Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1953. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [144]-149).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Assignment (MRek)--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

The Income Tax Bill (2012) proposes certain changes to the existing Income Tax Act that will impact on the method used to determine the taxable income of a taxpayer in Zimbabwe. Therefore, it is important to understand the tax consequences the Income Tax Bill creates for the taxpayer. The research aimed to elaborate on and explain the tax consequences that will arise as a result of applying the Income Tax Bill in Zimbabwe. The research was based on a qualitative method which involved the analysis and the interpretation of extracts from legislation and articles written on the proposed changes. The current “gross income” of a taxpayer consists of amounts earned from a source within or deemed to be from within Zimbabwe The proposed changes to the Act will change the tax system to a residence-based system, where resident taxpayers are taxed on amounts earned from all sources. Therefore, the driving factor which determines the taxability of an amount will become the taxpayer’s residency. Clause 2 of the proposed Act provides that income earned by a taxpayer should be separated into employment income, business income, property income and other specified income. This will make it unnecessary to determine the nature of an amount because capital amounts will be subject to income tax. The current Act provides for the deduction of expenditure incurred for the purpose of trade or in the production of income. Section 31(1)(a) of the proposed Act will restrict permissible deductions to expenditure incurred in the production of income. Consequently, expenditure not incurred for the purpose of earning income will no longer be deductible when the Income Tax Bill is implemented. The proposed Income Tax Act will increase the taxable income of a taxpayer as it makes amounts that are not currently subject to tax taxable, whilst restricting the deductions claimable.

Taxpayers who operate from leased premises often incur significant costs in order to make the premises suitable for their specific trade. For accounting purposes such costs are generally capitalised as leasehold improvements and depreciated over the lease term. In practice many taxpayers proceed to follow the same approach for tax purposes by claiming an allowance for wear and tear on leasehold expenditure over the term of the lease. However, such expenditure is far more complex and taxpayers often do not properly understand the appropriate tax treatment of such costs. The tax treatment of expenditure incurred on leased premises is determined by a number of legislative sections, each with its own provisos and requirements. The applicable section under which a taxpayer should claim a deduction for expenditure on leased premises depends on the type of expenditure incurred by the taxpayer. In this study a framework was developed for determining the correct tax treatment of expenditure incurred by lessees on leased premises. Different types of expenditure that lessees had incurred were identified in three case studies. The framework was evaluated by applying it to these types of expenditure identified, and was found to be of considerable practical use. / Afrikaans: Belastingpligtiges wat hul besighede vanuit gehuurde persele bedryf, moet dikwels aansienlike uitgawes aangaan ten einde die perseel geskik te maak vir hul spesifieke tipe besigheid. Vir rekenkundige doeleindes word hierdie uitgawes oor die algemeen as huurverbeteringe gekapitaliseer en oor die huurtermyn gedepresiëer. Vir belastingdoeleindes volg belastingpligtiges in die praktyk dikwels dieselfde benadering, deur ’n waardeverminderingstoelaag op huuruitgawes oor die huurtermyn te eis. Die toepaslike belastinghantering van sulke uitgawes is egter meer gekompliseerd en belastingpligtiges verstaan dit dikwels nie. Die belastinghantering van uitgawes aangegaan by huurpersele word bepaal deur ’n aantal wetsartikels, elk met sy eie voorwaardes en vereistes. Die toepaslike artikel waaronder ’n belastingpligtige ’n aftrekking vir uitgawes op huurpersele kan eis, hang af van die tipe uitgawe wat aangegaan is. In hierdie studie is ’n raamwerk ontwikkel wat huurders gebruik om die korrekte belastinghantering van uitgawes op huurpersele aangegaan, te bepaal. Verskillende tipes uitgawes wat huurders aangegaan het, is in drie gevallestudies geïdentifiseer. Die raamwerk is geëvalueer deur dit op die geïdentifiseerde tipes uitgawes toe te pas, en daar is gevind dat dit heelwat praktiese waarde het. / Mini Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2015. / Taxation / MCom / Unrestricted

No description available.

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.

LL.M. / The concept of a debt defeasance transaction has recently come under scrutiny in the South African financial market. In the financial arena lower lending rates and efficient tax planning are of paramount consideration to corporate entities seeking to raise finance and to properly structure their affairs. Debt defeasance transactions recognise the time value of money. Companies with long-term borrowings obtain financial advantages if those borrowings can be retired early as the present value of the liability is less than the face value thereof. The objective of this paper is to present a comparative study of the manner in which debt defeasance transactions have been dealt with in the Australian jurisdiction and how the South African courts would view the income tax consequences of such transactions. The choice of the Australian jurisdiction finds its motivation in the similarity of the income tax regime of that country with the system applied in South Africa. Although the Australian income tax legislation allows for a wider range of income to be recognised as assessable income (hence the frequent references to "income according to ordinary concepts" in the judicial pronouncements in that country) the concept of an accrual of income is recognised and applied in the Australian legislation in a similar manner to that of the South African income tax legislation. In addition, there have been a number of recent decisions in the Australian courts on debt defeasance transactions that were implemented during the 1980's. Given that the South African courts are mindful of developments in 2 Australia and will seek guidance from that jurisdiction, the contemporary nature of the Australian decisions referred to below is insightful and useful in a comparative study. The conclusions reached in this dissertation are that the income tax benefits sought by the parties to the transaction and which are pivotal to the success of the transaction, will not be available in the South African context, just as they are not available in Australia. In certain circumstances the debt defeasance profit, as it is termed in this paper, will be fully taxable in the hands of the taxpayer to whom it accrues, particularly in regard to instantaneous defeasances and where the taxpayer is a financial institution. It is this outcome of the application of the general principles of the South African income tax legislation that leads to the failure of the transaction as a fund raising tool in the structured finance environment. Thought has been given to whether or not the South African legislation should be amended to cater specifically for the debt defeasance transaction. There are no issues that are created by these transactions, such as mismatches in the timing of accruals and deductions as is the case in the trading of financial instruments, that are not already catered for in the current income tax legislation. The main enquiry in determining the consequences of a debt defeasance transaction is in the application of the gross income definition in section 1 of The Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. The application of the gross income definition is trite law and the judicial pronouncements thereon are 3 adequate guidance and it is submitted that no amendment to the Income Tax Act is required to cater for debt defeasance transactions. The structure of this paper will be to give an overview of the mechanics of debt defeasance transactions and the defeasance transactions and the consequences thereof. A survey of the Australian examples of debt defeasances is undertaken and the judgements given by the Australian courts in response to such transactions are canvassed. An analysis will finally be undertaken on the income tax consequences of debt defeasances as they have been imported into South Africa

The primary objective of this dissertation was to identify and estimate the relative importance of factors used by the Tax Court in deciding hobby loss cases. This was accomplished in two steps. The first step was to review the Treasury Regulations, cases and literature pertaining to hobby losses to determine the relevant factors used by the Court in deciding this issue. The second step involved using probit analysis to identify which of these factors actually influenced the Court in deciding hobby loss cases and to determine the relative importance of the factors. A secondary purpose was to to explore the probit model's ability to predict decisions likely to be appealed. The probit model was based on the analysis of 219 post-1954 Tax Court cases involving determination of whether activities were or were not engaged in for profit. By application of log-likelihood techniques, it was determined that the model developed was stable over time and across lines of "business," the implication being that cases decided both before and after the passage of Section 183 and involving all types of activity should have precedential value in conflicts between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. Five factors were found to be significant predictors: manner of operation, level of expertise, time expended, history of income and loss, and presence of elements of personal pleasure. It is important to note that the two factors not susceptible to tax planning--success in other activities and financial status of the taxpayer--were insignificant discriminators between business and hobby outcomes. The implication is that with careful tax planning, one can organize and operate a given activity so that it is likely to receive favorable tax treatment. The probit model proved to be unable to predict decisions likely to be appealed. The probability that a particular case would be classified by the Court as a business did not appear to be a significant predictor of whether a taxpayer would appeal an adverse decision.