Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that transfer pricing legislation (i.e. section 31 of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962 (“the Act”) has been in force in South Africa since 1995, it has only been in the last three years that the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has embarked on a number of assessments of taxpayers’ cross border transactions with foreign group companies. In particular, the SARS targets taxpayers that have rendered cross border services (including financial assistance) to a foreign group company for no consideration and has assessed these taxpayers on the adjusted interest/ fee amounts. Since the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer to demonstrate that its cross border transactions with foreign group companies do not infringe the provisions of section 31(2) of the Act, this study provides taxpayers with guidance as to when its transactions would fall within the scope of application of section 31(2) of the Act and when the SARS would be excluded from applying the provision of section 31(2) of the Act. Following upon a critical analysis of the essential components of section 31(2) of the Act the following conclusions are drawn by the author: • If the taxpayer proves that it did not transact with a connected party (as defined in section 1 of the Act), or it did not supply goods or services in terms of an international agreement (as defined in section 31(1) of the Act), or its transfer price would be regarded as arm’s length, the Commissioner would be excluded from applying the provision of section 31(2) of the Act since all of the components to apply section 31(2) of the Act are not present. • The current view held by the South African Revenue Service and tax practitioners that transactions between a South African company and an offshore company, which are both directly or indirectly held more than fifty percent by an offshore parent company, are transactions between connected persons (as defined in 5 section 1 of the Act) is incorrect in law. Section 31 of the Act is not applicable to such transactions. • The Commissioner will be excluded from making a transfer pricing adjustment to a service provider’s taxable income where the following circumstances are present: o Where the cross border transaction with a connected party does not give rise to gross income, which is the starting point in the determination of taxable income, since the service provider agreed to render services for no consideration and was therefore not entitled to receive income (i.e. no receipt or accrual) and o Where the service provider can provide evidence that demonstrates that there was no practice of price manipulation as regards the transaction under review. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Alhoewel oordragprysbeleid wetgewing (artikel 31 van die Inkomstebelastingwet 58 van 1962 (“die Wet”)) al sedert 1995 in Suid Afrika van krag is, het die Suid Afrikaanse Inkomstediens (“SAID”) eers werklik gedurende die laaste drie jaar begin om aanslae ten opsigte van belastingpligtiges se internasionale transaksies met buitelandse groepmaatskappye uit te reik. In die besonder teiken die SAID belastingpligtes wat dienste (insluitend lenings) aan buitelandse groepmaatskappye vir geen vergoeding lewer. Aangesien die bewyslas op die belastingpligtige rus om te bewys dat sy internasionale transaksies met buitelandse groepmaatskappye nie die bepalings van artikel 31(2) van die Wet oortree nie, word belastingpligtiges in hierdie studie van riglyne, wat aandui wanneer transaksies met buitelandse groepmaatskappye binne die omvang van artikel 31(2) van die Wet val asook onder welke omstandighede die SAID verhoed sal word om artikel 31(2) van die Wet toe te pas, voorsien. Na aanleiding van ‘n kritiese analise van die deurslaggewende komponente van artikel 31(2) van die Wet kom die skrywer tot die volgende gevolgtrekkings: • As die belastingpligte kan bewys dat hy nie met ‘n verbonde persoon (soos omskryf in artikel 1 van die Wet) handelgedryf het nie, of dat hy nie goedere of dienste in terme van ‘n internasionale ooreenkoms (soos omskryf in artikel 31(1) van die Wet) gelewer het nie, of dat sy oordragprys as arm lengte beskou kan word, sal die Kommissaris verhoed word om die bepaling van artikel 31(2) van die Wet toe te pas, aangesien al die komponente van artikel 31(2) van die Wet nie teenwoordig is nie. • Die huidige sienswyse van die SAID en belastingpraktisyns dat transaksies wat tussen ‘n Suid Afrikaanse maatskappy en ‘n buitelandse maatskappy plaasvind, waar ‘n buitelandse moedermaatskappy meer as vyftig persent van albei maatskappye se aandeelhouding (direk of indirek) hou, beskou kan word as 7 transaksies tussen verbonde persone (soos omskryf in artikel 1 van die Wet) is regstegnies nie korrek nie. Artikel 31(2) van die Wet is nie van toepassing op sulke transaksies nie. • Die Kommisaris sal onder die volgende omstandighede verhoed word om enige oordragprysaanpassing aan ‘n diensleweraar se belasbare inkomste te maak: o Waar die internasionale transaksie met ‘n verbonde persoon nie bruto inkomste (die beginpunt van ‘n belasbare inkomste berekening) voortbring nie, aangesien die diensleweraar ingestem het om dienste teen geen vergoeding te lewer, wat tot die gevolg het dat die diensleweraar nie geregtig is om inkomste te ontvang nie (dus geen ontvangste of toevalling) en o Waar die diensleweraar kan bewys dat die transaksie nie onderhewig aan prys manipulasie was nie.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In February 2007 section 11D was inserted into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 as amended. The aim of the section was to encourage private-sector investment in scientific or technological research and development (R&D). This was an indirect approach by National Treasury to increase national scientific and technological R&D expenditure in order to complement government expenditure on the subject matter. Although section 11D provides generous income tax incentives, the interpretation thereof was found to be a hindrance in attaining the goal sought by National Treasury. This is due to the fact that this section demands a firm grasp of intellectual property (IP) law, principles of tax, and technology in general. This is clearly shown by the lapse in time (i.e. three years) between the passing of section 11D into law and the release of the South African Revenue Services’ (SARS) final interpretation of section 11D, i.e. Interpretation Note 50. The release of Interpretation Note 50 in August 2009 sparked wide-spread controversy among many a patent attorneys and tax consultants. The interpretation of the section by SARS was found by many to be so draconian that it destroyed the incentive entirely. The objective of this study is to provide greater clarity on the areas of section 11D which have been found to be onerous to taxpayers. Hence the meaning of “new” and “non-obvious” in the context of a discovery of information as eligible R&D activity1 was examined. Hereafter the ambit of the exclusion of expenditure on “management or internal business process”2 from eligibility for the incentive in the context of computer program development was examined. It was established that the meaning of “novel” and “non-obvious” as construed by IP jurisprudence could mutatis mutandis be adopted for purposes of interpreting section 11D(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, information would be regarded as “new” if it did not form part of the state of the art immediately prior to the date of its discovery. The state of the art was found to comprise all matter which had been made available to the public (both in the Republic and elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way. Information would also be regarded as non-obvious if an ordinary person, skilled in the art, faced with the same problem, would not have easily solved the problem presented to him by having sole reliance on his intelligence and what was regarded as common knowledge in the art at the time of the discovery. It was submitted that in construing the meaning of the “management or internal business process” exclusion, the intention of the lawgiver should be sought and given effect to. The Explanatory Memorandum issued on the introduction of section 11D states that the lawgiver’s intention with the section was to ensure that South Africa is not at a global disadvantage concerning R&D. The R&D tax legislation of Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada was therefore examined to establish the international bar set in this regard. SARS is of the view that the “management or internal business process” exclusion applies to the development of any computer program (with the said application) irrespective of whether the program is developed for the purpose of in-house use, sale or licensing. However, it was found that such a restrictive interpretation would place homebound computer development at a severe disadvantage when compared with the legislation of the above mentioned countries. In order to give effect to the intention of legislature, it was submitted that the exclusion provision should be construed to only include the development of computer programs for in-house management or internal business process use. Computer programs developed for the said application, but for the purpose of being sold or licensed to an unrelated third party, should still be eligible for the R&D tax incentive. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 11D is gevoeg tot die Inkomstebelastingwet 58 van 1962 gedurende Februarie 2007. Die wetgewing het ten doel om privaatsektor investering in tegniese en wetenskaplike navorsing en ontwikkeling (N&O) aan te moedig. Nasionale Tesourie dra dus op ‘n indirekte wyse by tot die hulpbronne wat die regering op nasionale vlak aan tegniese en wetenskaplike N&O bestee in ‘n gesamentlike poging om N&O in Suid-Afrika te stimuleer. Artikel 11D hou op die oog af baie gunstige inkomstebelasting aansporings in. Dit wil egter voorkom asof die interpretasie daarvan as ernstige struikelblok dien in die bereiking van die doel wat Nasionale Tesourie voor oë gehad het. Dit kan toegeskryf word aan die feit dat die artikel ‘n wesenlike begrip van intellektuele eiendom (IE) wetgewing, belasting beginsels en tegnologie in die algemeen vereis. Die feit dat dit die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingdiens (SAID) ongeveer drie jaar geneem het om hul interpretasie (i.e. Interpretasienota 50) van die artikel te finaliseer dien as bewys hiervan. Die SAID het gedurende Augustus 2009, Interpretasienota 50 vrygestel. Die nota het wye kritiek ontlok by menigte IE prokureurs en belastingkonsultante. Daar is algemene konsensus dat die SAID se interpretasie so drakonies van aard is, dat dit enige aansporing wat die artikel bied, geheel en al uitwis. Die doel van hierdie studie is om die problematiese bepalings van die aansporingsartikel te verlig en groter sekerheid daaroor te verskaf. Gevolglik is die betekenis van “nuut” en “nie-ooglopend” soos van toepassing op ‘n ontdekking van inligting as kwalifiserende N&O aktiwiteit, bestudeer. Verder is die omvang van die bepaling wat besteding op “bestuur of interne besigheidsprosesse” uitsluit van kwalifikasie vir die aansporingsinsentief, bestudeer in die konteks van rekenaar programmatuur ontwikkeling. By nadere ondersoek is daar bevind dat die betekenis van “nuut” en “nie-ooglopend” soos uitgelê vir doeleindes van IE wetgewing mutatis mutandis aangeneem kan word vir die uitleg van artikel 11D(1)(a) van die Inkomstebelastingwet. Vervolgens word inligting as “nuut” beskou indien dit nie deel uitmaak van die stand van die tegniek onmiddellik voor die datum waarop dit ontdek is nie. Die stand van die tegniek vir die bepaling van nuutheid behels alle stof wat reeds aan die publiek beskikbaar gestel is (hetsy binne die Republiek of elders) by wyse van skriftelike of mondelinge beskrywing, deur gebruik of op enige ander wyse. Inligting word as nie-ooglopend beskou indien ‘n gewone werker wat bedrewe is in die tegniek en gekonfronteer is met dieselfde probleem, nie geredelik die antwoord tot die probleem sou vind deur bloot staat te maak op sy intelligensie en die algemene kennis in die bedryf op die tydstip van die ontdekking nie. Daar is aan die hand gedoen dat die doel van die wetgewer nagestreef moet word met die uitleg van die “bestuur of interne besigheidsprosesse” uitsluiting. Die Verklarende Memorandum wat uitgereik is met die bekendstelling van artikel 11D het gemeld dat die wetgewer ten doel gehad het om Suid Afrika op ‘n gelyke speelveld met die res van die wêreld te plaas wat betref N&O. Die N&O belastingbepalings van Australië, die Verenigde Koninkryk (VK) en Kanada is dus bestudeer om die internasionale standaard in die opsig vas te stel. Die SAID is van mening dat die strekwydte van die uitsluiting so omvangryk is dat dit alle rekenaar programmatuur wat ontwikkel is vir ‘n bestuur- of interne besigheidsproses toepassing tref, ten spyte daarvan dat die bedoeling van die belastingpligtige was om die programmatuur te verkoop of te lisensieër aan ‘n onverbonde derde party. Dit was egter bevind dat so ‘n beperkende uitleg die aansporing van rekenaar programmatuur ontwikkeling in Suid Afrika geweldig benadeel in vergelyking met die regime wat geld in lande soos Australië, die VK en Kanada. Ten einde gevolg te gee aan die bedoeling van die wetgewer, is daar aan die hand gedoen dat die uitsluiting slegs so ver moet strek as om rekenaar programme vir eie gebruik te diskwalifiseer. Rekenaar programme wat dus ontwikkel word met die doel om dit te verkoop of te lisensieër aan onverbonde derde partye moet steeds vir die aansporingsinsentief kwalifiseer.

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.Comm. (South African & International Taxation) / The capital allowance mentioned in section 11(e) of Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (“the Act”) refers to machinery, plant, implements, utensils and articles, the value of which may have diminished by reason of wear and tear or depreciation. The machinery, plant, and articles in question, often accede to other assets of a permanent nature such as immovable buildings. This is a problem in South Africa because the wear and tear allowance is lost when machinery, plant or articles lose their identities upon being absorbed into assets of a permanent nature such as a building. Buildings and other structures of a permanent nature do not qualify for the wear and tear allowance in terms of section 11(e) of the Act. This article investigates the uncertainties with regard to interpreting what constitutes “buildings, or other structures or works of a permanent nature” for the purposes of the prohibition of wear and tear allowances contained in section 11(e)(ii) of the Act.

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.

LL.M. (Tax Law) / Capital Gains Tax (“CGT”) was introduced with effect from 1 October 2001 by the insertion of section 26A and an Eighth Schedule into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001. Paragraph 40(1) of the Eight Schedule provides that a deceased person must, with certain exceptions, be treated as having disposed of his assets to his estate for proceeds equal to the market value of those assets as at the date of death. Paragraph 40(1A) of the Eight Schedule provides that if an asset of a deceased person is treated as having been disposed of under paragraph 40(1) and is transferred directly to the estate of the deceased person, the estate must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes, and if the asset is transferred directly to an heir or legatee, the heir or legatee must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes. The capital gain will be the difference between the market value of a taxable asset of the deceased on the date of his death and its base cost to him, which is included in his final income tax assessment and which will have to be settled out of the estate‟s assets. There are many arguments in favour of the discontinuance of the levying of CGT at the death of a taxpayer in South Africa, which arguments become evident when comparing the South African CGT provisions regarding the levying of CGT at death with tax jurisdictions such as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Botswana and Nigeria. Canada for example abolished their inheritance tax in 1972 which in that particular situation justifies the levying of CGT at death. If CGT will continue to be levied at the death of a taxpayer it is suggested that a carry-over approach in terms of which the heir inherits the asset at its acquisition cost and the CGT liability is deferred until the heir actually disposes of the asset should be followed. This approach is currently followed in Australia, Botswana and Nigeria. The holder of an inherited bare dominium will suffer at the hands of a CGT anomaly where the deceased created a limited interest, for example a usufruct over a fixed property bequeathed by him to the bare dominium holder. The anomaly that transpires is that the limited interest created by the deceased will result in an artificial drop in the base cost of the fixed property so bequeathed and there will be no adjustment to the base cost when the bare dominium holder succeeds to full ownership of the fixed property, for example when the usufructuary passes away, meaning that the same capital gain will be taxed twice. It is submitted that legislative amendments are required to provide for an increase in the base cost applicable to the bare dominium holder when the usufructuary eventually passes away. Alternatively the SARS‟s current practice in this respect should be altered to avoid the unbearable situation where a capital gain may be taxed at 2 separate instances. At least two anomalies exist when dealing with capital losses in the deceased‟s final period of assessment and in the winding up of the deceased‟s estate. Firstly a capital loss may not be carried forward from the deceased‟s final assessment to his deceased estate to be set off against capital gains that may be realised in the winding up of the estate. Secondly a capital loss incurred on the sale of a capital asset during the winding up of a deceased estate cannot be carried over from the deceased estate to the heirs of the deceased and will thus remain unutilised. It is suggested that the method followed in Canada in respect of capital losses that occurred in the year of a taxpayer‟s death should be followed in South Africa, ie that such capital loss may be carried back three years in order to reduce any taxable capital gains that occurred in those years or that the capital losses may be utilised to reduce other income of the taxpayer in his final return. It is further suggested that this method should also be followed in respect of unutilised capital losses that occurred in the winding up of the estate, alternatively the capital losses so realised must be carried over to the heirs of the deceased.

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.