No abstract available. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of Durban-Westville, 2002.

This study was undertaken to analyse the developments in the anti avoidance legislation over a five year period from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2011. Emphasis were placed on describing the road from the old section 103 provisions leading to the new general anti avoidance rules (GAAR) as contained in sections 80A to 80L of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. The study began with a detailed analysis of the differences between tax evasion and tax avoidance based on definitions and interpretations by various courts. It then went further in chapter two to formulate an acceptable distinction between Tax evasion, Tax planning and impermissible tax avoidance as currently used by the South African Revenue Services (SARS). It appeared from the study that firstly, courts have historically reviewed the circumstances surrounding an arrangement when determining whether tax evasion has occurred. The new GAAR requires the individual steps of an arrangement to be reviewed in isolation. Secondly, the courts have historically held that the purpose test, when determining the taxpayer‘s purpose, was subjective. The wording of the new GAAR indicates that this test is now objective. Thirdly, the courts have historically viewed the abnormality of an arrangement based of the surrounding circumstances. The wording of the new GAAR requires an objective view of the arrangement. A comparison was made between countries that have adopted statutory GAAR with a view of understanding how they have applied these general anti avoidance provisions successfully to tax avoidance cases. This comparison revealed that there is an inconsistent application of these general anti avoidance provisions by different countries. Courts and administrators apply them differently, based on circumstances and the nature of avoidance. Lastly, it has been acknowledged that most avoidance schemes are very complex and their perpetrators are always on the look for gaps in tax systems, hence any avoidance legislation to effectively curb tax evasion will need to be revised on a regular basis. Therefore, the Commissioner would be expected to issue regular updates on anti avoidance provisions and latest developments in the form of interpretation and or practice notes. / Thesis (MBA)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, 2011.

This thesis discusses jurisdiction to tax cross-border digital commerce. The primary objective is to consider the reasons for the erosion of jurisdictional links, or nexus, between countries and taxpayers' digital activities and evaluate possible solutions for addressing such nexus erosion. Whilst it is argued that digital commerce is impossible to ring-fence due to digital technologies transcending all industries, the main focus of this research is on automated business models as case studies for the broader tax issues applicable across the entire digital economy. Using cloud computing, online advertising and e-tailing models as examples of digital commerce in the narrow sense, this thesis demonstrates that the proxies for establishing jurisdictional nexus have become increasingly fluid, thereby challenging the traditional international tax regimes for profits and consumption taxation. Numerous policy solutions have been proposed in order to rectify nexus erosion, including global and territorial tax models. Unlike the previous research in this area, this thesis focuses on the nexus elements of such proposals and assesses their viability in the light of the wider Internet governance jurisprudence. Global tax solutions, such as global e-commerce taxes and formulary apportionment, are analysed in the context of the international governance regime for the technical Internet infrastructure. Territorial virtual tax solutions, such as virtual permanent establishments, withholding taxes and destination cash flow taxes, are considered in the light of the Internet jurisprudence on the 'effects' and 'targeting' nexus standards. It is argued that, given the lack of technical and political infrastructure, none of the proposed routes would be viable from a practical perspective in the near future. It is concluded, therefore, that a practical solution would involve retaining the traditional profits and consumption tax models, whilst testing a narrow version of the digital targeting nexus standard as a backstop anti-abuse measure. It is envisaged that the limited anti-avoidance provision would subsequently pave the way for a comprehensive long-term solution, as digitisation continues to transform global commerce.

Tax practitioners in South Africa have been operating in an unregulated tax industry. This has allowed certain tax practitioners to fail in their duties to their clients, as many do not have to abide by any code of conduct or ethical principles, to the detriment of the public. Other than the provisions in the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962, there has been no regulation. As a result of losses suffered by taxpayers either through the incompetence, ignorance or negligence of a tax practitioner, as substantiated by case law, and increased costs borne by the South African Revenue Services due to unnecessary queries and tax disputes, the Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, introduced the concept of tax industry regulation in his Budget Speech in 2002. This resulted in the introduction of section 67 A into the Income Tax Act, providing for a registration process for tax practitioners. All practising tax practitioners were required to register with the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services by 30 June 2005. In addition, a discussion paper was issued in 2002 setting out the proposal of the Revenue Services to regulate the tax industry through the formation of an Association of Tax Practitioners. This proposal includes various contentious issues and casts significant doubt on whether the proposed model is the most suitable. The goal of the research was therefore to evaluate the current status of tax advisory services in order to demonstrate the need for regulation and to compare the proposed SARS model with two established regulatory authorities: the Estate Agency Affairs Board and the Australian Tax Agents Board. A conceptual model for regulation was developed in order to test all the models against a simple regulatory framework to determine whether each was aligned to certain best practices proposed in this framework. The research methodology was qualitative in nature, involving the critical interpretation of documentary data and data generated during a public discussion forum of tax practitioners. It was concluded that the SARS proposal is too prescriptive and, at the same time, too broad in its scope. In order to address the key objective, identified as protection of the taxpaying public, a simplified regulation procedure was recommended, which would adhere to the proposed regulatory framework. / KMBT_363

The purpose of this treatise was to examine the fairness and efficacy of the penalty provisions in the Tax Administration Act (the Act). An integrative literature review research method was used. The study commenced with a review of the local and international literature on tax compliance and the fairness and efficacy of penalties. This was followed by a study of the stated objectives of the Fiscus in respect of the strategy and approach to maintaining and improving taxpayer compliance and an analysis of the penalty regime of the Act. A comparative analysis was then performed of the relevant taxing legislation of five countries, which were chosen using a purposeful sample selected from the major trading partners of the Republic and countries with a similar tax framework. Following this, a review was performed of a cross section of the most recent tax related court cases in South Africa in order to assess the extent, consistency and fairness of the application of the penalty provisions. The study then concluded with an integrated assessment of the fairness and efficacy of the penalty provisions in light of the research conducted, and highlighted areas where the legislation appears to meet this objective, followed by recommendations for amendments in respect of policy and implementation. Finally recommendations were made for areas of further research which might improve the validity of the conclusions with respect to the stated objectives of the present research and to inform policy formulation.

Transfer pricing has become a very popular term in South Africa over the last few years, even more so since July 2013 when the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action plan was issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and G20 (an international forum for the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies). The OECD and G20 has issued the plan to address the perceived flaws in international tax rules, giving rise to profit shifting. Subsequently, the OECD has issued numerous reports and as a result has updated its 2010 Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Many countries have adopted these guidelines. However as South Africa is not an OECD member, there is no certainty that it will be adopted. The question is therefore: has the South African Tax legislation met the OECD guidelines and addressed the BEPS issue? Therefore, the objective of the research is to understand whether the current South African tax legislation is in line with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and BEPS Action Plan. The South African tax legislation provides South African taxpayers with no guidance as to how the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines needs to be implemented and interpreted. However, even though not legislation, the SARS practice note 7 and draft interpretation note on thin capitalisation provides taxpayers with a good basis of understanding the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, as these documents provided by SARS is similar to that of the guidance in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, specifically relating to transfer pricing documentation. The issue that may result where the South African tax legislation is not in line with the OECD guidelines and the BEPS Action Plan is that Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) may use South Africa as the country to shift its profits to or from, thus effectively resulting in a loss to the Fiscus.

This treatise examines the history of private equity as a context in which to understand its role in the economy and specifically, the background for the high profile leveraged buy-outs that have been entered into in the past year. The treatise then focuses specifically on the Brait-Shoprite buy-out, examining its structure and the tax implications. The treatise then reviews the reaction of the South African Revenue Authority (“SARS”) to the buy-out and evaluates whether it was the best approach that could have been taken under the circumstances. As a result of the research, the following conclusions have been reached: Private equity transactions Private equity transactions have a role to play in the business world despite the apprehensions of tax authorities. The perception that these transactions are tax driven as part of an avoidance scheme is not justified. Structure of the Shoprite buy-out transaction: The Shoprite buy-out transaction was structured to obtain deduction for interest. The transaction was also structured to utilise the relief provisions of Part II of Chapter II (Special Provisions Relating to Companies) of the Income Tax Act no.58 of 1962, as amended (“the Act”). The relief was for capital gains tax (“CGT”) on disposal of the Shoprite assets. Finally, the transaction was designed to allow the existing shareholders to exit their investments free of Secondary Tax on Companies (“STC”). The reaction of SARS to the Shoprite buy-out transaction Whereas SARS may have been justified in questioning the structure and its impact on fiscal revenue, the response in the form of withdrawing STC relief from amalgamation transactions in section 44 was not in the best interest of a stable tax system and the majority of tax payers who are not misusing or abusing loopholes in the income tax legislation. It may have been possible for SARS to attack the structure based on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in part IIA of the Chapter III of the Act.

M.Com. (Taxation) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (M.Com. (Taxation))--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Accountancy, 2017 / The Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 is the most recent complete tax act to guide tax administration in South Africa and came into operation on 1 October 2012. The changes in the penalty regime in South Africa was that the understatement penalties, in sections 222 and 223 of the Tax Administration Act, replaced the additional tax that was previously levied in terms of section 76 of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962. Understatement penalties are levied when a taxpayer understates his tax payable for a particular tax period. The understatement penalties are jointly determined by the behaviour of the taxpayer and other objective criteria that are listed in a table contained in section 223(1) of the Tax Administration Act. The report will focus on comparing the understatement penalties levied in South Africa and comparing it with understatement penalties levied in the United States of America (USA), Australia (AUS) and the United Kingdom (UK). The comparison will be used to determine how the understatement penalties are imposed in different cases and to determine if there are improvements that can be made to the current understatement penalties levied in South Africa. Keywords understatement penalty; understatement; behaviour; conduct; penalty; Tax Administration Act, United States of America (USA); United Kingdom (UK); Australia (AUS); South Africa (SA) / GR2018

No description available.