"The Income Tax Acts themselves impose a territorial limit; either that from which the taxable income is derived must be situate in the United Kingdom or the person whose income is to be taxed must be resident there", per Lord Herschell in Colquhoun v Brooks (1889) 2 TC 490 at 498 These remarks by Lord Herschell even though directed at the United Kingdom tax system in 1889 seem to capture the situation in the new tax law in Lesotho. A recurring question for any tax system to date is is taxation by either residence and/or source appropriate? This question inspired my research into the examination of the new Lesotho Income Tax Order No 9 of 1993.

M.Com. (Taxation) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-139). / By comparing the income tax allowances and deductions for private investors in film production funds in Germany and in South Africa, the author aims to show how the governments of these two countries are taxing private individuals who invest in film funds, i.e. what incentives are offered to such venturesome investors. The tax incentives examined here provide the taxpayer with a deferment of his tax payments. By making the comparison the author intends examine what role a domestic film fund can play as an instrument for financing domestic and export films and how the government can promote film production in this way.

No description available.

Section 20 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 allows a taxpayer that has sustained an assessed loss to carry forward the balance of assessed loss and be set off against income earned in the future years. In addition, the loss sustained from one source may be set off the income from another. The assessed loss may be carried forward indefinitely, provided the taxpayer does not fall foul to a provision that restricts the continued use of the assessed loss. The taxpayer's right to retain, carry forward and utilise the assessed loss will be lost if: • The taxpayer's debt(s) are reduced or extinguished, without it being settled. • When a company cease trading. • Also in the case of a company, when income is channelled into it solely for the utilisation of the assessed loss. A recent amendment prevents certain individuals from setting off the assessed loss sustained in certain activities against the income of another. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, 2004.

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.Com. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

M.Com. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

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, 2017 / As a result of a weakening and slow global economy and rising debt, many foreign governments are finding it difficult to implement strategies to ensure continued inclusive and sustainable growth. It is based on this troubling perspective of global uncertainty that tax authorities worldwide have unanimously persisted in their fight against tax evasion through the under-declaration of income from foreign assets, the illegal movement of money abroad, the misapplication and / or manipulation of transfer pricing legislation and mistreatments of tax treaties. The G20 Leaders together with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) have developed standards such as the Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”) for the Automatic Exchange of Information (“AEOI”) between tax authorities to enhance the sharing of information and transparency of information between tax authorities worldwide. South Africa has pledged to implement the CRS and automatically share tax information with other jurisdictions on an annual basis in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance. Of significance, in terms of timing for South African tax residents, is that South Africa has undertaken to be one of the early adopters of the CRS and committed to commence the first exchange of information from 2017. In light of the standards and actions coming into place, it has become clear that before long the likelihood of the South African Revenue Services (“SARS”) and the South African Reserve Bank (“SARB”) detecting tax evasion and avoidance is increasingly high. Based on this, non-compliant taxpayers have a limited timeframe to manoeuvre freely in and what may be their last opportunity to voluntarily disclose these assets and the income derived therefrom to SARS and SARB without facing heavier penalties and possible criminal prosecution. / MT 2018

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, 2017 / Trusts are an essential tool for estate planning. The interest in trust structures by taxpayers has increased over the years and the South African Revenue Services (‘SARS’) and National Treasury (‘NT’) have placed trusts on their agenda due to their perceived tax avoidance resulting from the use of trust structures. Section 7C was introduced into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (as amended) (‘the Act’) in order to curb the avoidance of estate duty. However, the work undertaken by SARS and NT over the years and the insertion of this section in the Act, created an impression that there is avoidance of taxation through the use of trust structures. This study will interrogate the provisions of s 7C in order to determine the effectiveness of this section in curbing the avoidance of estate duty and/or tax through the use of trust structures. The well thought out manner in which this section was drafted and the existence of other tax provisions in the Act which pertain to trusts and the funding mechanisms of trusts suggest that this new inclusion is a convenient and easy manner to monitor the abuse by SARS and NT and subsequently curb the perceived abuse. The interplay of this section with ss 7 and 31 of the Act indicate a risk of unintended double taxation. This and the circumvention options that taxpayers may embark on are matters that may render the section ineffective, although it is evidenced that this section closes that last door that remained open for taxpayers in respect of funding a trust. Key Words: Tax avoidance, estate duty avoidance, National Treasury, SARS, National Budget Speech, Davis Tax Committee Reports on estate duty, Interest-free and low interest loans, Affected Transactions (s 31), Donor attribution rules (s 7), Donations and donations tax, Double taxation. / GR2018