Thesis (MAcc) -- Stellenbosch University, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In order for a taxpayer to be entitled to a deduction for expenditure actually incurred, the taxpayer must meet the requirements of section 11(a), read with the provisions of sections 23(f) and 23(g). The preamble of section 11 requires that the taxpayer should incur the expenditure in the carrying on of a trade, before it will be deductible. Therefore, taxpayers who do not carry on a trade will not be allowed any deductions for expenditure actually incurred in terms of section 11(a). In the case of a holding company that grants loans to its subsidiaries or associates, there is a general prevailing view that the holding company does not carry on a trade in respect of the loans granted. Therefore it is argued that the holding company is not entitled to any deductions in terms of section 11(a). This study questions the above-mentioned general view by considering case law and the opinions of various tax experts. The question is raised whether the holding company could be regarded as carrying on a trade, and if so, under what circumstances that will be the case. A secondary issue that will be considered is whether the holding company is entitled to deductions in respect of interest expenditure actually incurred. In this regard a distinction is made between moneylenders and non-moneylenders. The writer reaches the conclusion that the definition of “trade” is not all-inclusive, and that the Legislator intended that the term should be interpreted as widely as possible. Therefore, the writer is of the opinion that taxpayers who are not moneylenders could, under certain circumstances, be carrying on a trade in respect of the granting of loans and should thus be entitled to income tax deductions for expenditure incurred. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Vir ‘n belastingpligtige om op ‘n aftrekking vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan, geregtig te wees, moet aan die bepalings van artikel 11(a), saamgelees met dié van artikels 23(f) en 23(g) voldoen word. Die aanhef tot artikel 11 vereis dat ‘n belastingpligtige die uitgawes in die beoefening van ‘n bedryf moet aangaan voordat ‘n aftrekking gëeis kan word. Belastingpligtiges wat dus nie ‘n bedryf beoefen nie, sal op geen aftrekkings vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan ingevolge artikel 11(a) geregtig wees nie. Met betrekking tot ‘n houermaatskappy wat lenings aan sy filiale of geassosieerdes toestaan, heers daar ‘n algemene siening dat die houermaatskappy nie ‘n bedryf beoefen met betrekking tot die toestaan van lenings nie. Daarom word geargumenteer dat die houermaatskappy nie ingevolge artikel 11(a) op enige aftrekkings geregtig is nie. In hierdie studie word bogenoemde algemene siening krities aan die hand van regspraak en menings van belastingkenners oorweeg. Die vraag word gevra of die houermaatskappy nie wel beskou kan word om ‘n bedryf te beoefen nie, en indien wel, onder watter omstandighede dit so sal wees. ‘n Sekondêre aspek wat oorweeg word, is of die houermaatskappy op ‘n aftrekking vir rente uitgawes werklik aangegaan by die toestaan van die lenings geregtig is. In hierdie verband word ‘n onderskeid tussen geldskieters en nie-geldskieters getref. Die skrywer kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat die omskrywing van “bedryf” nie allesomvattend is nie, en dat dit blyk of dit die Wetgewer se bedoeling was om die begrip so wyd as moontlik te stel. Dit is die skrywer se mening dat belastingpligtiges wat nie geldskieters is nie, wel onder bepaalde omstandighede beskou kan word om ‘n bedryf te beoefen met betrekking tot die toestaan van lenings. Daarom behoort sulke belastingpligtiges wel op inkomstebelastingaftrekkings vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan, geregtig te wees.