assessments and a five year prescription period in the case of self-assessment taxes (e.g. value-added tax and employees’ tax). Generally, the prescription period that prohibits SARS from issuing an additional assessment does not apply if the reason why the full amount of tax was not charged was due to fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts by the taxpayer. When the tax is a self-assessment tax, the basis on which the prescription period does not apply differs in that it refers to fraud, as well as intentional and negligent misrepresentation or non-disclosure.

Binding Ruling on issue of capitalisation shares

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued Binding Private Ruling No 201 (Ruling) on 13 August 2015. The Applicant, being a natural person, held 100% of the equity shares in a resident operating company (OpCo). OpCo, in turn, owned 100% of the shares in a dormant resident company (Co-Applicant). The parties wished to introduce a black-owned company (BEECo) as a shareholder in OpCo in order to improve its Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) credentials.