Thesis (doctoral)--University of Leiden, 1991. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 231-239) and index.

M.Com. (Taxation) / One of the canons of context requires that a liability will be in 1986:para 4.47). taxation is certainty. "Certainty taxpayer be reasonably certain of what any given set of circumstances" (Margo in this his tax Report, It is submitted that, at present, there is not the desired certainty regarding the treatment of unrealised foreign exchange differences. This is proven by the internal memorandum circularised by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, advising local Receivers of Revenue to put on hold all income tax returns with unrealised foreign exchange losses and all objections to the disallowance of these losses until such time that it has, in consultation with professional bodies, been able to establish an acceptable solution to the problem (Commissioner for Inland Revenue, n.d.). No finality has been reached to date and uncertainty therefore still prevails on either side of the fence, resulting in losses to both parties. As a result of the Commissioner's instruction not to assess income tax returns with foreign exchange differences, Revenue suffers significant losses from a cash flow point of view. This is because a taxpayer is entitled to base his first and second provisional tax payment for a particular tax year on his "basic amount", this being his taxable income or assessed loss for the last tax year for which he has been assessed. For many affected taxpayers, this is their 1984 tax year in respect of which they reported a considerably lower taxable income than for their last year of assessment. This means that their first two provisional tax payments in respect of a particular tax year can be extremely low in comparison to their taxable income for their last year of assessment. There are also quite a few taxpayers who had an assessed loss for their 1984 tax year who are therefore not required to make a payment at all. It follows, therefore, that Revenue could improve its cash flow position by not allowing assessments to fall too far in arrears. Conversely, disallowance response to pay tax on purposes. taxpayers lose where they have objected to the of their foreign exchange losses and are still awaiting a their objections as, in the meantime, they will have to the basis that the losses are not deductible for tax The direct effect of the disallowance of unrealised foreign exchange losses would be that the after tax cost of borrowings from abroad would be unacceptably high, thus creating a bias towards local borrowing. In a country in dire need of foreign capital, this situation is obviously totally undesirable.

Many intra-firm transactions are non-market transactions and therefore lack a market determined price. A transfer price is the price assigned to such nonmarket intra-firm transfers. Transfer prices are especially important for multinational corporations, since a parent company typically has subsidiaries or branches in other countries and transfers are often made between the component parts of the multinational. As the world has become more internationally dependent, these transactions and the associated transfer prices have come under increased scrutiny. The fear often expressed by governments is that a multinational corporation may manipulate transfer prices in order to transfer profits from one country to another, and thereby affect various government policies. Most notably, transfer prices can affect the tax revenues of both the home and host country. A general international consensus is that the appropriate transfer price is the 'arm's length' price. This is the price that would be charged by two unrelated parties. However, it is often difficult to find such a comparable transaction. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2004.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 148-156). Also available via the Internet.

M.Com. / The income tax provisions relating to foreign currency transactions was the subject of this study. Uncertainty prevailed regarding the tax treatment of such transactions in years of assessment ending before 1 January 1994. In order to address these shortcomings, a new section, governing the tax treatment of foreign currency transactions in years of assessment on or after 1 January 1994, was introduced into the Act. In the first part of the study, the historical legislation was analysed. The legislation, as it was then applied, was explained and problem areas and areas of uncertainty, discussed. It has been shown that the historical legislation was inadequate and that there was a need for the new comprehensive legislation was justified. The second part of the study covers the new legislation. The new provisions are analysed in detail and their practical application was illustrated by means of examples. It is shown that the new legislation has made a vast improvement to the historical situation and that the areas of uncertainty have been eliminated. The current legislation is also critically analysed and it was found that, except for a few minor points of criticism, the legislation had succeeded in it's aim to bring certainty to this area in our tax law.

Thesis (LL. M)--University of Adelaide, 1991. / Submitted as Ph. D thesis. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 225-235).

Thesis (doctoral)--Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

The Budget speech of 23 February 2000 by the Minister of Finance marked the introduction of significant changes to the income tax system of the Republic of South Africa (Republic). A residence-based system of taxation (RBT) was adopted for years of assessment commencing on or after 1 January 2001 and Capital Gains Tax (CGT) was introduced with effect from 1 October 2001. According to the 2000 Budget Review a move to a residence-based system would significantly broaden the tax base, limit opportunities for tax arbitrage and bring the tax system in line with generally accepted international practice. The relaxation of exchange controls for South African residents with effect from 1 July 1997 made it possible for residents to invest limited funds offshore. The Fifth Interim Report of the Katz Commission suggested that if exchange controls were relaxed, the taxation of active income should remain on a source basis, but that passive income should be taxed on a residence basis. As a result deemed source rules in the form of section 9C and 9D were introduced into the Act with effect from 1 July 1997 and applied to “investment income” as defined. Section 9C taxed investment income of both residents and non-residents (from activities carried on by a permanent establishment in the Republic). Section 9D taxed investment income of controlled foreign entities and investment income arising from donations, settlements or other dispositions in the hands of residents The taxation of foreign dividends with effect from 23 February 2000 as a first phase in the move to a residence based system, lead to the introduction of s 9E. Foreign Dividends were taxed in the hands of residents subject to certain exemptions. The basic interest exemption was extended to foreign dividends. Section 6quat was revised to extend the rebate to foreign dividends and profits of a company from which dividends were declared. Section 9D was amended to cater for foreign dividends received by or accrued to controlled foreign entities. The implementation of a full residence-based system of taxation with effect from years of assessment commencing on or after 1 January 2001 required amendments to various sections of the Income Tax Act as well as the introduction of new sections. A residence minus system was adopted which means that residents as defined are now taxed on their world- wide income with certain exemptions. Non-residents are taxed on their income from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic. The provisions relating to the taxation of foreign income of residents is complex; adding to the complexity is the fact that several changes have already been made to these provisions since the inception of the world-wide basis of taxation. The provisions must also be interpreted against the background of any double taxation agreement (DTA) between the Republic and the relevant foreign country as the applicable DTA may override the Republic domestic legislation. For purposes of this treatise the amending Acts enacted up to the end of December 2003 are taken into account. Hardly five years after the Katz commission of inquiry into the tax structure concluded that RBT and CGT were too complicated to be administered by SARS, the implementation of RBT and CGT were announced in the 2000 Budget. A detailed examination of the provisions relating to foreign income of residents as defined was undertaken. Interpretational issues to be clarified by legislation and certain planning issues are highlighted. It is essential to understand and carefully consider the Republic tax laws and the relevant double taxation agreements, for the successful application of the provisions. Careful planning before concluding transactions is of vital importance in order to avoid or minimize any unwanted tax consequences resulting from the RBT and CGT provisions.

The Budget speech of 23 February 2000 by the Minister of Finance marked the introduction of significant changes to the income tax system of the Republic of South Africa (Republic). A residence-based system of taxation (RBT) was adopted for years of assessment commencing on or after 1 January 2001 and Capital Gains Tax (CGT) was introduced with effect from 1 October 2001. According to the 2000 Budget Review a move to a residence-based system would significantly broaden the tax base, limit opportunities for tax arbitrage and bring the tax system in line with generally accepted international practice. The relaxation of exchange controls for South African residents with effect from 1 July 1997 made it possible for residents to invest limited funds offshore. The Fifth Interim Report of the Katz Commission suggested that if exchange controls were relaxed, the taxation of active income should remain on a source basis, but that passive income should be taxed on a residence basis. As a result deemed source rules in the form of section 9C and 9D were introduced into the Act with effect from 1 July 1997 and applied to “investment income” as defined. Section 9C taxed investment income of both residents and non-residents (from activities carried on by a permanent establishment in the Republic). Section 9D taxed investment income of controlled foreign entities and investment income arising from donations, settlements or other dispositions in the hands of residents. The taxation of foreign dividends with effect from 23 February 2000 as a first phase in the move to a residence based system, lead to the introduction of s 9E. Foreign Dividends were taxed in the hands of residents subject to certain exemptions. The basic interest exemption was extended to foreign dividends. Section 6quat was revised to extend the rebate to foreign dividends and profits of a company from which dividends were declared. Section 9D was amended to cater for foreign dividends received by or accrued to controlled foreign entities. The implementation of a full residence-based system of taxation with effect from years of assessment commencing on or after 1 January 2001 required amendments to various sections of the Income Tax Act as well as the introduction of new sections. A residence minus system was adopted which means that residents as defined are now taxed on their world- wide income with certain exemptions. Non-residents are taxed on their income from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic. The provisions relating to the taxation of foreign income of residents is complex; adding to the complexity is the fact that several changes have already been made to these provisions since the inception of the world-wide basis of taxation. The provisions must also be interpreted against the background of any double taxation agreement (DTA) between the Republic and the relevant foreign country as the applicable DTA may override the Republic domestic legislation. For purposes of this treatise the amending Acts enacted up to the end of December 2003 are taken into account. Hardly five years after the Katz commission of inquiry into the tax structure concluded that RBT and CGT were too complicated to be administered by SARS, the implementation of RBT and CGT were announced in the 2000 Budget. A detailed examination of the provisions relating to foreign income of residents as defined was undertaken. Interpretational issues to be clarified by legislation and certain planning issues are highlighted. It is essential to understand and carefully consider the Republic tax laws and the relevant double taxation agreements, for the successful application of the provisions. Careful planning before concluding transactions is of vital importance in order to avoid or minimize any unwanted tax consequences resulting from the RBT and CGT provisions.

Since 1926, Congress has granted substantial tax benefits to encourage U.S. citizens to accept employment positions abroad so that they might, in turn, support the export of U.S. goods and services. The purpose of this study was to determine whether changes in the taxation of foreign earned income have any effect on the presence of American employees in foreign countries. The results of prior studies disagree on whether the U.S. income tax law may be used as an incentive to encourage Americans to work abroad. The present research addressed this issue once more using an ex post facto analysis of changes in American employment abroad following two recent tax law changes--the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1976 and the Foreign Earned Income Act (FEIA) of 1978. Since employment data for Americans working abroad are not available, the annual number of passports issued to individuals traveling for business purposes was selected as a suitable surrogate. The first hypothesis tested was that American employment declined subsequent to the TRA. This hypothesis was divided into four sub-hypotheses, three of which were supported by the ensuing analysis. Therefore, it was concluded that American employment did decline as a result of the TRA. The second hypothesis stated that American employment abroad changed subsequent to the FEIA. This hypothesis was divided into two sub-hypotheses. The analysis supported both sub-hypotheses indicating that the presence of American workers abroad increased as a result of the FEIA. The third hypothesis also centered around the FEIA. Since the provisions of this act granted larger tax deductions to American employees residing in high-cost countries relative to those residing in low-cost countries, it was hypothesized that American employment in high-cost countries increased more than did American employment in low-cost countries subsequent to the FEIA. This hypothesis was divided into two sub-hypotheses, only one of which was supported by the analysis. No conclusion could be reached regarding hypothesis three. The overall conclusion of the study was that changes in U.S. income tax laws do affect the decisions of U.S. citizens to accept employment decisions abroad. / Ph. D.