South Africa has adopted a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) as one of the methods to combat the innovative tax avoidance schemes into which taxpayers may enter. Nevertheless, since its introduction it has undergone numerous amendments due to weaknesses highlighted by its failures in court. Yet, since its most recent amendment in 2006, the efficacy of the South African GAAR has not been established as it has not been tested in the courts. This study addresses this concern by employing a ‗structured pre-emptive analysis‘ to identify the weaknesses of the South African GAAR when compared to its New Zealand counterpart. This approach is essentially qualitative and combines the typical doctrinal or black letter law approach used in law with that of reform-oriented approaches. Firstly, the South African and New Zealand GAARs were analysed and compared using a doctrinal approach to gain an understanding of the interpretation and application of the two GAARs. This allowed for the identification of weaknesses in the South African GAAR, whilst also making suggestions for its improvement. Thereafter, the South African GAAR was applied to the facts of a case from New Zealand by making use of a reform-oriented methodological approach. In applying the South African GAAR to the facts of the case, a framework of the South African GAAR was used to enhance the reliability of the findings by reducing subjectivity and improving replicability. The findings from the doctrinal and reform-oriented approaches revealed the weaknesses in the current South African GAAR when compared to its New Zealand counterpart. These weaknesses may be addressed in three ways. Firstly, guidance should be provided in order to address uncertainties in the interpretation and application of the South African GAAR so as to prevent inconsistencies that may limit its efficacy. Secondly, the purpose requirement and tainted elements could be consolidated into one requirement, where the presence of one of the tainted elements informs the objective purpose of the arrangement. Thirdly, the purpose requirement should be amended so that it need not be the sole or main purpose, but rather should be one of the purposes, provided it was not merely incidental. It is acknowledged that while the South African and New Zealand GAARs are directed to achieve the same end, the proposals for amendment would arguably go some way towards improving the efficacy of the South African GAAR. / Mini Dissertation (MCom (Taxation))--University of Pretoria, 2020. / Taxation / MCom (Taxation) / Unrestricted

Tax avoidance has been a concern to revenue authorities throughout the ages, and revenue authorities worldwide are engaged in a constant struggle to ensure taxpayer compliance while combating tax avoidance. South Africa is no exception to this struggle and the increasingly innovative ways in which taxpayers seek to minimise their tax burdens necessitate amendments in order to remain at the forefront of taxpayer compliance. In view of the above, the general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) have been amended numerous times to address weaknesses. The most recent of these amendments are those of 1996 and 2006. The research on GAAR in South Africa has focused on critical analyses once the legislation fails to stand up to the rigours of court, and has thus used the principle of hindsight to criticise GAAR and recommend improvements. However, in their current form (post-2006 amendments) the GAAR have not been presented before the courts, and thus the use of hindsight is not an appropriate tool to determine if the current GAAR regime has improved upon the weaknesses identified in the past. This study applied a qualitative case study approach to determine if the 2006 amendments to GAAR have in fact addressed these weaknesses. The current GAAR regime was applied to previous cases to determine if the unfavourable judgments for the Commissioner would now be considered favourable. In executing this process, an instrument was developed in phase 1 of the literature study to apply the new GAAR to the cases. In the second phase of the study this framework was applied to case law in which the previous GAAR regimes failed to stand up to the rigours of court, thus determining whether the 2006 amendments to GAAR addressed the weaknesses of the previous GAAR regime. The final phase of the study consisted of a literature control to determine if similar such conclusions have been made by other commentators to support the findings of the study. The findings of the case studies revealed that, on a balance of probabilities, none of the cases selected for analysis would have been held in favour of the Commissioner if they were brought to the courts today on the same grounds that they were attacked at the time and the courts used the instrument developed in phase 1 to apply the GAAR to these transactions. The study therefore indicates that the use of similar (often identical) wording of the purpose test as in the previous GAAR, as well as the use of the purpose test in conjunction with the amended abnormality test still result in a GAAR regime that may be an ineffective deterrent to tax avoidance. / Thesis (M.Com. (South African and International Taxation))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

Tax avoidance has been a concern to revenue authorities throughout the ages, and revenue authorities worldwide are engaged in a constant struggle to ensure taxpayer compliance while combating tax avoidance. South Africa is no exception to this struggle and the increasingly innovative ways in which taxpayers seek to minimise their tax burdens necessitate amendments in order to remain at the forefront of taxpayer compliance. In view of the above, the general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) have been amended numerous times to address weaknesses. The most recent of these amendments are those of 1996 and 2006. The research on GAAR in South Africa has focused on critical analyses once the legislation fails to stand up to the rigours of court, and has thus used the principle of hindsight to criticise GAAR and recommend improvements. However, in their current form (post-2006 amendments) the GAAR have not been presented before the courts, and thus the use of hindsight is not an appropriate tool to determine if the current GAAR regime has improved upon the weaknesses identified in the past. This study applied a qualitative case study approach to determine if the 2006 amendments to GAAR have in fact addressed these weaknesses. The current GAAR regime was applied to previous cases to determine if the unfavourable judgments for the Commissioner would now be considered favourable. In executing this process, an instrument was developed in phase 1 of the literature study to apply the new GAAR to the cases. In the second phase of the study this framework was applied to case law in which the previous GAAR regimes failed to stand up to the rigours of court, thus determining whether the 2006 amendments to GAAR addressed the weaknesses of the previous GAAR regime. The final phase of the study consisted of a literature control to determine if similar such conclusions have been made by other commentators to support the findings of the study. The findings of the case studies revealed that, on a balance of probabilities, none of the cases selected for analysis would have been held in favour of the Commissioner if they were brought to the courts today on the same grounds that they were attacked at the time and the courts used the instrument developed in phase 1 to apply the GAAR to these transactions. The study therefore indicates that the use of similar (often identical) wording of the purpose test as in the previous GAAR, as well as the use of the purpose test in conjunction with the amended abnormality test still result in a GAAR regime that may be an ineffective deterrent to tax avoidance. / Thesis (M.Com. (South African and International Taxation))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

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 (specializing in Taxation) Johannesburg 2015 / Due to the vast number of groups of companies having many subsidiaries that are no longer viable from an economic perspective or that no longer gain the tax benefit that they were first created to achieve, there are many group restructurings occurring. These restructurings are to potentially simplify the group structure as well as achieve the maximum tax benefit. This research report will analyse how groups may be restructured in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) as it stands currently by looking back at how restructurings were dealt with in the past and how that has now evolved. The research discusses the corporate rollover relief provisions that may be applied in order to simplify the restructuring process which is commonly used in today’s practice. The research suggests that there are many different ways to restructure a group in order to gain the maximum amount of benefit from a tax perspective. Key Words: branch, capital gains tax (CGT), corporate income tax, corporate rollover relief, deregistration, foreign tax resident, general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR), liquidation, partnership, restructure, value-added tax.

Les six pays qui forment le Conseil de Coopération du Golfe (CCG) disposent encore collectivement de vastes réserves de pétrole et de gaz. Mais pour combien de temps ? Arabie Saoudite, Bahreïn, Émirats Arabes Unis, Koweït, Oman et Qatar n’ont pendant longtemps imposé que les sociétés pétrolières étrangères. Conscients de la limite de la manne pétrolière, ils cherchent depuis plusieurs années à diversifier leur assise économique en attirant toujours plus d'investissements directs étrangers, autres que pétroliers. Un droit fiscal commun, applicable aux activités commerciales et industrielles des entreprises étrangères, a ainsi vu le jour en Arabie Saoudite, au Koweït, en Oman et au Qatar. Ce régime fiscal se distingue à la fois par de faibles taux d’imposition et par le renforcement permanent des moyens de recouvrement et de contrôle des opérations internationales des entreprises étrangères. Les entreprises françaises qui opèrent dans cette région bénéficient toujours, en application des conventions contre la double imposition, d’une suppression des retenues à la source sur leurs revenus issus des pays du CCG. C’est un avantage fiscal considérable par rapport à leurs homologues domiciliées dans d'autres pays occidentaux. Mais aujourd’hui, les sociétés françaises doivent faire face à une politique fiscale plus « agressive ». Elles sont confrontées à des systèmes fiscaux attractifs mais évolutifs, très diversifiés et de plus en plus coercitifs. / The six Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) still hold collectively vast reserves of oil and gas. But for how much longer? Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar have for a long time taxed only foreign oil companies. Aware of the limits of the oil godsend, these countries are currently seeking to diversify their economic basis by drawing in ever more foreign direct investment outside of the fossil fuel sector. New taxation laws applicable to foreign commercial and industrial activities have therefore been enacted in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. These laws share two main characteristics: low tax rates and strengthened measures to collect taxes and control the international operations of foreign companies. Under double taxation treaties, French companies operating in that region still enjoy exemption from withholding tax on their GCC revenue. That is a considerable advantage compared to their counterparts based in other Western countries. Yet French companies must now encounter an "aggressive" fiscal policy. They are confronted with attractive fiscal systems but constantly changing, diverse and coercive.