Determining with certainty how the tax authorities will treat a particular financial instrument issued is not straightforward, and this poses a risk to corporate taxpayers tasked with generating shareholder value and predictable shareholder returns. The tax classification of financial instruments, as either debt or equity instruments, may have a profound impact from a corporate taxation perspective and the reclassification of financial instruments by a tax authority, in an unanticipated manner, can alter expected tax consequences. Previous studies have placed less emphasis on the potential discrepancies between the debt or equity classification of financial instruments from a tax-versus-corporate-reporting perspective and the reasons for such potential discrepancies. This study aims to identify potential factors, giving rise to divergent financial instrument classifications between tax and financial reporting, in order to gain insight into the reasons for the potential divergence. The research objectives of the study are to determine whether there is incongruity between the tax and accounting classification of selected financial instruments; to identify the factors giving rise to a possible incongruent outcome; and to evaluate the reasons for incongruity, in order to gain insight into the differing objectives of taxation and corporate reporting. Case studies were obtained from the technical department of a large accountancy firm in South Africa to analyse specific fact patterns. It was found that incongruence exists between the financial reporting and taxation classification of financial instruments from the perspective of the issuer of those instruments. This incongruence was attributed to the impact of contingent settlement provisions and the rules-based approach adopted by tax authorities, as opposed to the principle or substance-based approach favoured by financial reporting. The incongruence noted suggests that, based on their differing objectives, financial reporting favours the classification of financial instruments as debt whilst taxation favours the classification of financial instruments as equity. Although the approaches currently followed by financial reporting and taxation are different, recent taxation amendments have incorporated financial reporting guidance into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. Future research can be conducted to determine the impact of aligning financial reporting and taxation principles on tax certainty from a taxpayer perspective. / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / lmchunu2014 / Taxation / unrestricted

Instrumentos financeiros híbridos e/ou compostos têm sido tema constante em matéria de regulação contábil. A literatura positiva apresenta uma hipótese que ajuda a compreender o porquê de algumas firmas recorrerem a ditos instrumentos para captar recursos: nível de endividamento no limite de quebra de covenants contratuais. No Brasil, firmas com registro na CVM, que se utilizaram desses instrumentos, classificando-os no patrimônio líquido, tiveram suas ITRs e/ou DFs reapresentadas e/ou republicadas por determinação da CVM. O ponto crítico de toda a discussão reside na distinção entre um item de passivo e um item de patrimônio líquido. Esse tema está disciplinado na IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) e presente no Discussion Paper - A review of the conceptual framework for financial reporting, emitido pelo IASB em julho de 2013, que apresenta duas abordagens que podem ser utilizadas, visando a simplificar a distinção entre um item de passivo e de patrimônio líquido: a narrow equity approach - NEA e a strict obligation approach - SOA. A adoção de cada uma dessas abordagens terá um impacto diferente nos níveis de endividamento/alavancagem e no potencial de diluição de participação dos acionistas. Este trabalho tem como objetivo investigar abordagens para a classificação contábil das debêntures mandatoriamente conversíveis em ações, vis-à-vis a IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) e o Discussion Paper do IASB (NEA x SOA). A metodologia adotada é um estudo de caso de uma companhia aberta brasileira, que em 2010 emitiu debêntures mandatoriamente conversíveis e efetuou uma classificação desses instrumentos considerada inadequada pelo órgão regulador. Observa-se que a strict obligation approach é a abordagem que impacta menos no nível de endividamento, enquanto a narrow equity approach é a que apresenta maior alavancagem. As evidências sugerem os covenants contratuais como possíveis indutores de tal prática, fato que está em linha com o que a literatura da área documenta como fenômeno esperado. É bem verdade que no caso concreto, houve quebra contínua de covenants contratuais, corroborando a hipótese apresentada por SILVA (2008) de que o baixo custo de violação de covenants contribua para tal situação. Alternativamente, uma possível explicação para a escolha contábil da companhia reside na complexidade da IAS 32 (PT CPC 39) e desconhecimento de suas nuances. / Hybrid financial instruments and/or compounds has been a constant theme regarding accounting regulation. The positive literature presents a hypothesis that help to understand why some companies appeal to said instruments to raise funds: Indebtedness level on the breach limit of contractual covenants. In Brazil, companies with CVM register, that used these instruments, sorting them on the equity, had their quarterly statements and/or financial statements restated and/or republished by CVM resolution. The critical point of the whole discussion lies in the distinction between a liability item and an equity item. This subject is covered in the IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) and is present in "Discussion Paper - A review of the conceptual framework for financial reporting", issued by IASB in July 2013, having two approaches that can be used, order to simplify the distinction between an item of liabilities and equity: the narrow equity approach - NEA and the strict obligation approach - SOA. The adoption of each of these approaches have a different impact on levels of debt / leverage and the potential dilution of the shareholding. This work aims to investigate approaches to accounting classification of mandatorily convertible debentures, vis-à-vis the IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) and the Discussion Paper of the IASB (NEA x SOA).The methodology used is a case study of a Brazilian corporation, that in 2010 issued mandatorily convertible debentures and made a classification of these instruments deemed inappropriate by the regulator. It can be observed that the strict obligation approach is the approach that impacts least on the level of indebtedness, while the narrow equity approach is the one that have the most leverage. Evidence suggests the contractual covenants as potencial inducers of such practice, fact which is in accordance with the literature documenting the area as a phenomenon expected. It is true that in the case in, there was continuous breach of the contractual covenants, corroborating the hypothesis presented by SILVA (2008) that the low cost of violation of covenants contribute to such a situation. Alternatively, a possible explanation for the choice of the accounting company is the complexity of IAS 32 (PT CPC 39) and ignorance of its nuances.

Instrumentos financeiros híbridos e/ou compostos têm sido tema constante em matéria de regulação contábil. A literatura positiva apresenta uma hipótese que ajuda a compreender o porquê de algumas firmas recorrerem a ditos instrumentos para captar recursos: nível de endividamento no limite de quebra de covenants contratuais. No Brasil, firmas com registro na CVM, que se utilizaram desses instrumentos, classificando-os no patrimônio líquido, tiveram suas ITRs e/ou DFs reapresentadas e/ou republicadas por determinação da CVM. O ponto crítico de toda a discussão reside na distinção entre um item de passivo e um item de patrimônio líquido. Esse tema está disciplinado na IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) e presente no Discussion Paper - A review of the conceptual framework for financial reporting, emitido pelo IASB em julho de 2013, que apresenta duas abordagens que podem ser utilizadas, visando a simplificar a distinção entre um item de passivo e de patrimônio líquido: a narrow equity approach - NEA e a strict obligation approach - SOA. A adoção de cada uma dessas abordagens terá um impacto diferente nos níveis de endividamento/alavancagem e no potencial de diluição de participação dos acionistas. Este trabalho tem como objetivo investigar abordagens para a classificação contábil das debêntures mandatoriamente conversíveis em ações, vis-à-vis a IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) e o Discussion Paper do IASB (NEA x SOA). A metodologia adotada é um estudo de caso de uma companhia aberta brasileira, que em 2010 emitiu debêntures mandatoriamente conversíveis e efetuou uma classificação desses instrumentos considerada inadequada pelo órgão regulador. Observa-se que a strict obligation approach é a abordagem que impacta menos no nível de endividamento, enquanto a narrow equity approach é a que apresenta maior alavancagem. As evidências sugerem os covenants contratuais como possíveis indutores de tal prática, fato que está em linha com o que a literatura da área documenta como fenômeno esperado. É bem verdade que no caso concreto, houve quebra contínua de covenants contratuais, corroborando a hipótese apresentada por SILVA (2008) de que o baixo custo de violação de covenants contribua para tal situação. Alternativamente, uma possível explicação para a escolha contábil da companhia reside na complexidade da IAS 32 (PT CPC 39) e desconhecimento de suas nuances. / Hybrid financial instruments and/or compounds has been a constant theme regarding accounting regulation. The positive literature presents a hypothesis that help to understand why some companies appeal to said instruments to raise funds: Indebtedness level on the breach limit of contractual covenants. In Brazil, companies with CVM register, that used these instruments, sorting them on the equity, had their quarterly statements and/or financial statements restated and/or republished by CVM resolution. The critical point of the whole discussion lies in the distinction between a liability item and an equity item. This subject is covered in the IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) and is present in "Discussion Paper - A review of the conceptual framework for financial reporting", issued by IASB in July 2013, having two approaches that can be used, order to simplify the distinction between an item of liabilities and equity: the narrow equity approach - NEA and the strict obligation approach - SOA. The adoption of each of these approaches have a different impact on levels of debt / leverage and the potential dilution of the shareholding. This work aims to investigate approaches to accounting classification of mandatorily convertible debentures, vis-à-vis the IAS 32 (PT CPC n. 39) and the Discussion Paper of the IASB (NEA x SOA).The methodology used is a case study of a Brazilian corporation, that in 2010 issued mandatorily convertible debentures and made a classification of these instruments deemed inappropriate by the regulator. It can be observed that the strict obligation approach is the approach that impacts least on the level of indebtedness, while the narrow equity approach is the one that have the most leverage. Evidence suggests the contractual covenants as potencial inducers of such practice, fact which is in accordance with the literature documenting the area as a phenomenon expected. It is true that in the case in, there was continuous breach of the contractual covenants, corroborating the hypothesis presented by SILVA (2008) that the low cost of violation of covenants contribute to such a situation. Alternatively, a possible explanation for the choice of the accounting company is the complexity of IAS 32 (PT CPC 39) and ignorance of its nuances.