M.Comm. / In the case of share purchase schemes, the employer assists the employee to buy shares through a trust. If the interest on the loan is at a rate lower than the standard rate for tax purposes, the employee will be taxed on the difference between the standard and actual rate charged. An alternative for buying ordinary shares is to buy convertible preference shares in the Company. A scheme involving convertible debentures has the same basic principles as convertible preference shares, but the South African Revenue Services might use section 8A of the Act as it seems as if only a right to ordinary shares is offered to the employee. If the company does not have the means to administrate any of the schemes summarised above, they can make use of a phantom share scheme. With this scheme there is no actual buying or selling of shares, but "bonuses" are calculated with reference to the movement in the share price. These incentives are treated as normal bonuses for tax purposes in the hands of the employer and employee. To provide the employees with a tax effective scheme is just as important as providing a share incentive scheme. Companies, therefore, have to consider all the schemes available and the tax implications before implementing a share incentive scheme.

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

Thesis (MComm)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 74D of the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 (the Act) grants the power of search and seizure to the South African Revenue Service, the basic underlying principle being that the Commissioner has to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to a search and seizure operation. The previous section 74(3) of the Act provided that the Commissioner was allowed himself to authorise and conduct a search and seizure operation without the requirement of a warrant. Section 74D of the Act was recently reviewed and the Tax Administration Bill (the TAB) contains the new provisions on search and seizure that will replace section 74D of the Act. In this assignment, the concept of search and seizure was examined by considering the cases, academic writing and other material on the topic. The objectives were to analyse the development of search and seizure in South African income tax law, to provide a basic understanding of the warranted and warrantless search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB, to determine their constitutionality and to determine the remedies available to a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure. It was found that search and seizure has developed from warrantless under the previous section 74(3) of the Act into the requirement of a warrant under section 74D of the Act into a combination of both under the TAB. The concept of an ex parte application was analysed, which was shown to be permissible in certain circumstances under section 74D of the Act, while it is now compulsory in terms of the TAB. It was shown that the TAB closed the lacuna in the Act relating to the validity period of a warrant before it has been executed. It was, however, concluded, regarding whether a warrant expires when exercised or whether the same warrant can be used again to conduct a second search and seizure, that the position is not quite certain in terms of the Act and the TAB. It was found that there is no defined meaning of the reasonable grounds criterion, which is often required to be met in terms of the Act and the TAB, but that anyone that has to comply with the criterion must be satisfied that the grounds in fact exist objectively. The new warrantless search and seizure provisions of the TAB were analysed. It was established that warrantless search and seizure provisions are not uncommon in other statutes, but that the content thereof often differs. The new warrantless provisions were compared to the warrantless search and seizure provisions of, inter alia, the Competition Act No 89 of 1998 (the Competition Act), and it was found that the warrantless TAB provisions are not in all respects as circumscribed as those of the Competition Act and recommendations for counterbalances were made. It was concluded that the warranted search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB should be constitutionally valid but that the constitutionality of the new warrantless provisions of the TAB is not beyond doubt. It was furthermore found that the remedies at the disposal of a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure should indeed be sufficient, but that there are no remedies available to a taxpayer to prevent injustice or harm. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 74D van die Inkomstebelastingwet No 58 van 1962, (die Wet) verleen aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens die mag van deursoeking en beslaglegging, die grondliggende beginsel synde dat die Kommissaris ’n lasbrief van ’n regter moet verkry voor die deursoeking en beslaglegging kan plaasvind. Die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet het bepaal dat die Kommissaris self ’n deursoeking en beslaglegging kon magtig en uitvoer sonder die vereiste van ’n lasbrief. Artikel 74D van die Wet is onlangs hersien en die nuwe Belastingadministrasie-wetsontwerp (BAW) bevat die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging wat artikel 74D van die Wet sal vervang. In hierdie werkstuk is die konsep van deursoeking en beslaglegging ondersoek deur oorweging van die hofsake, akademiese skrywe en ander materiaal oor die onderwerp. Die doelstellings was om die ontwikkeling van deursoeking en beslaglegging in die Suid-Afrikaanse inkomstebelastingreg te ontleed, om ’n basiese begrip van die bepalings in die Wet en die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met en sonder ’n lasbrief te verskaf, om die grondwetlikheid daarvan te bepaal en om die remedies te bepaal wat beskikbaar is vir ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging. Daar is bevind dat deursoeking en beslaglegging ontwikkel het vanaf sonder ’n lasbrief ingevolge die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet tot die vereiste van ’n lasbrief ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet tot die kombinasie van albei ingevolge die BAW. Die konsep van ’n ex parte-aansoek is ontleed, en dit blyk in sekere omstandighede ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet toelaatbaar te wees, terwyl dit nou ingevolge die BAW verpligtend is. Daar is aangedui dat die BAW die lacuna in die Wet oor die geldigheidsperiode van ’n lasbrief voordat dit uitgevoer is, verwyder het. Daar is egter bevind, rakende die vraag of ’n lasbrief verval wanneer dit uitgevoer word en of dieselfde lasbrief weer gebruik kan word om ’n tweede deursoeking en beslaglegging uit te voer, dat daar nie sekerheid ingevolge die Wet of die BAW bestaan nie. Daar is bevind dat daar geen gedefinieerde betekenis vir die kriterium van redelike gronde is nie, waaraan dikwels ingevolge die Wet en die BAW voldoen moet word, maar dat enigiemand wat aan die kriterium moet voldoen tevrede moet wees dat die gronde inderwaarheid objektief bestaan. Die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is ondersoek. Daar is vasgestel dat bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie ongewoon is in ander wette nie, maar dat die inhoud daarvan dikwels verskil. Die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is vergelyk met die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief van, inter alia, die Mededingingswet No 89 van 1998 (die Mededingingswet), en daar is bevind dat die BAW-bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie in alle opsigte so afgebaken is soos dié van die Mededingingswet nie en voorstelle vir teenwigte is gemaak. Die gevolgtrekking is gemaak dat die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met ’n lasbrief van die Wet en die BAW grondwetlik geldig behoort te wees, maar dat die grondwetlikheid van die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie onweerlegbaar is nie. Daar is verder bevind dat die remedies tot die beskikking van ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging inderdaad genoegsaam behoort te wees, maar dat daar geen remedies aan ’n belastingpligtige beskikbaar is om ongeregtigheid of skade te voorkom nie.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The requirements of section 11(a) and section 24J(2) were considered in this research assignment, from both a money-lender’s and an investment holding company’s perspective, to determine whether interest, losses on irrecoverable loans and raising fees were tax deductible. It was determined, that if the trade requirement is satisfied by the money-lender, then the above-mentioned expenses are fully tax deductible. However, if the trade requirement is satisfied by the investment holding company then only the interest is fully tax deductible. It is further submitted however in this research assignment that it cannot be said that the money-lender alternative is better than the investment holding company alternative – both alternatives are of equal value in the current tax system. What is important though is that taxpayers who will fit the mould of an investment holding company will now be able to use the principles set out in this research assignment to prove that it is in fact carrying on a trade for tax purposes, something that taxpayers are generally reluctant to pursue. If this is pursued, taxpayers may have the added tax benefit of tax deductible interest expenditure (in full) in cases where this was not previously the norm (and an investment holding company will not have to satisfy any of the guidelines of the “money-lender test” when it seeks to deduct its interest expense in full). However, if an investment holding company seeks to deduct losses on irrecoverable loans and raising fees for tax purposes, it will not have to satisfy all the guidelines of the “money-lender test”, but it will have to satisfy one guideline, that being the “system or plan” and “frequent turnover of capital” guideline. It will be very difficult for an investment holding company to prove this on the facts of the case – it will arguably take a special set of facts to accomplish this mean feat. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vereistes van artikel 11(a) en artikel 24J (2) is in hierdie navorsingsopdrag vanuit ʼn geldskieter en 'n beleggingshouermaatskappy se perspektief oorweeg, om die belastingaftrekbaarheid van rente, verliese op oninvorderbare lenings en diensfooie te bepaal. Daar is vasgestel dat indien die bedryfsvereiste deur ʼn geldskieter nagekom word, bogenoemde uitgawes ten volle vir belastingdoeleindes aftrekbaar is. Indien die bedryfsvereiste egter nagekom word deur ʼn beleggingshouermaatskappy sal slegs die rente ten volle aftrekbaar wees vir belastingdoeleindes. Verder word dit in die navorsingsopdrag aan die hand gedoen dat daar nie gesê kan word dat die geldskieter-alternatief beter is as die beleggingshouermaatskappy-alternatief nie – beide alternatiewe is van gelyke waarde in die huidige belastingbestel. Die onderskeid is egter belangrik, aangesien die belastingbetalers wat aan die vereistes van ʼn beleggingshouermaatskappy voldoen, nou in staat sal wees om die beginsels wat in hierdie navorsingsopdrag uiteengesit word, te gebruik om te bewys dat die beleggingshouermaatskappy in werklikheid ʼn bedryf vir belastingdoeleindes beoefen. Belastingbetalers is oor die algemeen huiwerig om dit te poog. Indien wel, kan belastingbetalers ʼn belastingaftrekking ten opsigte van rente uitgawes kry, wat voorheen nie die norm was nie (ʼn beleggingshouermaatskappy sal nie enige van die “geldskietertoets” riglyne hoef na te kom wanneer dit poog om ʼn belastingafrekking vir die rente uitgawe te kry nie). Indien ʼn beleggingshouermaatskappy verliese op oninvorderbare lenings en diensfooie vir belastingdoeleindes wil aftrek, sal die belastingbetaler nie al die “geldskietertoets” riglyne hoef na te kom nie, maar sal egter moet voldoen aan die “stelsel of plan” en “gereelde omset van kapitaal” riglyne. Dit sal baie moeilik wees vir 'n beleggingshouermaatskappy om dit te bewys op grond van die feite van die saak – dit sal waarskynlik ʼn spesiale stel feite verg om dit te bereik.

M. Comm. / The purpose of this study is to determine the desirability of implementing of a system of capital transfer tax in South Africa. The implementation of a capital transfer tax system in South Africa should generate additional income without placing a further administrative or financial burden on the South African Revenue Services. A system of capital transfer tax will replace the current system of donation tax and estate duty in South Africa. Any new system will be based on the principles established by these two forms of taxation, but should simultaneously address many of the loopholes in these two systems. Since the Margo Commission's recommendation in 1986 that South Africa should implement a system of capital transfer tax, much has been written about this form of capital tax but the government has never implemented the recommendations. However, it is certain that a system of capital transfer tax will be implemented in South Africa in the future. The current system of donation tax and estate duty is not effective in levying the taxes and earning the income for the government for which it was originally designed. Over the years numerous ways have been developed to legally avoid these taxes, which is why they are referred to as voluntary taxes (Anon, 1988:17). This dissertation consists of three parts: The first part is a literature study in which capital taxes are discussed. The distinction between income and capital is reviewed. The various forms of capital taxes are identified and the arguments for and against introducing one of them are discussed. This part concludes with arguments for and against a system of capital transfer tax for South Africa. The second part is an analysis of donation tax and estate duty as currently levied in South Africa. The shortcomings of the current legislation are discussed and legal ways to avoid estate duty are identified. The inheritance tax system in the UK and the donation tax and estate duty system in the USA are also briefly discussed. The anti-avoidance measures implemented in these countries are discussed in some detail in view of recommendations to implement similar measures in South Africa. In the third part a capital transfer tax system for South Africa is proposed. Precautions to minimise the avoidance of these taxes through interest-free loans and generation-skipping devises are discussed. Finally a conclusion is reached regarding the matters analysed in this dissertation.

M. Comm. / The objective of the study is to critically evaluate the process of implementation of the residence—based system of taxation in South Africa and to evaluate whether the South African Revenue Service achieved their goals mentioned above through the implementation of this complex, sophisticated system of taxation. A well known cross border preference share structure will be utilised to illustrate the effect of the changes from a source to a residence taxation system. In order for a residence-based taxation system to be effective, it is essential that it draws into the tax net income earned by South Africanowned foreign entities (principally South African-owned foreign subsidiaries). If such income is not taxed, it is easy for South African residents to avoid tax by shifting their income to foreign entities in tax havens and preferential regimes, in which event the income earned by the foreign entity will be subjected to South African taxation only when repatriated as a dividend (Jooste, 2001:473-502). An efficient residence-based system spurns such a delay or deferral of taxation because taxpayers often delay repatriation for years, or never repatriate funds at all. This was exactly what the South African Revenue Service wanted to achieve through the introduction of the full-blown residence-based taxation system. The South African taxation system was based on a pure source system. Gradual changes in the economic environment necessitated certain amendments to the South African Income Tax Act to ensure that South Africa protects its tax base. Even though the residence based system of taxation was implemented over a number of years since 1997, numerous problems are still being encountered with the practical application of this complex system of taxation. South Africa's participation as a global player is examined from a tax perspective and practical application issues are examined. The taxation of foreign dividends introduced with effect 22 February 2002 serves as an example of the major impact that these changes had on cross-border structuring. Although this only serves as an example of the extent of the impact, various other cross-border structuring have been drastically impacted by these changes.

Section 20 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 allows a taxpayer that incurs an assessed loss to carry forward the balance of assessed loss incurred, to be set off against taxable income earned in or added to losses incurred in future years. The issues regarding the carry forward of assessed losses in terms of section 20 is complex and in terms of the said section, a company is only entitled to set off its assessed loss from the previous year against its taxable income in the current year, if the taxpayer has carried on a trade during the current year and has derived income from that trade. Under the provisions of section 20(2A), a taxpayer other than a company can utilise an assessed loss even if no trading has been conducted. Assessed losses of natural persons, may however be ring-fenced. The aim of this treatise was twofold. Firstly it was to gain clarity on the „trade‟ and „income from trade‟ issues and secondly to compare South African legislation with that of Australia, with a view to recommending a change in our rules regarding the treatment of assessed losses in the context of companies. The critical lessons to be learned from the cases presented, is that liquidators, creditors and others must ensure that the company continues trading in order to x keep the assessed losses valid. Realisation of assets (including stock), and the collection of outstanding debts during liquidation does not constitute the carrying on of a trade in terms of s 20(1). The continuity of trade is an important element in regard to the carry forward of assessed losses to be utilised in the current and future years. Therefore it is important that a company carries on some activity that falls within the definition of trade. In the landmark case of SA Bazaars, it was held that a company did not have to trade continuously throughout the year to qualify for the set-off of the assessed loss or carry forward of the assessed loss, that is, to trade for say part of the year. The court however left open the issue of whether it was necessary to derive income from that trade. In order to clarify the issues regarding assessed losses, SARS issued Interpretation Note 33 granting taxpayers a concession in certain cases where a company has traded, but not derived income from that trade. But in ITC 1830, the court ruled that a company must trade and must derive income from that trade in order to carry forward its assessed loss, which effectively means that SARS cannot apply Interpretation Note 33. SARS does not have the authority to make concession which is contrary to the wording of the Act. xi In Australia, operating losses can be carried forward indefinitely to be set-off against future income, provided a company meets the more than 50% continuity of ownership test. Where the continuity test fails, losses can be deducted if the same business is carried on in the income year (the same business test). From the research conducted and in order to solve the issues surrounding the carry forward of assessed losses it was suggested that one of the following be adopted :- The method used in Australia for the carry forward of assessed losses., or A decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is needed for a departure from the literal meaning of the words pertaining to the requirements regarding the carry forward of assessed losses. Furthermore, to clarify the definition of „income‟, as used in the context of s20, is it gross income less exempt income or taxable income?. If section 20 relates to taxable income, then an assessed loss will never be increased, which it is submitted, is not what the legislature intended. Section 20 ought to be revisited to eliminate any uncertainty about the income requirement and in the context in which the word „income‟ is used in that section.

L.LM. (Corporate Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 24C of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (‘the Act’) provides for a deduction of future expenditure that will be incurred by the taxpayer in the performance of his obligations under a contract from which the taxpayer derived income. Due to uncertainties regarding the meaning of certain words and phrases used in section 24C, the first aim of this assignment was to determine the meaning of the word ‘expenditure’ and the phrase ‘will be incurred’ as used in section 24C. The second aim was to establish how a taxpayer will prove with certainty that he will incur future expenditure in the performance of his obligations under a contract. This was done by discussing the effect of contractual terms and other circumstances and by taking into account certain additional guidelines regarding the interpretation of section 24C provided for in Interpretation Note: No. 78 (‘IN 78’). It was established that the word ‘expenditure’ means the amount of money spent, including the disbursement of other assets with a monetary value. The word ‘expenditure’ also specifically includes the voluntary payments and disbursements of assets. The word ‘expenditure’ can also include a loss if the word ‘loss’ can be equated to the word ‘expenditure’. The phrase ‘will be incurred’ implies that the taxpayer will, in a subsequent year of assessment, have an unconditional obligation to pay for expenditure, which must arise from the taxpayer’s obligations to perform under the contract. Contractual terms and other circumstances can indicate whether there is certainty that future expenditure will be incurred as aforementioned. Conditions and warranties are contractual terms that indicate that there is uncertainty regarding the taxpayer’s obligations to perform under the contract. A time clause in a contract can indicate that there is certainty regarding the taxpayer’s obligations to perform under the contract. Similar contracts with similar conditional obligations to perform cannot be grouped together in order to determine the probability, and thus the certainty, that future expenditure will be incurred in the performance of the taxpayer’s obligations under a contract. The probability that a taxpayer will perform his unconditional obligation under the contract must, however, be proved in order to demonstrate that there is certainty regarding the incurral of the future expenditure. IN 78 does not specify whether a loss which can, in certain circumstances, be equated to the word ‘expenditure’, is deductible under section 24C. This should be clarified. The new undefined phrases (a high degree of probability, inevitability, certainty and potentially contractually obligatory), as used in IN 78, might cause confusion when interpreting section 24C. These phrases should be defined and it should be explained how the high degree will be measured. Lastly, is was shown that an anomaly occurs regarding trading stock at hand at the end of a year of assessment, which will be utilised in a subsequent year of assessment in the performance of the taxpayer’s obligations under a contract. Such trading stock does not represent ‘future expenditure’ and must be excluded from the section 24C allowance. However, due to the interplay between section 24C and section 22(1), the taxpayer does not receive any tax relief for the expenditure actually incurred to acquire the closing trading stock in the year in which such trading stock is acquired. It is, therefore, questioned whether the established interpretation of section 24C is in agreement with the Legislator’s original intention with section 24C namely, to match income received under a contract with the related deductible expenditure. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 24C van die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 (‘die Wet’) voorsien ʼn aftrekking vir toekomstige onkoste wat deur die belastingpligtige aangegaan sal word in die nakoming van sy verpligtinge ingevolge ʼn kontrak waaruit hy inkomste verkry het. As gevolg van onsekerhede ten opsigte van die betekenis van sekere woorde en frases wat in artikel 24C gebruik word, was die eerste doelstelling van hierdie navorsingswerkstuk om die betekenis van die woord ‘onkoste’ en die frase ‘aangegaan sal word’, soos wat dit in artikel 24C gebruik word, te bepaal. Die tweede doelstelling was om vas te stel hoe 'n belastingpligtige met sekerheid sal bewys dat hy toekomstige onkoste sal aangaan in die nakoming van sy verpligtinge ingevolge ʼn kontrak. Dit is gedoen deur die effek van kontraksbedinge en ander omstandighede te bespreek en deur sekere bykomende riglyne ten opsigte van die interpretasie van artikel 24C, soos vervat in Interpretasienota No. 78 (‘IN 78’), in ag te neem. Daar is vasgestel dat die woord ‘onkoste’ die bedrag van geld wat bestee word, insluitend die uitbetaling van ander bates met 'n geldwaarde, beteken. Die woord ‘onkoste’ sluit ook spesifiek vrywillige betalings en uitbetalings van bates in. Die woord ‘onkoste’ kan ook 'n verlies insluit, indien die woord ‘verlies’ gelyk gestel kan word aan die woord ‘onkoste’. Die frase ‘aangegaan sal word’ impliseer dat die belastingpligtige, in 'n daaropvolgende jaar van aanslag, 'n onvoorwaardelike verpligting sal hê om vir onkostes te betaal. Hierdie onkostes moet ontstaan weens die belastingpligtige se verpligtinge ingevolge die kontrak. Kontraksbedinge en ander omstandighede kan aandui of daar sekerheid is dat die toekomstige onkoste, soos hierbo genoem, aangegaan sal word. Voorwaardes en waarborge is kontraksbedinge wat daarop dui dat daar onsekerheid is rakende die belastingpligtige se verpligtinge om ingevolge die kontrak op te tree. ʼn Tydsklousule in 'n kontrak kan aandui dat daar sekerheid is rakende die belastingpligtige se nakoming van sy verpligtinge ingevolge die kontrak. Soortgelyke kontrakte, met soortgelyke voorwaardelike verpligtinge kan nie saam gegroepeer word ten einde te bepaal of dit waarskynlik, en gevolglik seker is dat toekomstige onkoste in die nakoming van ʼn belastingpligtige se verpligtinge ingevolge die kontrak aangaan sal word nie. Die waarskynlikheid dat 'n belastingpligtige sy onvoorwaardelike verpligting ingevolge die kontrak sal nakom moet egter bewys word ten einde aan te dui dat daar sekerheid is dat toekomstige onkoste aangegaan sal word. IN 78 spesifiseer nie of 'n verlies wat, in sekere omstandighede, gelyk gestel kan word aan die woord ‘onkoste’, ingevolge artikel 24C aftrekbaar is nie. Duidelikheid hieromtrent moet verskaf word. Die nuwe, ongedefinieerde frases ('n hoë graad van waarskynlikheid, onafwendbaarheid, sekerheid en potensieel kontraktueel verpligtend (vry vertaal)), soos in IN 78 gebruik, kan moontlik verwarring veroorsaak wanneer artikel 24C geïnterpreteer word. Hierdie frases moet gedefinieer word en daar moet verduidelik word hoe ʼn hoë graad gemeet gaan word. Laastens blyk dit dat 'n teenstrydigheid ontstaan ten opsigte van handelsvoorraad op hande aan die einde van 'n jaar van aanslag, wat in 'n daaropvolgende jaar van aanslag deur die belastingpligtige in die nakoming van sy verpligtinge ingevolge 'n kontrak gebruik sal word. Sodanige handelsvoorraad verteenwoordig nie ‘toekomstige onkoste’ nie en moet by die artikel 24C toelaag uitgesluit word. Die belastingpligte ontvang egter, weens die wisselwerking tussen artikel 24C en artikel 22(1), nie ʼn belastingverligting vir die onkoste werklik aangegaan in die jaar waarin sodanige handelsvoorraad verkry is nie. Dit word dus bevraagteken of die bewese interpretasie van artikel 24C in ooreenstemming is met die Wetgewer se oorspronklike bedoeling met artikel 24C, naamlik, om inkomste ontvang ingevolge ʼn kontrak met die verwante aftrekbare uitgawes te paar.

M.Comm. / Due to uncertainties experienced while working for the South African Revenue Services and the fact that there are no specific sections in the Income Tax Act no. 58 of 1962 dealing with interest, foreign exchange and bad and doubtful debts of commercial banks there were a need to undertake a study. The study therefore undertakes an examination to determine if the existing sections of the Income Tax Act dealing with interest, foreign exchange and bad and doubtful debts are enough legislation to deal with the interest, foreign exchange and bad and doubtful debts of commercial banks. The study also try to clear all existing uncertainties experienced and mentioned in this study. The study can be divided into the following four parts: A literature study of the definition of "bank" and "banking operations", in terms of history and current legislation. A study of the definition of "interest" and "finance charges", in terms of sections of the Income Tax Act, Act no. 58 of 1962 and applicable court cases. The chapter also concentrates on the application of section 24J of the Income Tax Act on the interest-transactions of commercial banks as well as the identification of any short falls of the section. Before interest can be treated in terms of section 24J of the Income Tax Act, the source of the interest will have to be in South Africa. General sourse principles applicable to commercial banks as well as the deductability of interest expenses when expenced to generate exempt income will therefore also be covered in this chapter. A study of the application of section 241 of the Income Tax Act dealing with the foreign exchange of commercial banks. An examination of the way commercial banks should treat their bad and doubtful debts and the factors taken into account in court decisions relating thereto. The most important activities of a bank are identified in this study as the acceptance of deposits, the provision of credit, rendering of financial services and the trade in exchange and the utilisation of money and interest received. In terms of section 24J of the Income Tax Act, interest include finance charges, premiums or disconto's, all interests and the difference between all amounts payable or receivable in terms of a sale and leaseback agreement. It was found that all the interest of a commercial bank are included in the definition of interest and all the transactions of a commercial bank are treated in terms of section 24J of the Income Tax Act for income tax purposes. Section 241 of the Income Tax Act focuses on foreign exchange transactions and are found to be enough legislation for the foreign exchange transactions of commercial banks. Although bad and doubtful debts are not part of the activities of a commercial bank they are part of the uncertainties experienced while working for the South African Revenue Services. During the study it was found that doubtful debts can not be deducted in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act but only in terms of section 11(j) of the Income Tax Act. It is practice for the South African Revenue Services to only allows 25% of the full amount of doubtful debts, but as this discretion is subject to objection and appeal, the bank is entitled to claim a higher percentage as a deduction if they can provide proveto justify a higher deduction. It was also found that commercial banks can claim their bad debts in term of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act.