A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation), Johannesburg, 2017 / Tax Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)1 has become an epidemic of global legal tax avoidance being used by Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). BEPS has resulted in the structuring of transactions within groups of companies, with these including: transfer pricing, manipulating prices of goods, services, management fees, professional fees, royalties, interest and dividends. This study is a critical analysis of South African legislation in relation to the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) with the United Kingdom (UK). Reference is made to the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) as proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).2 Even though South Africa follows the OECD guidelines (2010),3 Advance Pricing Agreements (APA) are not included in South African legislation, which may result in double non-taxation or double taxation and disputes. Recourse in the event of double taxation is examined in this research report. The application of APA legislation in the UK, as a leading tax authority,4 is analysed, as well as Davis Tax Committee recommendations in relation to Transfer Pricing. KEYWORDS Advance Pricing Agreement, Arm’s length price, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, Davis Tax Committee, Double Taxation, Double Taxation Agreement, Multinational Enterprises, Mutual Agreement Procedure, OECD, South African Revenue Service, Transfer Pricing. 1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (n.d.a), ‘About BEPS and the inclusive framework’, <http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-about.htm>, retrieved 5 November 2016. 2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010b), Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. Paris: OECD. 3 Supra note 2. 4 Broomberg, E. B. (2007), Tax avoidance then and now, Tax Planning Corporate and Personal, vol. 21, no. 5, pp112-118. / GR2018

The aim of this treatise is to identify the income tax implications of the persons becoming South African tax residents. It will provide a clear understanding of the income tax implications for natural and non-natural persons wishing to take up residence in South Africa. The definition of “resident” in section 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, has a direct impact on the tax implications bearing down on any foreigner planning to reside within the Republic of South Africa, especially in relation to the prevention of the double taxation. The following issues or areas have been identified, these issues are summarised below. The persons receiving foreign pensions may be exempt from normal tax under section 10 (1)(gC) and in terms of the tax treaty, they may also escape taxation in their former country of residence. The treatise will look at various treaties that exist between the South Africa and other countries and to discuss the taxing rights. There is a case of double non-taxation and good reason for immigrants to come and avoid tax in South Africa. It is suggested that the legislation and the double tax agreements should be amended. A person who becomes a resident will receive a step-up in base cost for assets other than South African immovable property and assets of a permanent establishment in South Africa under paragraph 12(2)(a) of the Eighth Schedule. The main purpose of the legislation is to ensure that these assets are correctly valued, determining the base cost, when the person becomes a tax resident. The valuation of these assets carries with it the problem of securing sufficient evidence long after the valuation. Most of the tax planning for such for immigrants revolves around estate duty and donations tax. The person would donate his assets to an offshore discretionary trust before taking up residence in South Africa. The advantage is that donations tax will be avoided because there are exemptions in terms of section 56, for assets acquired before becoming a resident. The income and capital gains vested in nonbeneficiary can be taxed in the hands of the donor in terms of section 7 and paragraph 72 of the Eighth Schedule. The donor should be aware of the antiavoidance measures; section 7(2) to 7(8) and paragraph 72 of the Eighth Schedule will deem a different person other than the person who is entitled to the income to be taxable on that person. The income and gains received by the beneficiary of a trust can be taxable in the hands of the donor. The assets owned by the trust will be sheltered from South African estate duty. The foreign discretionary trust, as a non-resident, will not be liable for tax in South Africa. The beneficiaries of such a trust will be liable for income tax from the trust distributions, once they have acquired a vested right to the income. The liability of income tax is deferred to the year when the trustees decide to make distributions. The distribution by the trustees in a subsequent year creates a delay or postponement for taxes which should be paid by the beneficiaries. The trustees are most likely to make distributions in a tax year when the tax rates are low. There are tax opportunities for the immigrants who intend to take up residence. The tax resident might be subject to withholding taxes on foreign income from the previous country of residence, but might be subject to Double Tax Agreement between South Africa and other countries.

M.Com. (SA and International Tax) / The term “beneficial owner” is found in 64 of the 71 double tax agreements signed by South Africa. However, there is no definition of the term in the Income Tax Act or within the orbit of international taxation. There are international court cases in relation to the interpretation of the term. The fact that there are inconsistencies in the treaties signed by South Africa may result in treaty shopping opportunities. The study aims to define the term “beneficial owner”; to view other necessary acts and other forms of supporting legislature when interpreting a treaty; and subsequently, to explore the term as used in South African double tax agreements.

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) / Trusts are not as desirable as they once were, and every year they seem to become less so. The reason for their increasing undesirability is the heavy tax burden they carry. / NG (2020)

M.Com. (South African and International Taxation) / The term “beneficial ownership” was first included in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in 1977 but it is not defined in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention and most countries do not have a definition in their domestic tax laws. There is a need for South African revenue authorities to consider how the concept of beneficial ownership will be applied in an international tax context especially with the introduction of withholding tax on dividends and the pending implementation of withholding tax on interest. A review and analysis of interpretation principles from the Vienna Convention, the OECD, selected countries and experts revealed that there are common interpretation principles which are being applied consistently when determining beneficial ownership for international tax purposes. When applied against relevant, recent international tax case law, it was interesting to note that these common interpretation principles did not consistently yield results which were in line with the courts’ judgements. The common interpretation principles represent attributes which can be used to determine beneficial ownership in international tax and could prove useful to South African revenue authorities in constructing a domestic definition for “beneficial ownership.”

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (Taxation). Johannesburg, April 2017. / Technological advancements have introduced new methods of operating and transacting between business and targeted markets. Electronic interaction by business with respective target markets has enabled business to transact from any location around the world, instantaneously delivering goods and services to markets globally. Although benefits have been derived by business, the impact of e-commerce on established income tax principles has raised concern to governments around the world, as e-commerce grows as a method of transacting with targeted markets (Hubbard: 2016). Transacting in a digital environment has posed challenges to the taxation of residents and non-residents in South Africa which has resulted in the avoidance of income tax by taxpayers in countries of operation. Losses in tax revenue resulting from business conducted in e-commerce have been experienced (OECD, 2014a:5) by governments, as the application of income tax legislation is challenged by business operations in e-commerce (OECD, 2015:5). Transacting in a digital environment has provided business with the ability to operate in a market in the absence of physical premises established in that market, challenging income tax principles which rely on an association with a physical place or presence of an entity for taxation. This research report analyses the taxation of non-resident business operations in e-commerce in South Africa and the arising challenges due to ecommerce. An examination of the income tax legislation is performed to understand how tax is avoided by non-residents when operating in e-commerce. The possible solutions to address challenges posed to income tax by e-commerce will be examined as part of the research report. Keywords: BEPS; double tax agreements; e-commerce; income tax; non-residents; resident; source; permanent establishment. / GR2018

This treatise tests the effectiveness of withholding taxes imposed by the South African tax authorities with respect to amounts paid from a South African source to a non-resident in respect of interest, royalties and foreign entertainers and sportspersons. The first research objective discusses the alignment of the meaning of words and phrases in both the domestic law of South Africa and Double Tax Agreements (DTA.) The second issue outlines whether the DTA supports the domestic law through the waiving of tax claims in favour of the country of source. In last instance the attribution of income is discussed. The interpretation attached to the words for the purpose of levying normal tax, serves as the methodology for identifying inconsistencies with the levying of withholding tax. The wider scope of withholding taxes with respect to the meaning of ‘interest’, ‘royalties’ as well as ‘foreign entertainer and sportsperson’ misaligns with the corresponding meaning of it in the DTA. This creates the risk that amounts paid to non-residents will either not be subjected to withholding tax in the source state or that the income will be taxable in the resident state as a result of the application of other articles of the DTA. DTA’s concluded between South Africa and other countries are based on the OECD Model Tax Convention. These DTA’s tend to favour the residence state with respect to the waiving of tax claims. The source state’s right to collect withholding tax on income from royalties and interest is prevented if the foreign person is physically present in South Africa for more than 183 days and if the interest/royalty payment is effectively connected with a permanent establishment in South Africa. The domestic law and DTA are misaligned with respect to the attribution of interest and royalty income since the recipient of the income for the purpose of the domestic law is not necessarily the beneficial owner of the debt claim or intellectual property. It can therefore be recommended that South Africa must renegotiate DTA’s to favour taxation in the source state. Withholding tax provisions must also be redrafted to align them with the DTA meaning.

South Africa's right to tax the income of a non-resident is determined in terms of the South African "source rules" established by court decisions in relation to the imposition of tax in terms of the Income Tax Act. Unless a non-resident's income is captured by the South African "source rules" (on the basis that hi slits income is derived from a South African source), South Africa would have no right to tax such income, even if such non-resident creates a permanent establishment in South Africa by performing business activities within South Africa which could be considered essential (but not dominant) in nature. In such scenario the activities performed by the non-resident in South Africa may utilise the natural resources and the infrastructure of South Africa, but the South African fiscus would be deprived of the right to any tax revenues attributable to the income produced partly by such activities within South Africa. The South African "source rules" refer only to the main or dominant activities giving rise to the income for the purpose of determining the source of such income (and accordingly the right to tax such income). On the other hand, the "permanent establishment rules" as set out under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital refer to all the taxpayer's essential business activities for the purpose of determining whether or not such activities create a pennanent establishment. The result of the narrow nature of the South African "source rules" is that, under certain circumstances, the South African fiscus would not necessarily be granted the right to tax all income produced partly within South Africa. The research demonstrated that incorporating the principles underlying the "pennanent establishment rules" into South African legislation would be a reasonable and logical solution to the problem of detennining the source of income. In so doing, the South African "source rules" would determine the source of income, and consequently South Africa's taxing rights, with reference to the essential business activities giving rise to such income. In such case South Africa would be afforded the right to tax the income of a non-resident in the event that it performs any of its essential business activities within South Africa, albeit not the dominant or main activities giving rise to the income.

The objective of the study was to investigate the right of the South African Government to tax the income earned by a foreign company when rendering services in South Africa to a South African associated enterprise on a recurrent basis, together with the right to tax the amounts paid to the employees of the permanent establishment for services rendered in South Africa. At the same time the research investigated whether the services rendered by a foreign company to an associated enterprise in South Africa on a recurrent basis would constitute a permanent establishment, as this is essential before South Africa may tax either the foreign company or the employees of the permanent establishment (where such employees are not resident in South Africa).The research was conducted by means of a critical analysis of documentary data and data from a limited number of interviews with academics and the authors of textbooks and articles. In order to limit the scope of the research, a number of assumptions were made. Conflicting viewpoints underlying certain of these assumptions were discussed. Some of the important conclusions reached are that the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties should be taken into account when interpreting South African legislation (including Double Tax Agreements), and that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Commentary may be relied upon when interpreting OECD based Double Tax Agreements in South Africa. No conclusion was reached on whether to apply an ambulatory or a static basis of interpreting the OECD Commentary, however. The final conclusion of the research is that the services rendered in South Africa on a recurrent basis would be geographically and commercially coherent and consequently meet the "location test'. It is clear that as the services are rendered regularly and recurrently, they would be regarded as having the necessary permanence and would meet the 'duration test'. The place of business would therefore be regarded as being fixed (having the necessary degree of permanence). As the services would be rendered at the place of business of the South African entity, they would be regarded as being rendered 'through' the place of business and the foreign entity would be regarded as having a permanent establishment in South Africa (as defined in Article 5(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention}. The South African Government would therefore be entitled to tax the income attributable to the permanent establishment and the income earned by the non resident employees, who rendered services in South Africa for the permanent establishment. Once the entitlement to tax exists, South African legislative rules determine how South Africa proceeds to tax the income.

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) Johannesburg, 2016 / The Davis Tax Committee released their First Interim Report on Estate Duty on 13 July 2015 which contained certain recommendations concerning the way trusts should be taxed which were to act as a deterrent against aggressive estate planning. This report also contained suggested changes to current estate duty legislation. Changes to these recommendations, yet to be published in a second report, were discussed in a webinar by Judge Dennis Davis in December 2015 and the 2016 Budget Review contained additional suggestions with regard to the taxation of trusts. This study constructs case studies to compare the effect of the various recommendations on total taxation and capital preservation in a scenario where assets are held in a South African trust over a period of time, with a scenario where such assets are kept in a South African tax resident’s personal estate. The case studies focus only on high-net-worth trusts and personal estates. The possible double taxation which may occur as a result of levying both estate duty and capital gains tax on death is also briefly considered. The case study results show the punitive effects of the proposed repeal of the s 4(q) estate duty deduction for inter-spousal bequests on the personal estate scenarios and show how several of the new proposals could result in effective capital tax rates in excess of the deemed maximum capital tax benchmark of 15%. This may result in more aggressive estate planning strategies being employed should such proposals be enacted. The report also concludes that the double taxation effect of both estate duty and capital gains tax levied on death is likely to be small on average, although individual high-net-worth estates may be subject to such double taxation in certain cases. Key words: Davis Tax Committee’s First Interim Report on Estate Duty, taxation of South African trusts, South African trusts, South African estate duty, estate planning, double taxation on death, estimate for total capital gains tax collected on death, high-net-worth individuals, inequality in South Africa, wealth tax in South Africa, total taxation in South African trusts, income-splitting in South African trusts, capital preservation in South African trusts, South African trust case study, South African estate duty case study, South African estate planning case study / MT2017