The mining industry is a major contributor towards the South African economy. There are several types of corporate transactions that could typically be found in the mining industry and these include merger transactions. Mergers could lead to a number of tax consequences which could include capital gains tax, the recoupment of capital allowances and dividends tax. Merger transactions do not necessarily lead to an immediate increase in profits. Therefore, the tax authorities provide for relief in respect of merger transactions. The relief takes place in the form of tax roll-overs that effectively postpone tax consequences until such time as a true economic profit is realised in the future. Taxpayers typically wish to minimise the amount of tax which they pay. Therefore, they may abuse the relief provided to avoid paying tax. In an attempt to protect the state’s revenue and to prevent tax avoidance, the tax authorities introduce anti-avoidance provisions into the tax legislation. The roll-over relief provided in respect of merger transactions, as well as the provisions dealing with mining capital allowances contain a number of provisions to combat opportunities for tax avoidance. The study explains the principles of tax avoidance and anti-avoidance in the mining industry in South Africa, and indicates the need for tax relief in the context of merger transactions in the mining industry in South Africa. The study further illustrates how tax relief presents opportunities for tax avoidance and how anti-avoidance legislation restricts these opportunities. The study also shows that there is a cycle in which an onerous tax leads to a need for relief which in turn leads to opportunities for tax avoidance which in turn leads to anti-avoidance provisions. The research conducted as part of this study shows that this cycle is an international trend that often affects the manner in which merger transactions are structured. AFRIKAANS : Die mynbedryf in Suid-Afrika lewer 'n aansienlike bydrae tot die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie. Samesmeltings is een van verskeie tipe korporatiewe transaksies wat in die mynbedryf in Suid-Afrika aangetref word. Samesmeltings gee ook aanleiding tot verskeie belastingimplikasies, soos Kapitaalwinsbelasting, die verhaling van belastingtoelaes en die belasting op dividende. Samesmeltings lei nie noodwendig tot 'n onmiddellike verhoging in ekonomiese voordele nie. Die belastingowerhede maak voorsiening vir belastingverligting ten opsigte van hierdie gebeure. Die verligting word gewoonlik verskaf in die vorm van die uitstel van belastingverpligtinge tot ‘n datum wanneer ‘n ekonomiese wins in die toekoms gerealiseer word. Belastingbetalers streef gewoonlik na 'n vermindering in hul belastinglas, en mag dus die verligting wat voorsien word probeer misbruik. Die belastingowerhede daarenteen maak voorsiening vir wetgewing om hierdie pogings van die belastingbetalers om belasting te vermy, teen te werk en so die inkomste van die staat te beskerm. Die uitstel wat aan samesmeltingsooreenkomste verleen word asook die voorsiening van mynboukapitaaltoelaes bevat verskeie voorsorg maatreëls om pogings tot belastingvermyding teen te werk. Die studie ontleed die beginsels van belastingvermyding en teen-vermyding wetgewing in die mynbedryf in Suid-Afrika, en wys op die behoefte vir verligting ten opsigte van samesmeltings in die mynbedryf in Suid-Afrika. Die studie toon verder ook hoe die verligting lei tot geleenthede vir belastingvermyding en hoe teen-vermyding wetgewing dit kan teenwerk. Die studie toon ook dat daar ‘n siklus bestaan, waarin die behoefte vir verligting as gevolg van n oormatige belastinglas tot geleenthede vir belastingvermyding lei, en wat op sy beurt lei tot wetgewing om die belastingvermyding te ontmoedig. Die navorsing wat as deel van hierdie studie uitgevoer is dui daarop dat hierdie siklus ‘n internasionale neiging is wat dikwels die struktuur van samesmeltingsooreenkomste affekteer. / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Taxation / unrestricted

Globalisation of trade and investment has led multinational enterprises to develop strategies to maximise profits by investing in countries with a favourable tax climate, resulting in loss of tax revenue to domestic economies. In South Africa, recent economic liberalisation and associated relaxation of exchange controls have created increasing exposure to global competition, risk of capital flight and potential threat to the tax base. Heeding OECD recommendations intended to counter negative tax implications for domestic economies and curb harmful tax practices, South Africa introduced controlled foreign company provisions initially in 1997, followed by comprehensive legislation in 2001. Appropriateness of South Africa’s CFC regulations as domestic anti-avoidance measures is assessed in this study for their relevance in the international fiscal arena, highlighting key divergences, shortcomings and anomalies in the South African regulations compared with OECD recommendations, and with regulatory measures in the United Kingdom (jurisdictional-entity approach) and the United States (transactional approach), these two examplars offering paradigms of the most important CFC regulatory approaches currently in force. The primary materials investigated in the study are the statutes which constitute the taxation laws, read in conjunction with auxiliary, quasi-statutory advisory and explanatory documentation issued by the respective regulatory authorities, along with test cases that established legal precedent on points of ambiguity in taxation law. A key finding in the literature review is the relative dearth of publications on current South African CFC regulations in an international comparative context. A paradigm shift is noted in United Kingdom tax policy, as it migrates towards a territorially inclined tax system in CFC regulations – more compatible with European Union (EU) requirements and propelled in large measure by EU-pressure – with a similar trend in United States tax policy, intended to rekindle expansion and growth of the United States economy through repatriation of foreign funds earned by CFCs. The study finds that it would be unrealistic to seek an absolute paradigm for reform or evolution of South African CFC regulations in either the United Kingdom or the United States, although the South African and United Kingdom CFC measures show significant affinities in their entity-based mechanisms to grant full exemption. More significant constituents of CFC regulation in one or another of the two countries do, however, prove to be generally congenial to the South African situation and offer useful pointers for ongoing reform of the South African measures. Other areas in the United Kingdom or United States CFC regulations are identified as less relevant to South African requirements, being linked to tax principles that would be excessively complicated in the South African circumstances, needlessly demanding for tax administrators and for South African shareholders, contradictory to South African tax principles, anachronistic, or not suited for the underlying global-entity approach in the South African regulations. The research provides an updated assessment of the current state of the South African CFC regulatory measures, when seen in a broader international context, and indicates areas that could be the subject of fruitful ongoing investigation. / PhD (Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Globalisation of trade and investment has led multinational enterprises to develop strategies to maximise profits by investing in countries with a favourable tax climate, resulting in loss of tax revenue to domestic economies. In South Africa, recent economic liberalisation and associated relaxation of exchange controls have created increasing exposure to global competition, risk of capital flight and potential threat to the tax base. Heeding OECD recommendations intended to counter negative tax implications for domestic economies and curb harmful tax practices, South Africa introduced controlled foreign company provisions initially in 1997, followed by comprehensive legislation in 2001. Appropriateness of South Africa’s CFC regulations as domestic anti-avoidance measures is assessed in this study for their relevance in the international fiscal arena, highlighting key divergences, shortcomings and anomalies in the South African regulations compared with OECD recommendations, and with regulatory measures in the United Kingdom (jurisdictional-entity approach) and the United States (transactional approach), these two examplars offering paradigms of the most important CFC regulatory approaches currently in force. The primary materials investigated in the study are the statutes which constitute the taxation laws, read in conjunction with auxiliary, quasi-statutory advisory and explanatory documentation issued by the respective regulatory authorities, along with test cases that established legal precedent on points of ambiguity in taxation law. A key finding in the literature review is the relative dearth of publications on current South African CFC regulations in an international comparative context. A paradigm shift is noted in United Kingdom tax policy, as it migrates towards a territorially inclined tax system in CFC regulations – more compatible with European Union (EU) requirements and propelled in large measure by EU-pressure – with a similar trend in United States tax policy, intended to rekindle expansion and growth of the United States economy through repatriation of foreign funds earned by CFCs. The study finds that it would be unrealistic to seek an absolute paradigm for reform or evolution of South African CFC regulations in either the United Kingdom or the United States, although the South African and United Kingdom CFC measures show significant affinities in their entity-based mechanisms to grant full exemption. More significant constituents of CFC regulation in one or another of the two countries do, however, prove to be generally congenial to the South African situation and offer useful pointers for ongoing reform of the South African measures. Other areas in the United Kingdom or United States CFC regulations are identified as less relevant to South African requirements, being linked to tax principles that would be excessively complicated in the South African circumstances, needlessly demanding for tax administrators and for South African shareholders, contradictory to South African tax principles, anachronistic, or not suited for the underlying global-entity approach in the South African regulations. The research provides an updated assessment of the current state of the South African CFC regulatory measures, when seen in a broader international context, and indicates areas that could be the subject of fruitful ongoing investigation. / PhD (Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014