Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The requirements of broad-based black economic empowerment (‘BEE’) are set out in the BEE scorecard. When an entity incurs expenditure relating to indirect empowerment measures (i.e. the preferential procurement, enterprise development, skills development and socio-economic development categories on the BEE scorecard), it is unclear whether the expenditure will be deductible for income tax purposes (BEE Partner, 2008). The objectives of the current study are to determine whether such expenditure is deductible and to formulate best practice guidelines for the deduction of the expenditure. The best practice guidelines consist of factors that should be considered when determining whether expenditure is deductible, as well as recommendations on how to justify that such expenditure should, in fact, be deductible. The methodology used was to first consider the requirements of the BEE scorecard, the types of expenditure and the reasons for incurring expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures. The deduction of such expenditure was then considered in a general sense and specifically for each broad category of expenditure. Lastly, the best practice guidelines were formulated based on the conclusions reached. Common expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures of BEE was grouped into broad categories. The different reasons why entities incur such expenditure were identified, as the reason for incurring expenditure can influence whether it is incurred in the production of income (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110). It is submitted that expenditure that is excessive or that is incurred for philanthropic purposes would not be incurred in the production of income. Four issues were identified that could preclude a deduction in terms of the general deduction formula (section 11(a)) – notably, that expenditure has to be in the production of income and non-capital in nature to be deductible. In addition to section 11(a), special income tax deductions (sections 12H, 12I or 18A) and capital allowances (sections 11(e), 13sex or 15(a)) could also possibly apply, but only for certain types of expenditure and only in qualifying circumstances. The conclusions drawn as to the deductibility of expenditure are summarised as a guideline for taxpayers. The above-mentioned conclusions, along with the literature examined, were used to formulate general best practice guidelines. One such guideline is that the onus is on taxpayers to show (through one of the ways suggested) that expenditure is in the production of income. Taxpayers should also note that excessive expenditure is not in the production of income and that certain expenditure required by sector charters is more likely to be capital in nature. Furthermore, specific best practice guidelines were submitted for each broad category of expenditure and relate to, for example, the applicability of the identified special deductions and the quantification of non-monetary expenditure. The specific best practice guidelines should be considered when incurring expenditure in a specific category. In summary, even though expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures has been found to be deductible in most cases, there are exceptions of which taxpayers should be aware. The proposed best practice guidelines include guidance that could be considered before incurring expenditure towards indirect BEE measures. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vereistes van breë-basis swart ekonomiese bemagtiging (‘SEB’) word in die SEB-telkaart uiteengesit. Wanneer ’n entiteit onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls (die telkaartkategorieë vir voorkeurverkryging, besigheidsontwikkeling, vaardigheidsopleiding en sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling) aangaan, is dit nie duidelik of sodanige onkoste vir inkomstebelasting-doeleindes aftrekbaar sal wees nie (BEE Partner, 2008). Die doelwitte van hierdie studie was om te bepaal of sulke onkostes belastingaftrekbaar is en om bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer vir die aftrekking van die onkostes. Die bestepraktyk-riglyne bestaan uit faktore wat oorweeg moet word in die bepaling of onkostes belastingaftrekbaar is, sowel as aanbevelings oor hoe aftrekbaarheid geregverdig kan word. Die studiemetodologie het eerstens ’n ondersoek behels na die vereistes van die SEB-telkaart, die soorte onkostes sowel as die redes vir die aangaan van onkostes wat met indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls verband hou. Daarna is die belastingaftrekbaarheid van sodanige onkostes in die algemeen sowel as spesifiek vir elke breë kategorie van onkoste oorweeg. Laastens is die bestepraktyk-riglyne opgestel op grond van die gevolgtrekkings wat bereik is. Algemene onkostes wat met indirekte SEB-maatreëls verband hou, is in breë kategorieë gegroepeer. Die verskillende redes waarom entiteite die uitgawes aangaan, is bepaal, aangesien dit kan beïnvloed of die uitgawe in die voortbrenging van inkomste is of nie (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110). Daar word aangevoer dat onkoste wat oormatige is of onkostes met betrekking tot filantropiese doeleindes nie as deel van die voortbrenging van inkomste beskou kan word nie. Vier kwessies is geïdentifiseer wat ’n aftrekking ingevolge die algemene aftrekkingsformule (artikel 11(a)) kan verhoed – die belangrikste is dat die onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan moet word en nie kapitaal moet wees om afgetrek te kan word. Benewens artikel 11(a), kan spesiale belastingaftrekkings (artikel 12H, 12I of 18A) en kapitaaltoelaes (artikel 11(e), 13sex of 15(a)) ook moontlik geld, maar slegs vir sekere soorte onkostes en in omstandighede wat daarvoor in aanmerking kom. Die gevolgtrekkings oor die belastingaftrekbaarheid van onkostes word uiteindelik as ’n riglyn vir belastingbetalers opgesom. Bogenoemde gevolgtrekkings, tesame met die bestudeerde literatuur, is gebruik om algemene bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer. Een so ’n riglyn is dat die bewyslas op die belastingbetaler rus om (op een van die voorgestelde maniere) aan te toon dat onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan word. Belastingbetalers moet ook daarop let dat oormatige onkostes nie as deel van die voortbrenging van inkomste beskou kan word nie en dat sekere onkostes ingevolge die vereistes van sektorhandveste meer waarskynlik kapitaal van aard sal wees. Spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne is voorts vir elke breë kategorie van onkostes voorgestel, byvoorbeeld met betrekking tot die toepaslikheid van die geïdentifiseerde spesiale aftrekkings en die kwantifisering van nie-monetêre onkostes. Hierdie spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne behoort in ag geneem te word wanneer onkostes in ’n spesifieke kategorie aangegaan word. Ter samevatting behoort belastingbetalers daarop bedag te wees dat hoewel onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls in die meeste gevalle belastingaftrekbaar is, daar wel sekere uitsonderings is. Die voorgestelde bestepraktyk-riglyne bied derhalwe leiding oor die faktore wat oorweeg kan word voordat onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls aangegaan word.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Share incentive schemes have become an important part of the remuneration package of employees in South Africa. Employers offer share incentive schemes to employees in order to attract and retain high quality workers while aligning the interests of the employees with those of the shareholders. Employees are motivated to participate in share incentive schemes due to the opportunity to invest in their financial future, as well as the opportunity to share in the economic success and growth of the employer company. Due to the increase in the utilisation of share incentive schemes to remunerate employees, the South African Revenue Service (the SARS) increased its focus on the taxation of such schemes. Section 8C of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (the Act) was introduced by the SARS on 24 January 2005 to govern the taxation of share incentive schemes in South Africa. Prior to the introduction of section 8C, section 8A sought to tax the gains realised by employees participating in share incentive schemes, being the difference between the market value on the exercise date and the grant price. The tax liability incurred by employees in terms of section 8A did not tax the full gain eventually realised by employees upon vesting of the shares and the SARS sought to close this loophole through the introduction of section 8C to the Act. The employer company is required by the Fourth Schedule to withhold employees’ tax amounting to the gain realised by the employee in terms of section 8C of the Act. This assignment analysed the workings of the four share incentive schemes most commonly found in the South African marketplace, namely: share option scheme, share purchase scheme, deferred delivery share scheme and phantom share scheme. The current normal income tax legislation governing share incentive schemes in relation to employees was examined by considering literature contained in the Act, amendment bills and acts, case law and other material. Based on current income tax legislation, the tax implications of each of the four selected share incentive schemes was determined and compared in order to determine which of the selected share incentive schemes are most tax efficient in relation to the employee. It was concluded that the share option scheme and the deferred delivery share scheme are the most tax efficient schemes in relation to the employee. Based on case studies conducted, along with an analysis of the current income tax legislation contained in the Act, the share option scheme and the deferred delivery share scheme resulted in the lowest overall tax liability for employees. It was further concluded that employers will be required to revisit the structuring of their current share incentive schemes in order to ensure that any dividends paid to employees in terms of the schemes will remain exempt in terms of the amended section 10(1)(k)(i)(dd). The assignment includes recommendations relating to how share incentive schemes can be structured to be more tax efficient. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Aandele-aansporingskemas het ’n belangrike deel van die vergoedingspakkette van werknemers in Suid-Afrika geword. Werkgewers bied aandele-aansporingskemas aan werknemers om sodoende hoë-kwaliteit werkers te lok en te behou terwyl die belange van die werknemers met dié van die aandeelhouers belyn word. Werknemers word gemotiveer om aan aandele-aansporingskemas deel te neem vanweë die geleentheid om in hul finansiële toekoms te belê, sowel as die geleentheid om in die ekonomiese sukses en groei van die werkgewer-maatskappy te deel. Weens die toename in die aanwending van aandele-aansporingskemas om werknemers te vergoed, het die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingdiens (die SAID) sy fokus op die belasting van welke skemas verskerp. Artikel 8C van die Inkomstebelastingwet Nr. 58 van 1962 (die Wet) is deur die SAID op 24 Januarie 2005 ingestel om die belasting van aandele-aansporingskemas in Suid-Afrika te beheer. Voor die instelling van artikel 8C het artikel 8A gepoog om die winste gerealiseer deur werknemers wat aan aandele-aansporingskemas deelneem, te belas, synde die verskil tussen die markwaarde op die uitoefeningsdatum en die toekenningsprys. Die belastingaanspreeklikheid aangegaan deur werknemers ingevolge artikel 8A het nie die volle wins uiteindelik gerealiseer deur werknemers ten tye van vestiging van die aandele belas nie, en die SAID het gepoog om hierdie skuiwergat te sluit deur die instelling van artikel 8C in die Wet. Daar word van die werkgewer-maatskappy verwag om werknemersbelasting ingevolge die Vierde Bylaag te weerhou ten bedrae van die wins deur die werknemer ingevolge artikel 8C van die Wet gerealiseer. Hierdie studie het die werking van die vier mees algemene aandele-aansporingskemas in die Suid-Afrikaanse mark geanaliseer, naamlik: die aandele-opsieskema, aandeleaankoopskema, uitgestelde-leweringskema, en die skyn-aandeleskema. Die huidige normale inkomstebelastingwetgewing wat aandele-aansporingskemas ten opsigte van werknemers beheer, is ondersoek deur die literatuur in die Wet, wysigingswetsontwerpe en wette, beslissings en ander materiaal in oënskou te neem. Gebaseer op huidige inkomstebelastingwetgewing is die belastingimplikasies van elk van die vier geselekteerde aandele-aansporingskemas bepaal en vergelyk om sodoende te bepaal watter van die geselekteerde aandele-aansporingskemas die mees belastingdoeltreffend ten opsigte van die werknemer is. Daar is gevind dat die aandele-opsieskema en die uitgestelde-leweringskema die mees belastingdoeltreffende skemas ten opsigte van die werknemer is. Gebaseer op gevallestudies wat uitgevoer is, tesame met ’n analise van die huidige inkomstebelastingwetgewing vervat in die Wet, het die aandele-opsieskema en die uitgestelde-leweringskema gelei tot die laagste algehele belastingaanspreeklikheid vir werknemers. Daar is verder tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat daar van werkgewers verwag gaan word om die strukturering van hul huidige aandele-aansporingskemas te hersien om sodoende te verseker dat enige dividende wat aan werknemers in terme van die skemas betaal word, vrygestel sal bly ingevolge die aangepaste artikel 10(1)(k)(i)(dd). Die studie sluit aanbevelings in oor hoe aandele-aansporingskemas gestruktureer kan word om meer belastingdoeltreffend te wees.