A recent South African judgment concerning the application of the most favoured nation clause in the South Africa/ Netherlands double tax convention has once again raised questions regarding the correct approach to the interpretation of treaties in South Africa and what information should be admissible as part of this process. In particular the court's strict approach to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of double tax treaties and the application of the parol evidence rule requires further investigation. This dissertation considers this question by first analysing the approach to interpretation and the admission of extrinsic evidence as provided for under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thereafter, the South African domestic approach to interpretation and the principles regulating the admission of extrinsic evidence is considered. A particular focus is placed on the parol evidence rule as applied by South African courts. Following this analysis, the dissertation proceeds with a comparison of the two approaches in order to determine any commonalities and differences that might exist. Through this process of comparison, the dissertation finds that the contemporary South African approach to interpretation, is largely aligned with the approach in the Vienna convention, subject to certain limitations on evidence admissibility as provided for under the domestic parol evidence rule. The dissertation concludes that it would be appropriate for a South African court to apply the ordinary domestic principles of interpretation when interpreting tax treaties, provided that this process must still be informed by the principles of the Vienna Convention, other sources of customary international law and foreign case law on the interpretation of treaties. The interpretive process would nevertheless remain subject to the domestic principles of evidence admissibility and the parol evidence rule.

Includes bibliographical references / The OECD made certain recommendations in its 2014 discussion draft, "Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements", comprising recommendations on domestic law and double tax convention measures. This dissertation assesses the potential implication of these recommendations for South Africa's tax laws and double tax conventions as these relate to cross border financing arrangements between two taxpayers using hybrid instruments or hybrid entities. These hybrid entities and mismatches and which give rise to mismatch outcomes either through a deduction arising in either jurisdictions or a deduction arising in one jurisdiction without an inclusion in income in the other jurisdiction. This assessment is made to understand how these recommendations could impact on South Africa's tax laws and double tax conventions. This impact is assessed by determining the publically expressed sentiment of the South African government towards the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting proposals and thereafter by assessing how the above noted recommendations may interact with the Income Tax Act and South Africa's double tax conventions to address mismatches within the scope of this dissertation. This interactions is assessed by: reviewing the treatment of cross border hybrid instrument and hybrid entity arrangements in the Income Tax Act, the withholding tax measures in the Income Tax Act, the treatment of these arrangements in double tax conventions concluded by South Africa, and the interaction of the recommendations in the above OECD report with the Income Tax Act and double tax conventions concluded by South Africa. Conclusions are then drawn from this analysis. The review of publically expressed sentiments of the South African government evidenced support for the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting proposals but also a sensitivity to South Africa's tax sovereignty. The review of the treatment in the Income Tax Act of the arrangements within the scope of this dissertation found that at times the Income Tax Act potentially did not resolve the mismatches of concern and that withholding tax may not have the potential to comprehensively preserve the tax base against these arrangements, particularly taking into account the influence of double tax conventions. The review of the recommendations in the above OECD report found that these recommendations could assist existing domestic tax law measures in addressing the mismatch outcomes of concern, albeit not necessarily comprehensively and potentially at the cost of added complexity. It was also found that the double tax convention recommendations appeared to have limited impact to clarifying and confirming the existing treatment of arrangements involving hybrid entities. These findings are significant as they indicate a support for the OECD's recommendations by the South African government and that the recommendations could assist in addressing the mismatch outcomes addressed in this dissertation.

The number of MNEs have increased substantially in recent years, putting a strain on international tax rules which have not developed at the same pace. Many of these MNEs have kept their tax bill at a minimum by shifting profits to low tax jurisdictions by using transfer prices that do not accord with economic reality. In response hereto, many tax jurisdictions have implemented domestic anti-avoidance legislation to assist tax authorities in curbing tax avoidance resulting from the manipulation of transfer prices. SA is an example of such a country. These anti-avoidance provisions typically involve a primary and secondary adjustment. The primary adjustment requires that an adjustment be made to the transfer price used by the MNE in the event that the said price does not reflect an arm's length price. The secondary adjustment concerns itself with making the actual allocation of funds consistent with the primary adjustment by deeming there to be another transaction, i.e. the secondary transaction. In SA, this secondary adjustment takes the form of a deemed distribution of an asset in specie in the case of residents who are companies. As such, this secondary transaction (i.e. the deemed dividend) is subject to Dividends Tax in SA levied at the domestic rate. This study considered whether such a deemed dividend will qualify for treaty relief in the form of the reduced rate provided for by Article 10 of the OECD MTC and UN MTC. In making this analysis, three main issues where specifically considered, namely (i) whether the SA company paying the Dividends Tax will have access to treaty relief in cases where Dividends Tax is not listed as a covered tax in the relevant tax treaty, (ii) whether a deemed dividend under a secondary adjustment in terms of SA domestic law falls within the dividend definition contained in Article 10.3 of the OECD and UN MTC, and finally (iii) whether the relevant deemed dividend can be regarded as 'paid' for purposes of Article 10.1 and 10.2 of the OECD MTC and UN MTC. It was concluded that the SA Company will not qualify for the reduced rate provided for by tax treaties modelled on the OECD MTC and UN MTC as the deemed dividend does not fall within the ambit of the dividend definition contained in these model treaties. However, some of SA's tax treaties currently in force, deviate from the wording used in these model treaties to such an extent that it brings deemed dividends under a secondary adjustment in SA within the scope of the dividend definition, and in doing so, provides the SA Company with access to the reduced rates provided for in tax treaties. Examples hereof are the tax treaties that SA have concluded with the UK and NZ. Should SA decide to adopt a more 'forgiving' approach towards the availability of relief for secondary adjustments, it is recommended that SA either amend the domestic relief provisions to allow access to such relief, or amend the dividend definition contained in the tax treaties it currently has in force to include deemed dividends in terms of secondary adjustments in SA. The first approach is preferred as it is not always possible and timely to amend tax treaties currently in force.

For some countries, such as South Africa, a change of residence to another jurisdiction is a taxable event and may give rise to taxation of capital gains, based on a deemed disposal, even though there has not been an actual realisation of the capital gain. Such taxation is referred to as ‘exit or departure tax’ or ‘exit charge’. Double taxation of capital gains may arise when the former State of residence applies such an exit tax at the time when the taxpayer ceases to be a tax resident of that State, and when the new State of residence, thereafter, taxes the capital gain at the time of the actual disposal of the asset and realisation of the capital gain. A South African resident individual who emigrates, is therefore exposed to the risk of such double taxation. Double tax treaties following the OECD Model Convention aim at avoiding double taxation and provide distributive rules regarding capital gains in Article 13. This study examines if double tax treaties protect the individual emigrating from South Africa against the application of South Africa’s exit tax. Typical assets considered in the study are shares in a company, held as an investment. The analysis begins with an overview of the applicable rules of the South African Income Tax Act in respect of the capital gains tax levied when a South African resident individual emigrates and ceases to be a resident of South Africa. It then distinguishes between exit taxes in the strict sense (taxation of the accrued value at the time of emigration) and trailing taxes (extended tax jurisdiction, taxing the capital gains at the time of realisation after the emigration). The analysis then concentrates on four subquestions, i.e. (i) whether Art. 13(5) of the OECD Model Convention (2017) applies to exit taxes, (ii) whether Art. 13(5) of the OECD Model precludes the application of an exit tax, (iii) to what extent double tax treaties are able to mitigate the risk of double taxation in the case of exit taxes, and (iv) whether the tax treaty network of South Africa provides any protection against double taxation caused by the application of the South African exit tax. It was concluded that it is generally accepted, with the exception of a minority of authors, that the distributive rule of Art. 13(5) OECD Model includes capital gains arising from a deemed alienation and that that article does not preclude the former State of residence from applying its exit tax at the time when the person is still a resident of that State. However, Art. 13(5) OECD Model does preclude the application of trailing taxes after the person ceases to be a resident. In order to allow the application of trailing taxes, double tax treaties need to explicitly provide for this in a specific clause in the capital gains-article of the tax treaty. The exclusive allocation of taxing rights in art. 13(5) OECD Model in favour of the State of residence does not mitigate the risk of double taxation in the case of exit taxes in the strict sense. In order to avoid double taxation of that portion of the capital gain that already has been subjected to an exit tax in the strict sense, double tax treaties need to include a specific clause in the capital gains-article of the tax treaty, which obliges the new State of residence, when taxing the capital gain at the moment of realisation, to take into account the value that was subjected to the exit tax (step-up in the base cost). South Africa concluded only two treaties which provide for such a step-up in the base cost, one of which has not yet entered into force. This leaves the individual South African resident who emigrates, largely unprotected against double taxation of capital gains at a tax treaty level. It is recommended that South Africa include such specific clauses that provide for a step-up in the base cost in more tax treaties, especially in tax treaties with countries that do not already grant a step-up in terms of their domestic tax laws.

Transfer pricing may be described as the process by which related entities set prices at which they transfer goods or services between each other. Multinational entities (MNEs), by virtue of its global presence, are subject to different tax laws of different countries. Accordingly, MNEs can potentially set transfer prices that would result in more profit being earned in lower taxing jurisdictions rather than in countries with higher tax rates. As a result the tax base of higher taxing jurisdictions is eroded by virtue of MNE’s transfer pricing policies. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) noted that the erosion of a country’s tax base is a global issue faced by many tax authorities. In order to be transfer pricing compliant, MNEs need to ensure that their intercompany transactions are conducted at an arm’s length basis. As per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, the arm’s length principle is defined as: “the international transfer pricing standard that OECD member countries have agreed [and that] should be used for tax purposes by MNE groups and tax administrations.” The establishment of an arm’s length price by an MNE can differ to the price set by a tax authority for the MNE’s intercompany transactions. As a result of the uncertainty endured by MNEs, there has been a number of transfer pricing disputes between tax authorities and taxpayers. In order to minimise transfer pricing disputes, the OECD has recognised the need for transparent, efficient and consistent discussions between taxpayers and tax authorities. Advanced pricing agreements (APAs), as per the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, is a tool that attempts to prevent disputes from arising by proactively determining the criteria for applying the arm’s length principle to intercompany transactions. In June 2017, South Africa adopted a preliminary position towards implementing measures to make cross-border dispute resolution between taxpayers and tax authorities more effective through the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax-treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (MLI). Although South Africa has shown its commitment to the OECD through signing the MLI, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) has seemingly excluded transfer pricing matters from the advanced tax ruling system. Accordingly, there is no APA program in place within the South African fiscal system. There is also very little explanation offered by SARS for not implementing an APA system. This study argues that taxpayers and the tax revenue authorities have different views on the arm’s length principle. SARS and South African taxpayers are no different and may very well face such challenges. In light of such challenges, this study investigates whether SARS and the taxpayer may find relief with the implementation of an APA program. It is suggested that through the use of APAs, the arm’s length principle will be pre-determined and agreed by the parties. This will ultimately create certainty for many taxpayers, i.e. investors, due to the predictability of the transfer prices. In addition this study recommends introducing an APA program through an amendment of the current advance tax ruling legislation in order to open the ambit so as to include transfer pricing matters. Thereafter, SARS would need to introduce an APA program under Article 25(3) of South African tax treaties, through the publication of a guide on APAs like the way it was done for the MAP.

Mauritius continues to be among the most competitive, stable, and successful economies in Africa. Mauritius actively seeks foreign investment and prides itself on being open to foreign investment. Mauritius amongst other countries is one of the recipients of high volume foreign direct investment (FDI) and is well known for its favourable tax regime. This favourable tax regime remains one of the key reasons why South Africans use Mauritius as a preferred jurisdiction, well suited for passive investments as well as being an investment hub to establish and grow their foreign business activities. In 1996 SA concluded a double tax treaty ('DTT') with Mauritius to guard against potential double taxation. This could occur when a person is considered a tax resident in both South Africa and Mauritius by virtue of the application of the respective tax laws of these countries. The application of the DTT will however result in such a person being deemed to be resident in only one of the countries party to the DTT. On the 17 March 2013 SA signed a new DTT with Mauritius, which will bring about some significant changes for South Africans who have FDI in Mauritius. Of significance are the amendments to Article 4 in the DTT. The new tiebreaker rule provides that the Competent Authorities of the two Contracting States will by mutual agreement endeavour to decide which country has taxing rights in the case of persons other than individuals. This significant change has multiple effects on persons other than individuals and this can lead to a person in fact becoming subject to double taxation. This paper will investigate the effect of the change between Article 4 in the DTT concluded in1996 (in force from 20 June 1997) and the new Article 4 in the DTT signed on the 17 May2013 which came into effect from the 1 January 2016 for South Africans who have foreign direct investments in Mauritius. In conclusion the principles outlined in the relevant chapters will be presented through a practical application of determining if a person other than an individual is subject to double taxation. The application of the domestic laws of both SA and Mauritius and the application of the New IN6 will be applied to an offshore trust established in Mauritius. With the application of the principles and procedures one will be able to see the effect of the tie-breaker rule in the new DTT concluded on the 17 March 2013 between SA and Mauritius.

Includes bibliographical references. / Various countries have extended the levying of withholding taxes beyond the traditional withholding taxes on royalties, dividends and interest. Withholding taxes are now often levied on services such as management services, professional services, technical services, financial services, insurance services, fees, commission, advisory services and digital services, amongst others. The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact of these withholding taxes on certain services, in particularly intra-group cross border services in the context of source and related transfer pricing principles.

Based on recent international tax developments, global revenue authorities have identified a need for the exchange of taxpayer information (EOI) to identify both tax evasion and tax avoidance. This will impact the South African Development Community (SADC) tax payers and financial institutions by increasing the need for additional administrative capacity to identify and report such information, and for revenue authorities to share such information in appropriate circumstances. A number of bilateral and multilateral treaties are currently applicable to SADC taxpayers that regulate the exchange of information by revenue authorities. An analytical comparison between these treaties was performed to identify deviations from the Model Tax Convention (MTC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Treaties included in the analysis are those relevant for the South African retail sector trading in various African countries. The comparison of the recent SADC peer reviews of exchange of information revealed significant deficiencies in certain treaties and domestic laws regarding the identification of beneficial owners, bank secrecy, confidentiality rules and underlying document retention, and insufficient EOI agreements are in place. Significant work in amending domestic legislation and administrative capacity building is therefore still required for countries in the SADC region before they can be admitted as parties to the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. Additional investment in IT systems for revenue authorities will be crucial to handle and keep up with this increased information demand. Information will need to be collected, retained and reported using the agreed XML data standards. Conversely, financial institutions and taxpayers will also need to adjust their own tax systems in order to identify reportable information, and be prepared to comply with ad hoc or periodic requests from revenue authorities, even if it involves the tax affairs and information of third parties. EOI increases the risk for the infringements of a South African retail taxpayer's rights to privacy, confidentiality, just administrative action, access to information and access to courts.

Following the tax policy recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD')/Group of Twenty (‘G20') member countries, under the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project: Action 4 (‘BEPS Action 4'), the South African legislature recently enacted an internationally focused anti-avoidance provision, in section 23M of the Income Tax Act No.58 of 1962 (‘the Act'). The provision aims to limit interest expenditure incurred by the debtor, provided that the corresponding interest income accrued to non-resident creditor is, among other things, (which is most important,) not ‘subject to tax' in terms of section 23M(2)(i)(aa) of the Act. However, despite its importance, the phrase ‘subject to tax' is not defined in section 23M or in the general definition of the Act nor has the matter came before the South African courts for consideration. This has lead to confusion among taxpayers, and fragmented views among South African tax scholars, tax practitioners and the South African Revenue Services (‘SARS'). On the other hand, the phrase ‘subject to tax' has a long history in international tax law and it appears inter alia, in the South Africa-France, South Africa-Sweden and South Africa-Germany interest distributive rules tax treaties. The objective of this study is, based on the canons of interpretation of fiscal legislation, to propose an interpretation of phrase ‘subject to tax,' particularly when read in context of South African tax treaties, and thereafter apply it in the context of foreign corporate tax, normal tax and withholding tax on interest. The author concludes that the phrase ‘subject to tax' means that non-resident creditors must ‘actually' be liable to pay tax on interest, subject to deductions, set-offs and foreign tax reliefs. It is the authors view that if foreign corporate tax falls within the ambit of the word ‘tax' as defined in the applicable tax treaty and/or ‘covered tax' therein, the word ‘tax' encompass foreign corporate tax ‘actually' imposed on a non-resident creditor in its country, as a result of accrued interest from the South African source.

South Africa is at the forefront of implementing the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures of the OECD to prevent base erosion and profit shifting (MLI), the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) recommendations and the tackling of double non-taxation. In 2017, the National Treasury announced that the tax exemption for South African expatriates would be changing. The section would be amended so that foreign employment income would no longer be fully exempt in the hands of a resident. The section 10(1)(o)(ii) exemption in its original form was the relief mechanism for residents to prevent the possibility of double taxation on the employment income derived from working outside the republic. This being when South Africa converted from a source based to a residence-based tax system on 1 March 2001, and all South African residents became subject to tax on their world-wide income. Residents working abroad were at the risk of being subject to taxation on their employment income derived in two or more jurisdictions. Residents making use of the full tax exemption in terms of Section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and rendering services in countries where no employment tax was imposed or imposed at significantly low rates has therefore resulted in double non taxation. In 2017, South Africa's National Treasury published the Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, initially repealing the foreign employment income exemption entirely. However, as a result of strong criticism in the form of public commentary, National Treasury proposed and later enacted an alternative amendment by reverting to the partial repeal of the foreign employment income exemption in the form of an ‘exemption threshold'. As per the enactment of the Taxation Laws Amendment, Act, No.17 of 2017 which has revised the Income Tax Act No.58 of 1962 (IT Act), specifically with reference to the wording of section 10(1)(o)(ii) to allow for R1 million of foreign remuneration to be exempt from tax in South Africa if the individual is outside of the Republic for a stipulated number of days. The legislative amendment came into effect on 1 March 2020 and states that South African tax residents abroad will be required to pay tax up to 45% on their foreign employment income, where it exceeds the R1million threshold. With the recent budget speech in 2020, the specific tax exemption has been increased to R1.25 million. This ‘exemption threshold' primarily aims to target high net worth individuals and thus still provide the relief to middle and lower income earners. The effect of the amendment would be that all residents working outside of the Republic and who derive foreign employment income in excess of R1.25million and who have previously enjoyed the benefit of the section 10(1)(o)(ii) exemption will now be subject to taxation and possibly double taxation and would need to seek relief elsewhere if necessary. In this minor dissertation we have considered the effect of the Section 10(1)(o)(ii) amendment and what this will mean for the individual working abroad in relation to domestic tax legislation and any double tax treaties (DTC's) in place. A key finding arising from the research in the minor dissertation is that many South African's have hastily made a decision to formally emigrate through the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) procedures in an effort not to pay income tax in South Africa on foreign remuneration earned overseas. However, in considering alternate mechanisms, such as applying the rebate afforded in section 6quat of the IT Act or applying a DTC if in place, may be a simpler and more cost-effective solution instead of taking a more drastic decision to emigrate. Further, the fact that an individual potentially could be subject to tax on the full remuneration if they make the decision to formally emigrate as opposed to maintaining South African residency and only paying tax on the excess remuneration above the threshold should be considered in any future tax planning.