M.B.A. / Capital gains taxation has been a hotly debated topic in South Africa for a number of years. The Franzsen Commission recommended its introduction in the late 1960's. When the Minister of Finance announced the introduction of CGT in the 2000 budget speech as part of a wider tax reform, there was widespread opposition to the introduction of CGT. The study attempts to gain an understanding of the introduction of CGT in order to determine its potential effects. This research study looks at both sides of the arguments, that is, the issues raised in favour for the introduction of CGT as well as the issues raised against the introduction of CGT. This research study is of an exploratory nature, made up of two sections. The first section is a quantitative analysis of the literature reviewed in terms of the theories of taxation, the main arguments in favour and against the introduction of CGT, and finally an international comparison of CGT was conducted. The second section was conducted on taxpayers; to gauge their opinions with regards to CGT in order to collaborate the findings to the literature reviewed. The reasons for the introduction of CGT as stated in the 2001 budget speech: CGT will enhance the efficiency of the income tax system by reducing the incentive to convert ordinary income into tax-free capital income. The equity of the tax system will be improved by ensuring that taxpayers with similar income levels will bear a similar burden of taxation regardless of the form in which income is received. Additional revenue will be collected through CGT directly and indirectly through the enhanced efficiency of the overall system. SARS estimates that, when fully operational, CGT can raise an additional R1-2b. From the direct revenue, as well as the indirect effect that more income tax will be collected, the introduction of CGT will support the V government's overall tax reform policy of broadening the tax base and reducing the rates of income tax. The reduction of distortions of real economic activity so that risks capital is allocated more efficiently through rules, which permit the offsetting of capital losses. In summary the reasons for opposing the introduction of CGT: The SA Revenue Service already has laws to prevent abuse of capital profit. Research has shown that CGT is not international best practice, though it may be common in developed countries. Even Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan is on record as saying that CGT goes contrary to the promotion of enterprise and the best rate would be "zero". Most developed countries would like to dump it. For SA to support CGT because it is widely applied in developed countries is unrealistic. We need to note what developing countries are doing. None of those which are rapidi .y industrialising with whom we have to compete for scarce capital have CGT. CGT will harm Trade & Industry Minister Alec Erwin's efforts to put into place incentives to woo investors. The potential effects of CGT are wide and far- reaching. Some of the common potential effects raised in the debates concerns the following: economic growth, investments, savings, risk taking, entrepreneurship and the lock-in effects. This research findings concludes that CGT would hinder economic growth and reduce the rate of personal savings, although the findings also suggest that the introduction of CGT would not deter foreign investors from investing in South Africa.

M.Comm. / Limited tax implications of capital gains tax in South Africa is addressed in this study with reference to the Eighth Schedule of the Income Tax Act (hereafter the Act). Various publications by the South African Revenue Service (hereafter SARS) and leading tax specialist's publications available on the website www.cgtsa.co.za were also consulted. Employee Share Ownership Schemes (hereafter ESOP's) are defined and the most commonly used schemes in South Africa are explained with reference to various internal publications by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Income Tax implications as well as the capital gains tax implications on selected schemes will be discussed. The implications of capital gains tax on all transactions in South Africa falls outside the scope of this study, as this study focuses on the basic explanation of the core capital gains tax provisions in South Africa, with specific application to certain employee share ownership programmes (hereafter ESOP's) used in South Africa.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die praktyk is daar talle situasies waar 'n krediteur wetend of onwetend 'n verwante of nie-verwante debiteur se skuld verminder of aflos. Voor die instelling van kapitaalwinsbelasting het daar reeds talle nadelige inkomstebelastinggevolge bestaan wat uit sodanige vermindering of aflossing kan voortspruit. Die instelling van kapitaalwinsbelasting en meer spesifiek paragraaf 12(5) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Inkomstebelastingwet Nr 58 van 1962, het tot gevolg dat die vermindering of aflossing van skuld ook nadelige kapitaalwinsbelastinggevolge tot gevolg kan he. Die studie sal kortliks na die moontlike inkomstebelastinggevolge van die vermindering of aflossing van skuld verwys aangesien hierdie gevolge in sekere omstandighede die kapitaalwinsbelastinggevolge kan be'invloed. Die inkomstebelastinggevolge wat bespreek sal word is die vermindering van 'n persoon se vasgestelde verlies as gevolg van 'n vergelyk met of konsessie deur skuldeisers, verhalings wat ontstaan by die veIjaring of afstanddoening van skuld, geagte dividende onderhewig aan sekondere belasting op maatskappye, skenkings onderhewig aan skenkingsbelasting en ook byvoordele wat ingesluit word by 'n werknemer se belasbare inkomste. Die fokus van die studie verskuifvervolgens na die uitleg van paragraaf 12(5) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Inkomstebelastingwet. Die uitleg van hierdie paragraaf aan die hand van die normale reels wat geld by die uitleg van belastingwetgewing in die algemeen sal daarop wys dat die belangrikste elemente wat moet bestaan alvorens hierdie bepaling sal geld is dat daar 'n skuld moes bestaan het en dat hierdie skuld verminder of afgelos moes word. Die studie ondersoek daama die regswerking van die terme 'verminder' en 'aflos' om te bepaal watter gebeure daartoe aanleiding gee dat skuld verminder of afgelos word. Na aanleiding van hierdie gebeure wat tot gevolg kan he dat skuld verminder of afgelos word, word 'n aantal praktiese gevallestudies bespreek waardeur die toepasssingsveld van paragraaf 12(5) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Inkomstebelastingwet gei1lustreer kan word. Uit die ondersoek word daar tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat daar 'n groot aantal situasies bestaan wat moontlik kapitaalwinsbelastinggevolge vir 'n persoon kan inhou wanneer skuld verminder of afgelos word. Die studie bespreek ook moontlike voorkomende maatreels wat die trefwydte van hierdie bepaling kan inperk. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: It often occurs in practice that a creditor knowingly or un-knowingly reduces or discharges a debt owed to it by a related or unrelated debtor. Prior to the introduction of capital gains tax there already existed many negative income tax implications from such a reduction or discharge. The introduction of capital gains tax, and more specificly paragraph 12(5) of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962, now extends these negative income tax consequences to also include negative capital gains tax implications. This study will briefly look at the potential income tax implications associated with reduction or discharge of debt as these implications will also impact on the potential capital gains implications. The income tax implications that will be discussed are the reduction of a person's assessed loss as a result of a concession granted by or a compromise made with his creditors, recoupments as a result of the prescription or waiver of a debt, deemed dividends subject to secondary tax on companies, donations subject to donations tax and fringe benefits included in the taxable income of an employee. The focus of the study subsequently moves to the interpretation of paragraph 12(5) of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act. The most important elements that will arise from this interpretation, based on the normal rules of the interpretation of income tax legislation, are that there must be a debt and that the debt must be reduced or discharged. The study then examines the legal implications of the terms 'reduce' and 'discharge' in order to determine what circumstances can have the effect that a debt has been reduced or discharged. These circumstances are then applied on various examples to illustrate the scope of paragraph 12(5) of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act. From this examination the conclusion is drawn that there are many circumstances that exists that could lead to capital gains tax implications as a result of the reduction or discharge of a debt. The study also discusses possible preventive measures that could be implemented to prevent the application of paragraph 12(5) of the Eighth Schedule to the Act.

As the international markets opened up it became imperative that the for South African taxation system be brought into line with those of its major trading partners whose tax systems are residence based. For South Africans the change to a residence base and the introduction of Capital Gains Tax in 2001 drastically altered the previous source-based tax playing fields. The purpose of this research is to investigate all aspects of residence and its effect on natural persons as well as other legal personae and to discuss how the various forms of income are affected by the new tax dispensation. The position in other fiscal dispositions is also scrutinised to give the reader a more comprehensive understanding of residence-based taxation as applied by some of South Africa's major trading partners. For foreign nationals residing in South Africa, the new system has also had its negative impact. Previously, their foreign earnings were free from local tax because of the old source base system, but this has also changed. The South African legal system is also thoroughly canvassed regarding two important concepts, namely, "resident" and "ordinary resident" and what are meant by them in terms of tax law. These concepts have also enjoyed the scrutiny of the other fiscal dispensations legal systems reviewed. Residence tests to determine the tax status of a person in South Africa and in other fiscal dispensations are investigated in this study to give anyone wishing to emigrate to other climes, a better understanding of what they can expect from a taxation point of view from the fiscal authorities there. The impact of residence on most forms of income is discussed including that of foreign workers and on other legal entities such as companies, while Capital Gains Tax, and the importance of residence on this tax is also canvassed by this study. The study concludes with a review of the standard Double Tax Agreement concluded by South Africa with most other countries and lists those countries with which it has such agreements. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2004.

This study investigates the implications of the introduction of Capital Gains Tax that came into effect on the 1st October 2001 through the Income Tax Act. The study poses two questions, the first being, whether to elect the actual value of an asset at 1 October 2001 for base cost purposes, or to accept the 'default' time apportionment method? The second question posed raises the subject of whether an asset owner should delay doing a valuation exercise on the assets they presently own or proceed with a valuation exercise now? A number of actual examples were obtained from accounting firms and analysed to see what values the different methods of determining the base cost gave and hence the amount of tax payable. The results clearly show that the longer the asset has been owned by the business or individual prior to the implementation date, the bigger the impact the Time Apportionment Formula has on the answer. The reason for this is the Time Apportionment Formula that states the following "the effect of the formula is to multiply the actual pre-valuation economic expense by a factor, which increases it in the ratio of the pre-valuation period to the whole period of ownership. When this amount is deducted from the actual proceeds, it gives the effect of the gain having arisen at an equal amount per annum over the whole period of ownership". The Market Value Method comes into play when the assets are less than two years old. The results obtained also answer the second part of the question posed of whether to wait or do the valuation exercise now. A quote from the tax planning journal answers the question in the best possible way 'to delay is to pay'. In some of the cases presented the difference between the two methods is substantial and the taxpayer would have had to pay the amount given by the Time Apportionment Formula due to the fact that the Market Value Method has a time restriction placed on it. The Act is quite explicit in the use of the Market Value Method and it's cut off date. The conclusion drawn from the study indicates that it is in the best interest of businesses and individuals to do a valuation exercise on all capital assets owned without delay. These valuation exercises will then help those businesses and individuals determine which base cost calculation method will be in their best interest. / Thesis (MBA)-University of Natal, 2002.

Section 12N, introduction into the Income Tax Act by way of Taxation Laws Amendment Act and which became effective on 2 November 2010, provides for allowances on the leasehold improvements on government-owned land and land leased from certain tax exempt entities as stipulated in section 10 (1) (cA) and (t). As section 12N deems the lessee to be the owner of the leasehold improvement, the lessee now qualifies for capital allowances which were previously disallowed.

Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas in Effekte ("KBS in Effekte") en Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas in Eiendom ("KBS in Eiendom") is besigheidstrukture wat baie gewild is in Suid-Afrika. Desondanks bestaan daar nog heelwat onsekerhede rondom die belastinghantering van hierdie twee tipes Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas ("KBS"). Die Suid-Afrikaanse KBS industrie is In multi biljoen rand industrie hoofsaaklik as gevolg van die feit dat dit uitstekende beleggingsgeleenthede vir Jan en alleman asook groot finansiële instellings soos versekeraars bied. Dit is dus logies om te verwag dat die belastinghantering van KBS met redelike sekerheid gereguleer word. In KBS kan of as In trust opgerig word of as In oop beleggingsmaatskappy. Die belastinghantering van In KBS hang dus daarvan af of dit as In trust of oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is. Die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 ("die Inkomstebelastingwet") bevat inkomsteen kapitaalwinsbelastingbepalings wat uitdruklik die belastinghantering van KBS in Effekte en KBS in Eiendom reguleer ("die spesiale belastingreels"). In KBS in Effekte word vir belastingdoeleindes as In maatskappy beskou en so hanteer. Dit is nie maklik om vas te stel wat die wetgewer se onderliggende bedoeling was toe daar besluit is om In KBS in Effekte as In maatskappy te hanteer. Dit blyk wei dat hierdie besluit van die wetgewer nie deeglik deurdink is nie na aanleiding van die verskeie praktiese en teoretiese probleme wat met die belastinghantering van KBS in Effekte bestaan. Meeste van hierdie probleme is In direkte gevolg van die besluit om In KBS in Effekte vir belastingdoeleindes as In maatskappy te hanteer. Een die probleme wat in die konteks van KBS in Effekte bestaan hou verband met die vraag of die geleibuisbeginsel, wat bepaal dat inkomste wat deur In trust aan sy begunstigdes uitgekeer word hul aard en karakter behou, in die konteks van In KBS in Effekte (wat as In trust opgerig is) toepassing vind. Alhoewel die KBS in Effekte as In trust opgerig is, word dit vir belastingdoeleindes as 'n maatskappy hanteer en dit is duidelik dat die geleibuisbeginsel nie in die konteks van 'n maatskappy geld nie. Na oorweging van die regsaard van 'n KBS in Effekte wat as 'n trust opgerig is asook die gevolge van die vrystellingsbepalings in artikel 10 van die Inkomstebelastingwet wat ten opsigte van KBS in Efekte geld, word daar aan die hand gedoen dat die geleibuisbeginsel wei toepassing sal vind in die geval van 'n KBS in Effekte was as 'n trust opgerig is. Die gevolge van die vrystellingsbepalings in artikel 10 van die Inkomstebelastingwet is sodanig dat die inkomste wat die KBS in Effekte (wat as 'n trust opgerig is) aan sy begunstigdes uitkeer op dieselfde basis as die geleibuisbeginsel belas word. Gevolglik blyk dit of voorgenoemde standpunt van die skrywer in ooreenstemming met die bedoeling van die wetgewer is. Soortgelyke probleme kom voor in die konteks van die 'verbonde persoon' definisie in artikel 1 van die Inkomstebelastingwet sowel as die terugkoop van 'n deelnemende belang deur 'n KBS in Effekte, veral waar daardie KBS in Effekte as 'n trust opgerig is. Daarteenoor word 'n KBS in Eiendom nie as 'n maatskappy vir belastingdoeleindes hanteer nie. Indien "n KBS in Eiendom dus as 'n trust opgerig is word dit vir belastingdoeleindes soos "n trust hanteer. Ewe-eens, indien 'n KBS in Eiendom as "n oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is, is dit vir aile doeleindes In maatskappy en sal so hanteer word vir belastingdoeleindes. Die belastinghantering van KBS in Eiendom bied ook sekere probleme veral waar die KBS in Eiendom wat as 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is sy aandele terugkoop. In hierdie verband bepaal die Wet op Beheer van Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas No. 45 van 2002 ("die Wet op Beheer van KBS") dat artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet No. 61 van 1973 ("die Maatskappywet") nie ten opsigte van 'n terugkoop van 'n deelnemende belang deur 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy geld nie. Dit beteken egter nie dat 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy nie sy eie aandele mag terugkoop nie. Vir belastingdoeleindes sal daar vasgestel moet word of bepalings in die Inkomstebelastingwet wat na artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet verwys, soos paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie, steeds met betrekking tot sodanige terugkoop toepassing sal vind siende dat die terugkoop nie ingevolge artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet gedoen word nie. Na oorweging van die wye omvang van paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie, word daar aan die hand gedoen dat paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie steeds toepassing sal vind om die terugkoop van aandele deur "n oop beleggingsmaatskappy te reguleer, nieteenstaande die feit dat artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet nie op die terugkoop van toepassing is nie. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Notwithstanding that Collective Investment Schemes in Securities ("CISS") and Collective Investment Schemes in Property ("CISP") are common business vehicles in the South African economy, there remains uncertainty with regard to the tax treatment of these business structures. The South African Collective Investment Scheme ("CIS") industry is a multibillion rand industry as it offers attractive investment vehicles for the general public as well as for big financial institutions such as insurers. One would therefore think that the tax treatment thereof would be fairly tightly regulated. A CISS and CISP may either be constituted as a trust or as an open ended investment company ("OEIC"). The tax treatment of a CIS differs depending on whether it is constituted as a trust or as an OEIC. The Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 ("the Income Tax Act") contains specific income tax and capital gains tax provisions that regulates the tax treatment of CISS and CISP (the "special tax provisions"). For tax purposes, a CISS is deemed to be a company and treated as such. It is difficult to ascertain what the intention of the legislature was in deciding to treat a CISS as a company. It does however seem as if this decision was not thoroughly considered by the legislature based on the fact that the application of the special tax provisions to CISS presents many practical and theoretical problems. Most of these problems are directly attributable to the legislature's decision to treat CISS as companies for tax purposes. For example, one difficulty relates to the question whether the conduit pipe principle, which determines that income distributed by a trust during a year of assessment will retain its nature and character, will find application in respect of a CISS constituted as a trust. For although the CISS is constituted as a trust, it is deemed to be company for tax purposes and it is clear that the conduit pipe principle cannot find application in the instance of a company. However, considering the legal nature of a CISS constituted as a trust, as well as the effect of the exemption provisions in section 10 of the Income Tax Act relating to CISS, it is submitted that the conduit pipe principle will find application in respect of a CISS constituted as a trust. The effect of the exemption provisions is such that the income distributed by a CISS to its investors will be taxed on the same basis as if the conduit pipe principle applied. As such, the aforementioned submission also appears to be in accordance with the intention of legislator. Similar difficulties arise in the context of the 'connected person' definition in section 1 of the Income Tax Act as well as the repurchase of a participatory interest by a CISS, especially where such CISS is constituted as a trust. Contrary to a CISS, a CISP is not deemed to be a company for tax purposes. Thus, where the CISP is constituted as a trust, it will be treated as a trust for tax purposes. By the same token, if the CISP is constituted as an OEIC, it will be a company for all intends and purposes and will therefore be treated as such. The tax treatment of CISP also presents difficulties, especially where it is constituted as an OEIC. In the instance of a repurchase of a participatory interest by a CISP constituted as a OEIC, the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act 45 of 2002 ("CISCA") states that the provisions of section 85 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 (lithe Companies Act"), does not apply in respect of such repurchase. However, that does not mean that an OEIC may not repurchase its own shares. For tax purposes, one will have to determine whether the provisions in the Income Tax Act relating to section 85 of the Companies Act that governs the repurchase of shares by an OEIC, such as paragraph (c) of the 'dividend income' definition, will still apply to determine the tax consequences of the repurchase. After considering the wide scope of paragraph (c) of the 'dividend' definition, it is submitted that paragraph (c) of the 'dividend' definition will still find application in respect of a repurchase of shares by a OEIC, notwithstanding the fact that the repurchase is not effected in terms of section 85 of the Companies Act.

Income tax is levied upon a taxpayer’s taxable income. Various steps are taken in order to arrive at the taxpayer’s taxable income. The starting point when calculating taxable income is determining the taxpayer’s ‘gross income’. ‘Gross income’ is defined in terms of section 1 of the Act. Various terms within the gross income definition are not clearly defined, except in the case of a ‘resident’. Even in the case of the definition of a ‘resident’, the aspect of ‘ordinarily resident’ is not defined and nor is the ‘place of effective management’. The following components fall within the definition of ‘gross income’: • The total amount in cash or otherwise; • received by or accrued to, or in favour of, a person; • from anywhere, in the case of a person who is a resident; • from a South African source (or deemed source), in the case of a non-resident; • other than receipts or accruals of a capital nature. The ‘total amount’ in ‘cash or otherwise’ is the first step when determining the taxable income of a taxpayer for a particular year of assessment. Gross income only arises if an amount is received or has accrued; this amount need not be in the form of money but must have a money value. The next component, ‘received by or accrued to’, is related to time and implies that a taxpayer should include amounts that have been ‘received by’, as well as amounts that have ‘accrued to’ him during the year of assessment. ‘Resident’ and ‘non-resident’ unlike the other components, are defined in terms of section 1 of the Income Tax Act. There are two rules used to determine whether natural persons are residents, these are: • To determine whether natural persons are ‘ordinarily resident’; or • where the natural person is not an ‘ordinarily resident’, the ‘physical presence test’ will be applied. ‘Source’ means origin and not place; it is therefore the ‘originating cause of the receipt of the money’. There is no single definition for the word ‘source’ as circumstances may differ in various cases. The facts of each case must be analysed in order to determine the actual source of income for that particular case. The last component of the definition of ‘gross income’ is the exclusion of ‘receipts and accruals of a capital nature’. The Act does not define the meaning of ‘capital nature’ but does indicate that receipts or accruals of a capital nature are, with certain exceptions, not included in ‘gross income’. Receipts or accruals that are not of a capital nature is known as ‘revenue’ and subjected to tax. This study is primarily aimed at an examination of court cases related to the various components falling within the definition of ‘gross income’.

Thesis (MAcc)--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Met die bekendstelling van kapitaalwinsbelasting in 2000 was belastingpligtiges en belastingadviseurs bekommerd oor die invloed daarvan op belasting- en boedelbeplanning. Om die volle impak daarvan te verstaan moet die werking van kapitaalwinsbelasting ondersoek word. Paragraaf 10 van die Agste Bylae definieer die belasbare kapitaalwinste vir die jaar van aanslag. Hiervolgens word kapitale winste in die hande van verskillende belastingpligtiges teen verskillende “koerse” belas. In die algemeen word daar na Paragraaf 10 verwys as die insluitingsartikel wat op kapitaalwinste van toepassing is. Aangesien slegs ‘n “gedeelte” van kapitaalwinste onderhewig is aan normale belasting is een van die grootste faktore in die huidige belastingomgewing steeds om te onderskei tussen inkomste van ‘n kapitale of nie-kapitale aard. Deur die toepassing van Paragraaf 10 word kapitaalwinste gerealiseer deur Trusts en Maatskappye teen hoër koerse belas, as in die geval van individue. Dit het tot gevolg dat belastingpligtiges en belastingadviseurs die gebruik van trusts as ‘n effektiewe hulpmiddel vir boedelbeplanning begin bevraagteken het. Die effektiewe belastingkoers van toepassing op kapitaalwinste gerealiseer deur individue is egter die laagste van al die verskillende belastingpligtiges. Wanneer ‘n individue te sterwe kom is sy boedel onderhewig aan boedelbelasting, wat ‘n verdere belasting las tot gevolg het. Indien ‘n trust effektief toegepas word tydens die opstel van ‘n boedelplan vir ‘n individu sal die bates van die trust nie onderhewig wees aan boedelbelasting nie. Deur die verskeie opsies wat beskikbaar is vir ‘n belastingpligtige, wanneer hy ‘n besluit moet neem watter beleggingsvoertuig hy moet gebruik vir die belegging, kan die effektiewe belastingkoerse vergelyk word. Deur die uitkomste van die verskeie opsies teenoor mekaar te vergelyk bewys dit dat indien ‘n trust korrek aangewend word, dit steeds as ‘n effektiewe hulpmiddel in ‘n boedelplan kan aangewend word. Tydens die uitvoer van die vergelyking van die verskillende opsies wat vir die belastingpligtige beskikbaar is, is die tydwaarde van geld buite rekening gelaat. Indien die lewensverwagting van ‘n individu in berekening gebring word kan die uitkoms van die vergelyking moontlik anders wees. Deur dit alles in ag te neem bevestig dit weereens dat elke individue se boedelplan uniek sal wees indien sy persoonlike finansiële omstandighede in ag geneem word. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: With the introduction of capital gains taxation in 2000, taxpayers and their advisors feared the impact thereof on tax planning and estate planning. To determine the impact thereof the taxation of capital gains must be understood. Paragraph 10 of the Eight Schedule define the taxable portion of capital gains for the year of assesment. Paragraph 10 is also commonly known as the inclusion clause applicaple on capital gains. This application of paragraph 10 has the effect that capital gains realised by different types of taxpayers are taxed at different rates. Due to the application of paragraph 10 only a portion of the capital gain realised by the taxpayer is subject to normal taxation. Therefor one of the biggest concerns for taxpayers still is to determine if income are of a capital nature or not. The inclusion rate, according to paragraph 10, applicable on capital gains realised by trusts and companies is higher than that of a individual and gives rise to a bigger tax burden relating to capital profits for trusts and companies. Therefor taxpayers and their advisors doubt wether a trust could still be used as an effective tool for estate planning. The effective tax rate on caiptal gains for individuals is the lowest for all types of taxpayers. But when an individual dies his estate is subject to estate duty, which leaves an additional burden for an individual to take into account. When a trust is effectively utilised in preparing an estate plan for an individual, the assets of the trust should not be subject to estate duty. By evaluating the effective tax rates applicable to the different options available to a taxpayer when he needs to determine which investment vehicle to use when making an investment, a comparision can be made. By comparing the effective tax rates a conclusion can be drawn that a trust can still be used as an effective tool for estate planning when utilised properly. When the comparison was made the time value of money was ignored. If the life expectancy of a individual are taken into account the outcome could be different. When everything is taken into consideration the conclusion is that the estate plan for every individual is unique and determined by his or her personal financial circumstances.

Thesis (MAccounting)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The interaction between the income tax provisions contained in sections 9B, 9C, 11(a) and 22 of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (the Act), and the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions of the Eighth Schedule of the Act, are complex and share dealers should approach the tax consequences of share dealing profits with caution. The objective of the assignment was to ensure that the share dealing profits of share dealers (who transact on revenue account) are taxed correctly, with specific reference to the interaction between the aforementioned provisions. This was achieved by considering tax cases, the interpretation notes of the South African Revenue Services (SARS) and commentary of tax writers. Examples of share disposals were incorporated to illustrate that consistency is required between the calculation of profits for income tax and CGT purposes. The guidelines laid down by case law to determine the revenue nature of share disposals were investigated. It was concluded that share dealing profits which are designedly sought for and worked for, either as part of a business operation or not, are of a revenue nature and taxable as such. The method of identification of shares sold as trading stock is important when calculating the income tax profit, since it is used in order to determine both which shares are sold as well as the cost of the shares sold. It was concluded that the method of identification applied in terms of generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) is generally also acceptable from an income tax perspective. Section 9C of the Act provides a share dealer income tax relief when a ‘qualifying share’ is disposed of. Any amount received or accrued as a result of the disposal of a qualifying share is deemed to be of a capital nature, regardless of the revenue intention of the share dealer. Prior to 1 October 2007, section 9B of the Act provided similar relief to the disposal of an ‘affected share’. It was concluded that section 9C of the Act has a wider scope of application compared to section 9B of the Act. Because the proceeds received on the disposal of affected or qualifying shares are excluded from gross income, the acquisition costs previously incurred and deducted in respect of such shares must be included in taxable income. It was determined that the amount to be included in income is the actual cost of such shares and not the opening trading stock value determined in terms of GAAP and claimed in terms of section 22(2) of the Act. It was concluded that the first-in-first-out (FIFO) method of identification should be applied to determine which affected or qualifying shares have been disposed of. From a CGT perspective, it was illustrated that a share dealer loses the opportunity to choose which identification method to apply and is obliged to also apply the FIFO method in calculating the CGT base cost of the shares. It is concluded that the Eighth Schedule of the Act should be amended to clarify that the FIFO method should be applied for CGT purposes where sections 9B or 9C of the Act find application. Only then will the tax profits of a share dealer be in sync with his or her cash benefit. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die interaksie tussen die inkomstebelastingbepalings vervat in artikels 9B, 9C, 11(a) en 22 van die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 (die Wet), en die kapitaalwinsbelastingbepalings (KWB bepalings) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Wet is kompleks en aandelehandelaars moet die belastinggevolge van aandelewinste met omsigtigheid benader. Die doelwit van die werkstuk was om te verseker dat die winste van aandelehandelaars (wat aandele verkoop op inkomsterekening) korrek belas word, met spesifieke verwysing na die interaksie tussen die voorgenoemde bepalings. Dit is bereik deur die oorweging van hofsake, uitlegnotas van die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens en kommentaar deur belastingskrywers. Voorbeelde van aandeleverkope is gebruik om te illustreer dat konsekwentheid tussen die berekening van winste vir inkomstebelasting en KWB-doeleindes ‘n vereiste is. Die riglyne wat deur regspraak daargestel is om die inkomste-aard van aandeleverkope vas te stel, is ondersoek. Daar is bevind dat aandelewinste wat opsetlik nagejaag word en voor gewerk word, ongeag of dit deel van die bedryf van 'n besigheid is al dan nie, van ‘n inkomste-aard is en aldus belasbaar is. Die metode van identifikasie van aandele wat as handelsvoorraad verkoop word is belangrik by die berekening die inkomstebelastingwins aangesien dit gebruik word om vas te stel watter aandele verkoop is en wat die koste van die verkoopte aandele is. Daar is bevind dat die metode wat ingevolge algemeen aanvaarde rekeningkundige praktyk (AARP) toegepas is, gewoonlik ook vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes toelaatbaar is. Artikel 9C van die Wet verskaf aan ‘n aandelehandelaar inkomstebelastingverligting met die verkoop van 'n 'kwalifiserende aandeel' deurdat die bedrag ontvang of toegeval geag word van 'n kapitale aard te wees, ongeag die inkomstebedoeling van die aandelehandelaar. Voor 1 Oktober 2007 het artikel 9B van die Wet soortgelyke verligting verskaf met die verkoop van n 'geaffekteerde aandeel’. Daar is vasgestel dat artikel 9C van die Wet 'n wyer toepassing het in vergelyking met artikel 9B van die Wet. Omrede die opbrengs ontvang met die verkoop van geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele uitgesluit word van bruto inkomste, moet die vorige aankoopskostes wat voorheen ten opsigte van die aandele aangegaan en afgetrek is, by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word. Daar is bepaal dat die bedrag wat by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word, die werklike koste van die aandele is en nie die AARP openingswaarde van handelsvoorraad wat ingevolge artikel 22(2) van die Wet geëis nie. Daar is bevind dat die eerste-in-eerste-uit (EIEU) metode van identifikasie gebruik moet word om te bepaal watter geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele verkoop is. Vir KWB doeleindes verloor 'n aandelehandelaar ook die geleentheid om te kan kies watter identifikasiemetode toegepas moet word. Hy of sy is verplig om die EIEU metode toe te pas in die berekening van die KWB basiskoste van die aandele. Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Agtste Bylae van die Wet gewysig moet word om te bevestig dat die EIEU metode toegepas moet word vir KWB doeleindes waar artikels 9B of 9C van die Wet van toepassing is. Slegs dan is die belasbare wins van 'n aandelehandelaar in lyn is met sy of haar kontantvoordeel.