The issue considered in this paper proceeds from the basis of a hypothetical income tax assessment issued by SARS against a hypothetical taxpayer. The circumstances under which the hypothetical assessment is raised are as follows: suppose that Company A, a South African resident, owns 100% of the participation rights in Company B (the hypothetical taxpayer), a resident of Luxembourg. Company A has failed to qualify for any of the internal “exemptions”1 contained in section 9D of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962 (“the Act”), and has thus been taxed with reference to the profits of Company B for the past ten years. In the eleventh year, SARS audits Company B and determines that its effective place of management has, in fact, been in South Africa all along and that it is therefore resident in South Africa in terms of paragraph (b) of the definition of “resident” contained in section 1 of the Act. Upon the determination that Company B is resident in South Africa, SARS proceeds to raise assessments against Company B in relation to the taxable income it earned during its current and former years of assessment (i.e. income tax assessments are raised for the full 11-year audit period) (referred to herein below as the “hypothetical assessment”). The purpose of this paper is thus to investigate the fiscal consequences that do (and, it will be argued, do not) arise subsequent to a controlled foreign company (“CFC”) having been declared resident of the Republic of South Africa, in circumstances where a South African resident taxpayer had historically been taxed with reference to the profits of that CFC in terms of section 9D. It is clear from the example that the same income now being taxed in the hands of Company B subsequent to its South African residency would already have been taxed in the hands of Company A by application of section 9D. The inequity of this result is undeniable. Should assessments be raised against Company B in the manner suggested it would amount to economic double taxation.

Research paper 1. (International tax) Is South Africa's headquarter regime successful and does it go against national legislation. This research paper discusses how South Africa has changed its legislation to become the Gateway of investment into Africa. It addresses the prior barriers previously faced by investors in South Africa and Africa as well as changes to legislation to accommodate this problem. The current criteria tin qualifying as a headquarter company is addressed in terms of Section 80 A of the Income Tax Act, which also addresses the draw backs and restrictions which as a result South Africa has not received any applications by companies in becoming a headquarter company. A comparison is drawn between South Africa's headquarter regime versus a well - known popular tax haven country namely Mauritius. A comparison is performed on both the qualification in becoming headquarter companies as well as the tax benefits thereto which encourage investment. From the comparison, it is clear that Mauritius provides a more favourable environment for the establishment of a headquarter regime based on the ease of qualification as a headquarter company, the corporate tax rate is low to none and it has no CGT, dividends withholding tax, and interest withholding tax, transfer pricing and thin capitalisation, exchange control and finally CFC rules. The advantage that South Africa has is that of their double tax agreements with Nigeria and Algeria. The research paper also addresses the extent to which headquarter regimes in South Africa are considered to be treaty shopping. OECD Glossary of Tax Terms defines treaty shopping as: "An analysis of tax treaty provisions to structure an international transaction or operation so as to take advantage of a particular tax treaty. The term is normally applied to a situation where a person not resident of either the treaty countries establishes an entity in one of the treaty countries in order to obtain treaty benefits." 1 It further addresses the impact that treaty shopping has on our general anti - avoidance legislation. Research paper 2 (Local tax) Is customer loyalty programmes capital or revenue of nature? The general gross income definition is defined as '... the total amount, in cash or otherwise, received by or accrued to in favour of such resident during such year or period of assessment, excluding receipts or accruals of a capital nature...' The research problem is extracted from the general gross income definition. The research problem is based on the fourth element of the general gross income definition, namely, whether the transaction is of revenue or a capital nature. In formulating an answer to our research problem, being the last element of the general gross income definition, we look at case law handling the test applied by courts on revenue versus capital applications. The test laid down, deals with the intention, duration, nature and frequency of the customer loyalty programme being of a revenue or capital nature. In terms of the general gross income definition, all elements except the last element, being, the transaction must be of a capital nature, are met. As all the elements of the general gross income definition are not met, the rewards from a customer loyalty programme should not be taxable in the hands of th e customer. However, capital gains tax consequences can be dealt with as the reward received as part of the customer loyalty programme is of a capital nature. If for some reason, SARS proves that a customer embarked in a customer loyalty programme as part of a scheme to make profits and therefore he should be taxed on the reward, the onus SARS having to collect monies from taxpayers would far exceed the monies received. And in most cases, majority of the active users of a customer loyalty programme would be below the submission of tax return threshold. With this said, we are assuming that due to the changes in economic climate the majority of the users would be from a low income background.

The study will be based on a comparative analysis of the general antiavoidance section of the South African Income Tax Act no. 58 of 1962 and the Tanzanian Income Tax Act no. 11 of 2004. The focus is on how the two provisions are interpreted by showing the similarities and differences. The approach will be analytical and comparative, starting by showing the concept of tax avoidance and historical backgrounds of the two provisions.

Includes bibliographical references. / This research paper analyses the income tax impact for international (non-resident) companies that dispose of their shares in mining or oil and gas companies situated in South Africa. Typically, a disposal of shares by a non-resident in a property-rich company in South Africa would attract CGT. In the case of the minerals sector, it is automatically assumed that a mining or oil and gas company is a so-called “land-rich” or “property-rich” company due to the nature of its operations. This paper seeks to test that assumption, ie do shares in a mining or oil gas company whose only asset is a mining or prospecting right or exploration or production right respectively qualify as an ‘interest in immovable property’ as that term is defined in the ITA for CGT purposes? To make this determination, the term ‘immovable property’ as it is used for common –law purposes and the potential misalignment of this definition when compared to the term as it is used in the ITA must be analysed.

When South Africa moved from a source based to a residence based system of taxation on 1 March 2001, all South African residents were now being subject to tax on their world-wide income. Residents working outside the Republic were then at risk of being taxed twice on the employment income derived because of South Africa’s residence basis system of taxation. The section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (“IT Act”) exemption was the relief mechanism for residents to prevent the possibility of double taxation on the employment income derived from working outside the Republic. As from the 1st of March 2020, Parliament has amended section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the IT Act. The section is amended so that foreign employment income should not be fully exempt in the hands of a resident. Section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the IT Act currently exempts in full, the foreign employment income derived by a resident subject to certain requirements as per the section. The amendment seeks to exempt the first one million rand (R1m) of a residents’ employment income earned outside of the Republic. Foreign employment income in excess of R1m will be taxed in the Republic, applying the normal tax tables for that particular year of assessment. All other requirements of section 10(1)(o)(ii) will not be affected by the amendment, therefore residents will still be required to fulfil the other requirements of the section such as to spend more than 183 and at least 60 continuous full days outside of the Republic rendering employment services during any 12-month period in order to qualify for the exemption. The primary reason for the amendment of section 10(1)(o)(ii) is to prevent situations where employment income is neither taxed in the foreign country nor in South Africa, i.e. double non-taxation, or where foreign taxes are imposed at a significantly reduced rate on employment income derived from working outside the Republic. The amendment of section 10(1)(o)(ii) exemption will negatively affect a resident earning in excess of R1m and working in a tax free or low tax jurisdiction. There are a few alternatives available to affected residents working outside the Republic such as: 1. Seek relief via section 6quat of the IT Act, which is a tax credit on foreign taxes paid. 2. Apply the relevant Articles of a Double Taxation Agreement (“DTA”) between South Africa and a source country in order to seek relief for juridical double taxation. 3. Immigrate and become a non-resident, which will trigger a deemed disposal for capital gains tax purposes in terms of section 9H(2) of the IT Act.

This dissertation endeavours to analyse the anti-avoidance measures implemented (and planned for the future) in South Africa to combat the practice known as "thin capitalisation". It critically analyses the Draft Interpretation Note on the determination of the taxable income of certain persons from international transactions: Thin capitalisation. It concludes that the arms-length approach is not suitable for South Africa and that it is essential that a system of advance pricing agreements be implemented.

The objective of this comparative paper is to analyse and compare the work undertaken by the OECD's TFDE and the DTC on the taxation of the digital economy in light of the overarching project on BEPS, with a view of analysing the possible application of the proposed options to address the tax challenges of the digital economy in the South African taxation framework.

1. The scope for multilateral international co-operation in tax affairs: While some measures have been taken in the past to create some form of multilateral co-operation in respect of the enforcement of domestic tax laws, these have been limited either in scope or in scale, or both. This paper seeks to analyse the various attempts at multilateralism, investigate the theoretical reasons behind the perceived dominance of bilateralism in tax relations, and assess the scope for potential multilateral issues in the international tax law environment. 2. The tax and exchange control consequences of virtual currency transactions in South Africa: There is seemingly little research on how virtual currencies might be affected by domestic tax laws, or whether there should be a new tax regime implemented specifically for virtual currencies. This paper looks at how virtual currencies fit into the South African legislature and tax authorities' current tax and exchange control regime, as well as the problems this presents. It then compares that stance to select foreign jurisdictions before arriving at a conclusion at how the problems faced in South Africa might be better resolved. This results in a finding that while legislative measures might need to be taken in the future, it might only be an urgent necessity for the purposes of Exchange Control.

The main object of the concept of the definition of a permanent establishment in a double tax agreement is to set out the type and permanency of business activities that an entity must conduct before they can be subject to tax in another jurisdiction. Furthermore, the definition of a 'permanent establishment' as defined in article 5 of the OECD model tax convention requires the existence of a fixed place of business. This indicates the existence of a facility with a certain degree of permanence. The internet has changed the traditional international business model. It is no longer necessary that the entrepreneur, or his employees, agents, branches or intermediaries is in the country where the business is being conducted. It is clear that the internet overcomes the traditional limitations of physical presence in a jurisdiction when doing business. This poses a challenge when it comes to the determination of a 'permanent establishment', as the test is based on a physical presence of an entity in a jurisdiction. I want to determine if the current concept of a permanent establishment is still adequate to address the challenges posed by e-commerce. Taking into account that e-commerce was not a factor when the basis of the definition of the definition of a permanent establishment was formulated. The views of the OECD on e-commerce will be analysed to determine what they envisage and if they are of the opinion that the current definition is adequate to address the concept and reality of e-commerce and the taxation thereof. It is important to explore the views of the rest of the world on e-commerce and the taxation thereof. A multinational entity must be aware of the tax presence it can create in a foreign country, especially when it comes to creating a permanent establishment in that foreign country. It is my aim to identify and discuss the challenges and difficulties e-commerce poses when determining the existence of a permanent establishment and also to research certain adaptions and recommendations of the current taxing system and relevant guidelines.

The treatment of realisation companies is not directly dealt with by South Africa legislation and the jurisprudence focused thereon has developed in accordance with the needs of commercial entities to dispose of property. The relevant terms of our governing legislation has, in response to this solution, enveloped the idea of a realisation company through the results of the judicial system. In this paper the general income tax principles that relate to realisation companies will be evaluated. A synopsis will be provided, beginning with the locus classicus set out in the case of Berea West, thereafter the most recent case, Founders Hill, the effect thereof, and the general principles and cases exhibiting these principles, relating to the treatment of realisation companies by South African Court.