A research report submitted to the faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation). Johannesburg - March, 2015 / Where Contracting States to a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) refer to their respective domestic law concepts in respect of determining residence for purposes of a DTA, conflicting results may arise which can lead to double taxation and Contracting States being denied treaty relief. The interpretation of the concept of ‘Place of Effective Management’ as found in the residency tie-breaker clause in Art 4(3) of DTAs (based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital) used to resolve issues of dual-resident companies for purposes of applying the DTA, provides a pertinent example of a need for a common international understanding of treaty terms in order to avoid such potential conflicts. This paper explores how the term ‘Place of Effective Management’ should be interpreted in the above context by a South African court of law in order to conform to an internationally accepted meaning of the phrase.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) / According to South African domestic law, the term ‘place of effective management’ is ‘one of the tests used to determine the residency of a person, other than a natural person’ (South African Institute of Tax Practitioners, 2010, p.549). The term ‘place of effective management’ is not defined in the South African Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and there is very limited case law in South Africa which deals specifically with the matter. In an attempt to clarify the term, the South African Revenue Service issued Interpretation Note 6: Resident: Place of effective management (persons other than natural persons) (2002) where, as noted by Olivier and Honiball (2008, p.82), ‘emphasis is placed on where important decisions are implemented and not where such decisions are taken’ as the ‘place of effective management’. This is contrary to international guidelines, which typically focus on where important decisions are taken (Olivier and Honiball, 2008, p.75). Key Words: Board of directors, central management and control, control, day-to-day decisions, Discussion Paper on Interpretation Note 6, Interpretation Note 6, key decision making, OECD Model Tax Convention, place of effective management

Double taxation could arise in a situation where resident- resident conflicts occur. Resident–resident conflicts occur in the situation where both countries regard such a person as a “resident” for tax purposes under their domestic legislation. For that reason, all income that is earned by that person, irrespective of the jurisdiction it is earned in, will be subject to tax in both countries. In order to resolve these conflicts, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“OECD’s”) Model Tax Convention contains a tie breaker clause which states that a non-individual shall be deemed to be a resident only of the State in which the ‘place of effective management’ is situated. It was found that although there were conflicting views, the expression ‘place of effective management’ was mainly determined with reference to the place where real management actually makes decisions on key business affairs of the company. Based on the following reasons it was concluded that using ‘place of effective management’ as a tie breaker rule was ineffective. • With improved communication technology and increased mobility of top level management, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint a single location where the ‘place of effective management’ is positioned; • Changes to the generic managerial structures seen in the past, makes it increasingly complex to determine where the ‘place of effective management’ is situated; and • There is no universal interpretation of the term ‘place of effective management’ within the international arena. Against the backdrop that each option for determining the ‘place of effective management, analysed in Chapter 4 had its own flaws, it is almost impossible to determine a company’s residency based on a single test. It was therefore, recommended that the tie breaker rule consist of a hierarchy of the following tests. 1. Deemed to be resident of the country in which place of effective management is situated, as defined by SARS’ interpretation. 2. Deemed to be a resident of the country in which its economic nexus is the strongest. 3. Conflict to be resolved by mutual agreement between the two Contracting States. / Thesis (M.Com. (Tax))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Double taxation could arise in a situation where resident- resident conflicts occur. Resident–resident conflicts occur in the situation where both countries regard such a person as a “resident” for tax purposes under their domestic legislation. For that reason, all income that is earned by that person, irrespective of the jurisdiction it is earned in, will be subject to tax in both countries. In order to resolve these conflicts, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“OECD’s”) Model Tax Convention contains a tie breaker clause which states that a non-individual shall be deemed to be a resident only of the State in which the ‘place of effective management’ is situated. It was found that although there were conflicting views, the expression ‘place of effective management’ was mainly determined with reference to the place where real management actually makes decisions on key business affairs of the company. Based on the following reasons it was concluded that using ‘place of effective management’ as a tie breaker rule was ineffective. • With improved communication technology and increased mobility of top level management, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint a single location where the ‘place of effective management’ is positioned; • Changes to the generic managerial structures seen in the past, makes it increasingly complex to determine where the ‘place of effective management’ is situated; and • There is no universal interpretation of the term ‘place of effective management’ within the international arena. Against the backdrop that each option for determining the ‘place of effective management, analysed in Chapter 4 had its own flaws, it is almost impossible to determine a company’s residency based on a single test. It was therefore, recommended that the tie breaker rule consist of a hierarchy of the following tests. 1. Deemed to be resident of the country in which place of effective management is situated, as defined by SARS’ interpretation. 2. Deemed to be a resident of the country in which its economic nexus is the strongest. 3. Conflict to be resolved by mutual agreement between the two Contracting States. / Thesis (M.Com. (Tax))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.