No description available.

There are currently two methods states generally use to tax the income of multistate multi-corporate businesses. One is separate accounting, and the other is the unitary method. Virginia currently uses separate accounting to tax such income. Under separate accounting businesses have greater ability to avoid state income tax with (1) their choice of corporate organization (branches or affiliates) and filing methods, and (2) transfer price manipulations. The objectives of the research were to (1) measure the incentive provided multistate businesses to utilize corporate organization and filing methods as a tax planning tool, and (2) measure the extent to which current Virginia law helps multistate businesses to avoid tax in Virginia and other states. Computer models were developed to compute the total state tax liability of a hypothetical representative multistate business which operated in Virginia and two other states. The models were utilized to compute the Virginia and total state tax for the business in 1,053 different situations. To measure the incentive provided multistate businesses to utilize corporate organization and filing methods as a tax planning tool, a comparison was made of the state tax liability of a business which made elections that minimized its tax with the tax liability of a similar business which made elections that maximized its tax. The tax avoidable under current Virginia law with corporate organization and filing method planning was measured by comparing the business's minimized tax under current law with its minimized tax under the assumption that Virginia utilized the unitary method. The effectiveness of current Virginia law in limiting the ability of businesses to use transfer price manipulations to reduce their state tax liabilities was measured by comparing the effects of a given transfer price manipulation between current law and the unitary method. The results of the analyses show that businesses have a clear incentive to utilize corporate organization and filing method planning, and that current Virginia law makes a substantial contribution to the ability of businesses to avoid state income tax. / Ph. D.

This dissertation investigates the economic impact of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching pieces of tax legislation in American history. The focus is on differential effects of the Act across industries. Event study methodology is used. A model is created which links tax law provisions, firms’ cash flows, and securities returns. Hypotheses are developed for seven industries, based upon analysis of the provisions of the Act and upon reading of contemporaneous expert commentary. The sample consists of firms in those industries trading over-the-counter. Evidence of an adverse impact for the Act as a whole on the steel and machine tool industries is found. It is concluded that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 caused a shift in economic resources away from those industries, and that shareholders of firms in those industries suffered losses of wealth. In addition, it is determined that the uniform capitalization rules for inventory adversely affected the retailing industry, and that the change in loan loss reserve rules adversely affected large banks. The latter set of findings emphasizes the substantive importance of tax accounting rules. With regard to event study methodology, it is found that non-synchronous trading in over-the-counter stocks poses a severe problem when attempting to use the market model. A methodological modification suggested by Dimson is shown to be ineffective in dealing with this problem. Alternatives to the market model are identified, and are used in analysis. Most significant reactions are found when abnormal returns are pooled over events, supporting an expectations-revision model of market reaction. / Ph. D.

Section 263A was one of the largest revenue raising provisions enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Little empirical research regarding the impact of this tax law change has been conducted. The primary objective of this study was the empirical assessment of Section 263A to determine its relative impact on firms of different sizes, inventory methods and industries. Section 263A has been criticized for its complex rules which impose high compliance costs on affected firms. The secondary objective of this study was evaluation of simplification proposals to determine if simpler rules could be enacted that would have an impact similar to Section 263A yet reduce compliance costs. Corporate tax return data for taxable years 1986 and 1987 were analyzed to identify firms that were severely impacted by Section 263A. The results show the tax burden from this law change fell more heavily on small firms not electing the Last-In-First-Out inventory method. In addition, wholesalers paid relatively more tax than retailers. These firms have a relatively stronger incentive to react to Section 263A by reducing inventories, relocating their production and distribution facilities outside the United States and/or restructuring their investments away from production and distribution activities towards activities in the service sector. Reactions by these firms have potential adverse consequences on the U.S. economy. Four proposals for simplifying Section 263A rules were evaluated by simulating the impact of these proposals on the taxable income of affected firms. Use of an individual firm capitalization ratio for all future years based a firm's average ratio for the first three years Section 263A was in effect appeared superior to other proposals. The results show there is potential for decreasing the complexity of Section 263A without reducing current tax revenues. / Ph. D.

Thesis (MAccounting)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The term beneficial owner is most commonly found in the dividend, interest and the royalty articles of tax treaties (Baker, 2007:15), yet there is still uncertainty surrounding the actual meaning of the term (Du Toit, 2010: 500). Since Dividends Tax became effective in South Africa as from 1 April 2012, it has become necessary to clarify what the term beneficial owner means to correctly apply section 64E of the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 (‘Act’). Section 64EA(a) of the Act determines that the Dividends Tax liability falls on the “beneficial owner of a dividend” [Emphasis added]. Section 64D of the Act does define the beneficial owner as “the person entitled to the benefit of the dividend attaching to the share”, the application of this definition to a discretionary trust may be challenging since legal ownership must be distinguished from economic ownership (PWC Synopsis, 2012:6). In the absence of guidance by the South African Revenue Service (‘SARS’), the first problem arises as to the interpretation of this term within the context of dividend income received by a discretionary trust (Louw, 2012:1). This leads to a second problem relating to the correct application of section 64G(3)(a)(i) of the Act, which makes provision for a reduced rate of dividends tax. The purpose of this study is to set parameters for determining who the beneficial owner of dividend income within the context of a discretionary trust is, where the dividend is paid in respect of shares held in a resident company, and to the extent that the dividend does not consist of a distribution of an asset in specie. The instances when the reduced rate is applicable in terms of section 64G(3) of the Act will also be clarified. In order to achieve these objectives, an analysis of factors that should be taken into account to define and determine beneficial ownership, was undertaken. Common- and civil law definitions were investigated. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (‘OECD’) Model Tax Conventions (MTCs’) and its Commentaries provided possible factors to assist in identifying the beneficial owner. In the absence of a decision by a South African court, the judgements in the five international court cases were consulted. Four steps were formulated to reach a conclusion. In terms of the these steps, the trust beneficiary remains the beneficial owner of dividend income received by a trust in the case of the income having been distributed by the trustees in having exercised their discretion in terms of the trust deed. In the case of contingent beneficiaries it is suggested that the trust, with the trustees, acting in their official capacity on behalf of the trust, would be seen as the beneficial owner of the dividend income. In terms of section 64G(3) of the Act, where a foreign trustee or a foreign trust beneficiary has been identified as the beneficial owner(s) of a dividend, the rate at which Dividends Tax is withheld could be reduced as a result of the application of a double tax agreement. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die begrip uiteindelik geregtigde kom mees algemeen voor in die dividende, rente en die tantième artikels van dubbel belasting ooreenkomste (Baker, 2007:15), tog is daar steeds onsekerheid oor die werklike betekenis van hierdie begrip (Du Toit, 2010: 500). Nadat Dividendbelasting op 1 April 2012 in Suid-Afrika in werking getree het, het dit noodsaaklik geword om die betekenis van die begrip uiteindelik geregtigde vas te stel ten einde artikel 64E van die Inkomstebelastingwet Nr. 58 van 1962 (‘die Wet’) korrek toe te pas. Artikel 64EA(a) van die Wet bepaal dat die aanspreeklikheid vir Dividendbelasting op die “uiteindelik geregtigde van ‘n dividend namate die dividend nie ‘n uitkering van ‘n bate in specie uitmaak nie” [klem bygevoeg] val. Artikel 64D van die Wet as "die persoon geregtig op die voordeel van die dividend verbonde aan ‘n aandeel", nogtans kan die toepassing hiervan in 'n diskresionêre trust uitdagend wees, aangesien wettige eienaarskap onderskei moet word van ekonomiese eienaarskap (PWC Synopsis, 2012:6). In die afwesigheid van leiding deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens ('die SAID'), ontstaan die eerste probleem weens die interpretasie van die begrip binne die konteks van dividend inkomste ontvang deur 'n diskresionêre trust (Louw, 2012:1). Dit lei tot 'n tweede probleem wat verband hou met die korrekte toepassing van artikel 64G(3)(a)(i) van die Wet, wat voorsiening maak vir 'n verminderde koers Dividendbelasting. Die doel van hierdie studie is om grense af te baken vir die bepaling van die uiteindelik geregtigde van dividend inkomste binne die konteks van 'n diskresionêre trust, waar die dividend betaal word ten opsigte van aandele gehou in 'n maatskappy wat ‘n inwoner is, tot die mate dat die dividend nie bestaan uit 'n uitkering van 'n bate inspecie nie. Die gevalle waar die verminderde tarief van toepassing is ingevolge artikel 64G(3) van die Wet, sal vasgestel word. Ten einde hierdie doelwitte te bereik, is 'n ontleding van die faktore wat in ag geneem moet word om die uiteindelik geregtigde te definieer en te bepaal, onderneem. Gemeenen siviele regs-definisies is ondersoek. Die ‘Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (‘OECD’) Model Tax Conventions (MTCs’) en sy kommentare verskaf moontlike faktore om te help in die identifisering van die uiteindelik geregtigde. In die afwesigheid van 'n besluit deur 'n Suid-Afrikaanse hof, word die besluite in die vyf internasionale hofsake geraadpleeg. Vier stappe is geformuleer om ʼn slotsom te bereik. In terme van die stappe, bly die trustbegunstigde die uiteindelik geregtigde van die dividendinkomste ontvang deur die trust, in die geval waar die inkomste uitgekeer word deur die trustees nadat hul diskresie uitgeoefen is in terme van die trustakte. In die geval van voorwaardelike begunstigdes, word dit gestel dat die trust, met die trustees wat in hul amptelike hoedanigheid namens die trust optree, gesien word as die uiteindelik geregtigde van die dividend inkomste. In terme van artikel 64G(3), waar 'n buitelandse trustee of 'n buitelandse trustbegunstigde as die uiteindelik geregtigde(s) van 'n dividend geïdentifiseer is, kan die koers waarteen Dividendbelasting weerhou word, verminder word as gevolg van die toepassing van 'n dubbelbelastingooreenkoms.

The purpose of this study was an empirical investigation of the factors considered by the United States Tax Court in determining whether the principal purpose for an acquisition was tax avoidance (or alternatively, given the totality of the surrounding circumstances, whether there was an overriding business purpose for the acquisition).

No description available.

Tax competition between tax sovereignties is a fact. We focus here on the international tax competition. Taxation is one of the tools of governance that States use to direct their policies. Tax authorities try to diminish the burden of their taxpayers to improve the national economic and social welfare. To aim this objective, Governments intensify the competitiveness of the domestic trade and/or attract foreign investments. Because every States share the same goal, Governments compete with each other on the tax field. This tax competition is qualified as beneficial on the one hand, and one the other hand---ever more often---the adjective used to qualify this competition would be "harmful". At first, this thesis exposes the situation of tax competition, presenting the opposing views and the concurring ones. Then, we look at the position of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and the position of the European Union on this issue of tax competition. Historic summaries explain the point of view of these two organizations that are the leaders in the fight against the "harmful" tax competition. Finally, we give subjective ideas to re-think tax competition in a fair way.

The purpose of this study was to review the provision of public and private retirement funding in both South Africa and the United Kingdom and the role of taxation in encouraging greater private provision for retirement. The study described the basis of taxation and determination of ‘taxable income’ in each jurisdiction, before addressing the relationship between taxation and retirement funding in each jurisdiction respectively. Both jurisdictions have introduced significant reforms of their systems of retirement funding and these reforms were accordingly addressed in the present research. The study compared the two jurisdictions based on the above mentioned areas to determine similarities or differences. The study concluded with recommendations, these being that South Africa should assess the feasibility of providing greater State provided retirement funding by possibly including a mandatory contribution, such as that used by the UK for its single-tier flat rate New State Pension. A further recommendation was that South Africa should encourage greater provision of private retirement funding by considering even greater tax deductions for contributions.

As the number of non-resident sports persons competing in South Africa increases so does the need to tax them more effectively. It was for this reason that the South African legislature decided to insert Part IlIA into the Income Tax Act which regulates the taxation of non-resident sports persons in South Africa. The new tax on foreign sports persons, which came into effect during August 2006, is a withholding tax placing the onus upon the organizer of the event to withhold the tax portion of the payment to the non-resident sportsperson and pay it over to the revenue services. The rate of taxation has been set at 15 percent on all amounts received by or accruing to a foreign sportsperson. The question which the research addressed is whether this new tax will prove to be an effective tax, both from the point of view of its equity and the administration of the tax. In order to determine the impact of the new tax, it was compared to similar taxes implemented in the United Kingdom and Australia and also to other withholding taxes levied in South Africa. The new tax was also measured against a theoretical model for effectiveness, compared to the pre-August 2006 situation and to the taxation of resident sportsmen and women, using hypothetical examples. The major shortcomings of the new withholding tax are the uncertainty with regard to the intention of the legislature on matters such as the taxation of capital income versus revenue income, the question whether payments to support staff are included in the ambit of the new tax, the taxation of the award of assets in lieu of cash payments and the definition of a resident. A further area of concern is that the rate of taxation of 15 percent appears to be too low and creates horizontal inequity between the taxation of resident and non-resident sports persons. The new tax on non-resident sports persons may have its shortcomings but, depending upon the administrative and support structures put in place to deal with it, will be an effective tax. The rate at which the tax is levied could result in a less tax being collected than before but, with the reduced administrative cost of tax collection, the effective/statutory ratio of the tax could well be much higher than it was. This is a new tax in South Africa and certain initial problems are inevitable and will undoubtedly be solved as the administrators gain experience and as the case law governing this tax develops. / KMBT_363