The South African Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) does not specifically deal with the tax treatment of receipts resulting from illegal activities. Expenditure resulting from illegal activities is also only partly dealt with in terms of Section 23(o) of the Income Tax Act. This has resulted in uncertainty pertaining to the normal income tax treatment of illegal activities within a South African context. In response to this, the South African Revenue Service has issued a draft interpretation note dealing with the tax consequences of embezzlement and theft of money for both the victim as well as the offender during 2013. This draft interpretation note also deals with the normal tax consequences of illegal receipt in the hands of the thief. In an attempt to evaluate this draft interpretation note to clarify the tax consequences of illegal activities in South Africa, the meaning of illegal receipts is firstly determined. Subsequently the concept of „illegal receipts‟ is measured against the definition of „gross income‟ contained in Section 1 of the Income Tax Act. Expenditure relating to illegal activities is also analysed and measured against the general deduction formula contained in Section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act. Relevant principles established from general case law applicable to the definition of gross income as well as the general deduction formula is analysed to determine its applicability within the context of illegal receipts and expenditure. Also, principles established through case law, both nationally and internationally, specifically applicable to the taxation of illegal activities were analysed to establish guidelines that could be applied to clarify the taxability of illegal activities within a South African context. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

The South African Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) does not specifically deal with the tax treatment of receipts resulting from illegal activities. Expenditure resulting from illegal activities is also only partly dealt with in terms of Section 23(o) of the Income Tax Act. This has resulted in uncertainty pertaining to the normal income tax treatment of illegal activities within a South African context. In response to this, the South African Revenue Service has issued a draft interpretation note dealing with the tax consequences of embezzlement and theft of money for both the victim as well as the offender during 2013. This draft interpretation note also deals with the normal tax consequences of illegal receipt in the hands of the thief. In an attempt to evaluate this draft interpretation note to clarify the tax consequences of illegal activities in South Africa, the meaning of illegal receipts is firstly determined. Subsequently the concept of „illegal receipts‟ is measured against the definition of „gross income‟ contained in Section 1 of the Income Tax Act. Expenditure relating to illegal activities is also analysed and measured against the general deduction formula contained in Section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act. Relevant principles established from general case law applicable to the definition of gross income as well as the general deduction formula is analysed to determine its applicability within the context of illegal receipts and expenditure. Also, principles established through case law, both nationally and internationally, specifically applicable to the taxation of illegal activities were analysed to establish guidelines that could be applied to clarify the taxability of illegal activities within a South African context. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

From time to time the court delivers a judgment that has a ripple effect beyond what was expected, resulting in estate planners reconsidering their planning strategies. Such a judgment was the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the case of the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Brummeria Renaissance 2007 6 SA 601 (SCA) (Brummeria case). In this case the interest-free loan and the right to use loan capital free of any interest obligation were under scrutiny. The SCA had to rule on whether or not this right had a determinable value and whether or not this value could be taxable in the hands of the borrower. The SCA ruled that the right under an interest-free loan should be included in the gross income of the borrower. Since estate planning often involves the use of an interest-free loan, as estate planning tool, to remove a growth asset from the estate of a planner, it could not be generally accepted any more that the granting of such loan would not have any tax implications. Although the interest-free loans used in the Brummeria case, did not relate to an estate planning exercise, the ruling resulted in much speculation regarding the future of the interest-free loan as estate planning tool. SARS tried to ease the uncertainty by issuing Interpretation Note 58, but there is still uncertainty to some extent. The focus of this mini-dissertation is to explain when and to what extend the provisions of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (ITA) as well as the Estate Duty Act 45 of 1955 (EDA) will apply to the granting of an interest-free loan as part of an estate planning exercise. The provisions of the gross income definition, sections 7 and 64E, the provisions of donations tax as well as paragraph 12(5) and 12A of the Eighth Schedule to the ITA, were explored. Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the EDA are discussed with the use of these loans for estate planning in mind. The question whether or not the interest-free loan is still a useful estate planning tool is also answered. / LLM (Estate Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

From time to time the court delivers a judgment that has a ripple effect beyond what was expected, resulting in estate planners reconsidering their planning strategies. Such a judgment was the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the case of the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Brummeria Renaissance 2007 6 SA 601 (SCA) (Brummeria case). In this case the interest-free loan and the right to use loan capital free of any interest obligation were under scrutiny. The SCA had to rule on whether or not this right had a determinable value and whether or not this value could be taxable in the hands of the borrower. The SCA ruled that the right under an interest-free loan should be included in the gross income of the borrower. Since estate planning often involves the use of an interest-free loan, as estate planning tool, to remove a growth asset from the estate of a planner, it could not be generally accepted any more that the granting of such loan would not have any tax implications. Although the interest-free loans used in the Brummeria case, did not relate to an estate planning exercise, the ruling resulted in much speculation regarding the future of the interest-free loan as estate planning tool. SARS tried to ease the uncertainty by issuing Interpretation Note 58, but there is still uncertainty to some extent. The focus of this mini-dissertation is to explain when and to what extend the provisions of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (ITA) as well as the Estate Duty Act 45 of 1955 (EDA) will apply to the granting of an interest-free loan as part of an estate planning exercise. The provisions of the gross income definition, sections 7 and 64E, the provisions of donations tax as well as paragraph 12(5) and 12A of the Eighth Schedule to the ITA, were explored. Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the EDA are discussed with the use of these loans for estate planning in mind. The question whether or not the interest-free loan is still a useful estate planning tool is also answered. / LLM (Estate Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015