E-tolling was recently implemented on roads in Gauteng, South Africa. This gave rise to a great deal of protest by road users and a court battle between the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) and the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance, a body representing road users. The e-tolling system was criticised at various levels and on numerous grounds, some financial and others appearing to be emotional. This thesis attempted to analyse the various grounds for objection against the system, the main goal of the research being to analyse e-tolling in Gauteng to ascertain whether or not the introduction of e-tolling was justified or whether an alternative method of taxation to pay for the upgrading of Gauteng roads would have been more cost-effective. Secondary data in the form of documents from multiple sources was used in the analysis, including an Economic Impact Assessment that was one of the key inputs into the decision to introduce e-tolling. It was found that there are multiple problems plaguing the e-toll system and e-tolling is not the most cost-effective taxation method of paying for Gauteng roads. Using a fuel levy or general tax revenue available to the National Treasury were both found to be more cost-effective methods as they would have achieved the same result (repairing and upgrading specific Gauteng roads), at a cost of R20,0913 billion less than e-tolling. It was suggested that the best taxation method/s to pay for the roads would have been using a fuel levy and general tax revenue as the primary funding methods, with vehicle licensing fees and long distance toll roads as secondary methods to aid the primary methods.

In the 2011/2012 Budget Speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, it was announced that a 15% withholding tax on gambling winnings above R 25 000 was to be introduced with effect from 1 April 2012. This treatise was undertaken to critically analyse the different elements of the proposed new withholding tax. It was established that the fiscus already benefits significantly from the gambling industry and levies and taxes from the gambling industry dwarf the revenue SARS collect from other forms of taxes such as Donations tax and Estate Duty tax. The necessity, therefore, of taxing gambling winnings in the hands of the individual is debatable. A comparison with the three foreign countries used by the Minister as an example of countries who have successfully implemented a withholding tax on gambling winnings exposed operational or other characteristics which bear no significant relationship to the situation in which the industry operates in South Africa. Probably the most significant difference is the fact that in the three foreign countries, losses are deductible and only the net gains are taxed. Although it iv could add to an already seemingly administrative-intensive legislation, it is submitted that taxing gambling winnings and ignoring losses suffered by gamblers will be disproportionately unfair towards the taxpayer. The many questions raised in this treatise illustrate the level of uncertainty still surrounding the new proposed gambling tax. It is hoped that communication will be provided by SARS as soon as possible to address the issues at hand. This would go a long way in ensuring that the implementation of the proposed withholding tax on gambling winnings is as smooth and efficient as possible.

Thesis (MAccounting)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The interaction between the income tax provisions contained in sections 9B, 9C, 11(a) and 22 of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (the Act), and the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions of the Eighth Schedule of the Act, are complex and share dealers should approach the tax consequences of share dealing profits with caution. The objective of the assignment was to ensure that the share dealing profits of share dealers (who transact on revenue account) are taxed correctly, with specific reference to the interaction between the aforementioned provisions. This was achieved by considering tax cases, the interpretation notes of the South African Revenue Services (SARS) and commentary of tax writers. Examples of share disposals were incorporated to illustrate that consistency is required between the calculation of profits for income tax and CGT purposes. The guidelines laid down by case law to determine the revenue nature of share disposals were investigated. It was concluded that share dealing profits which are designedly sought for and worked for, either as part of a business operation or not, are of a revenue nature and taxable as such. The method of identification of shares sold as trading stock is important when calculating the income tax profit, since it is used in order to determine both which shares are sold as well as the cost of the shares sold. It was concluded that the method of identification applied in terms of generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) is generally also acceptable from an income tax perspective. Section 9C of the Act provides a share dealer income tax relief when a ‘qualifying share’ is disposed of. Any amount received or accrued as a result of the disposal of a qualifying share is deemed to be of a capital nature, regardless of the revenue intention of the share dealer. Prior to 1 October 2007, section 9B of the Act provided similar relief to the disposal of an ‘affected share’. It was concluded that section 9C of the Act has a wider scope of application compared to section 9B of the Act. Because the proceeds received on the disposal of affected or qualifying shares are excluded from gross income, the acquisition costs previously incurred and deducted in respect of such shares must be included in taxable income. It was determined that the amount to be included in income is the actual cost of such shares and not the opening trading stock value determined in terms of GAAP and claimed in terms of section 22(2) of the Act. It was concluded that the first-in-first-out (FIFO) method of identification should be applied to determine which affected or qualifying shares have been disposed of. From a CGT perspective, it was illustrated that a share dealer loses the opportunity to choose which identification method to apply and is obliged to also apply the FIFO method in calculating the CGT base cost of the shares. It is concluded that the Eighth Schedule of the Act should be amended to clarify that the FIFO method should be applied for CGT purposes where sections 9B or 9C of the Act find application. Only then will the tax profits of a share dealer be in sync with his or her cash benefit. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die interaksie tussen die inkomstebelastingbepalings vervat in artikels 9B, 9C, 11(a) en 22 van die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 (die Wet), en die kapitaalwinsbelastingbepalings (KWB bepalings) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Wet is kompleks en aandelehandelaars moet die belastinggevolge van aandelewinste met omsigtigheid benader. Die doelwit van die werkstuk was om te verseker dat die winste van aandelehandelaars (wat aandele verkoop op inkomsterekening) korrek belas word, met spesifieke verwysing na die interaksie tussen die voorgenoemde bepalings. Dit is bereik deur die oorweging van hofsake, uitlegnotas van die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens en kommentaar deur belastingskrywers. Voorbeelde van aandeleverkope is gebruik om te illustreer dat konsekwentheid tussen die berekening van winste vir inkomstebelasting en KWB-doeleindes ‘n vereiste is. Die riglyne wat deur regspraak daargestel is om die inkomste-aard van aandeleverkope vas te stel, is ondersoek. Daar is bevind dat aandelewinste wat opsetlik nagejaag word en voor gewerk word, ongeag of dit deel van die bedryf van 'n besigheid is al dan nie, van ‘n inkomste-aard is en aldus belasbaar is. Die metode van identifikasie van aandele wat as handelsvoorraad verkoop word is belangrik by die berekening die inkomstebelastingwins aangesien dit gebruik word om vas te stel watter aandele verkoop is en wat die koste van die verkoopte aandele is. Daar is bevind dat die metode wat ingevolge algemeen aanvaarde rekeningkundige praktyk (AARP) toegepas is, gewoonlik ook vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes toelaatbaar is. Artikel 9C van die Wet verskaf aan ‘n aandelehandelaar inkomstebelastingverligting met die verkoop van 'n 'kwalifiserende aandeel' deurdat die bedrag ontvang of toegeval geag word van 'n kapitale aard te wees, ongeag die inkomstebedoeling van die aandelehandelaar. Voor 1 Oktober 2007 het artikel 9B van die Wet soortgelyke verligting verskaf met die verkoop van n 'geaffekteerde aandeel’. Daar is vasgestel dat artikel 9C van die Wet 'n wyer toepassing het in vergelyking met artikel 9B van die Wet. Omrede die opbrengs ontvang met die verkoop van geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele uitgesluit word van bruto inkomste, moet die vorige aankoopskostes wat voorheen ten opsigte van die aandele aangegaan en afgetrek is, by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word. Daar is bepaal dat die bedrag wat by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word, die werklike koste van die aandele is en nie die AARP openingswaarde van handelsvoorraad wat ingevolge artikel 22(2) van die Wet geëis nie. Daar is bevind dat die eerste-in-eerste-uit (EIEU) metode van identifikasie gebruik moet word om te bepaal watter geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele verkoop is. Vir KWB doeleindes verloor 'n aandelehandelaar ook die geleentheid om te kan kies watter identifikasiemetode toegepas moet word. Hy of sy is verplig om die EIEU metode toe te pas in die berekening van die KWB basiskoste van die aandele. Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Agtste Bylae van die Wet gewysig moet word om te bevestig dat die EIEU metode toegepas moet word vir KWB doeleindes waar artikels 9B of 9C van die Wet van toepassing is. Slegs dan is die belasbare wins van 'n aandelehandelaar in lyn is met sy of haar kontantvoordeel.

LL.M. (Tax Law) / Capital Gains Tax (“CGT”) was introduced with effect from 1 October 2001 by the insertion of section 26A and an Eighth Schedule into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001. Paragraph 40(1) of the Eight Schedule provides that a deceased person must, with certain exceptions, be treated as having disposed of his assets to his estate for proceeds equal to the market value of those assets as at the date of death. Paragraph 40(1A) of the Eight Schedule provides that if an asset of a deceased person is treated as having been disposed of under paragraph 40(1) and is transferred directly to the estate of the deceased person, the estate must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes, and if the asset is transferred directly to an heir or legatee, the heir or legatee must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes. The capital gain will be the difference between the market value of a taxable asset of the deceased on the date of his death and its base cost to him, which is included in his final income tax assessment and which will have to be settled out of the estate‟s assets. There are many arguments in favour of the discontinuance of the levying of CGT at the death of a taxpayer in South Africa, which arguments become evident when comparing the South African CGT provisions regarding the levying of CGT at death with tax jurisdictions such as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Botswana and Nigeria. Canada for example abolished their inheritance tax in 1972 which in that particular situation justifies the levying of CGT at death. If CGT will continue to be levied at the death of a taxpayer it is suggested that a carry-over approach in terms of which the heir inherits the asset at its acquisition cost and the CGT liability is deferred until the heir actually disposes of the asset should be followed. This approach is currently followed in Australia, Botswana and Nigeria. The holder of an inherited bare dominium will suffer at the hands of a CGT anomaly where the deceased created a limited interest, for example a usufruct over a fixed property bequeathed by him to the bare dominium holder. The anomaly that transpires is that the limited interest created by the deceased will result in an artificial drop in the base cost of the fixed property so bequeathed and there will be no adjustment to the base cost when the bare dominium holder succeeds to full ownership of the fixed property, for example when the usufructuary passes away, meaning that the same capital gain will be taxed twice. It is submitted that legislative amendments are required to provide for an increase in the base cost applicable to the bare dominium holder when the usufructuary eventually passes away. Alternatively the SARS‟s current practice in this respect should be altered to avoid the unbearable situation where a capital gain may be taxed at 2 separate instances. At least two anomalies exist when dealing with capital losses in the deceased‟s final period of assessment and in the winding up of the deceased‟s estate. Firstly a capital loss may not be carried forward from the deceased‟s final assessment to his deceased estate to be set off against capital gains that may be realised in the winding up of the estate. Secondly a capital loss incurred on the sale of a capital asset during the winding up of a deceased estate cannot be carried over from the deceased estate to the heirs of the deceased and will thus remain unutilised. It is suggested that the method followed in Canada in respect of capital losses that occurred in the year of a taxpayer‟s death should be followed in South Africa, ie that such capital loss may be carried back three years in order to reduce any taxable capital gains that occurred in those years or that the capital losses may be utilised to reduce other income of the taxpayer in his final return. It is further suggested that this method should also be followed in respect of unutilised capital losses that occurred in the winding up of the estate, alternatively the capital losses so realised must be carried over to the heirs of the deceased.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (Specialising in Taxation) / In this research report the South African taxation of carried interest in a private equity context is examined. The extent to which reform of that taxation should be considered is also presented in this report. The nature of carried interest in the South African private equity context is initially examined. Thereafter, a discussion of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and related South African case law that would likely apply to the taxation of carried interest is set out. An analysis and determination of how appropriate and adequate the taxing provisions and relevant principles from case law are in the taxation of carried interest is provided. A recommendation for new legislation to deal with the taxation of carried interest has also been made. / MT2017

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) Johannesburg, 2016 / The Davis Tax Committee released their First Interim Report on Estate Duty on 13 July 2015 which contained certain recommendations concerning the way trusts should be taxed which were to act as a deterrent against aggressive estate planning. This report also contained suggested changes to current estate duty legislation. Changes to these recommendations, yet to be published in a second report, were discussed in a webinar by Judge Dennis Davis in December 2015 and the 2016 Budget Review contained additional suggestions with regard to the taxation of trusts. This study constructs case studies to compare the effect of the various recommendations on total taxation and capital preservation in a scenario where assets are held in a South African trust over a period of time, with a scenario where such assets are kept in a South African tax resident’s personal estate. The case studies focus only on high-net-worth trusts and personal estates. The possible double taxation which may occur as a result of levying both estate duty and capital gains tax on death is also briefly considered. The case study results show the punitive effects of the proposed repeal of the s 4(q) estate duty deduction for inter-spousal bequests on the personal estate scenarios and show how several of the new proposals could result in effective capital tax rates in excess of the deemed maximum capital tax benchmark of 15%. This may result in more aggressive estate planning strategies being employed should such proposals be enacted. The report also concludes that the double taxation effect of both estate duty and capital gains tax levied on death is likely to be small on average, although individual high-net-worth estates may be subject to such double taxation in certain cases. Key words: Davis Tax Committee’s First Interim Report on Estate Duty, taxation of South African trusts, South African trusts, South African estate duty, estate planning, double taxation on death, estimate for total capital gains tax collected on death, high-net-worth individuals, inequality in South Africa, wealth tax in South Africa, total taxation in South African trusts, income-splitting in South African trusts, capital preservation in South African trusts, South African trust case study, South African estate duty case study, South African estate planning case study / MT2017

A Research Report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) Degree: Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) Date: 30 March 2016 / The decision to undertake domestic (onshore) or international (offshore) trade activity should be one primarily influenced by the perceived commercial viability and sustainability of the trade activity in a local or foreign jurisdiction. As with all investment decisions, the decision to trade onshore or offshore should not be a “tax decision”, i.e. a decision motivated primarily by the resultant tax outcome of such trade in the jurisdiction under consideration. ‘Tax is usually not a major factor in the initial decision of an enterprise to make a direct investment abroad. Other factors such as return on investment, political stability, labo[u]r costs and access to foreign markets, are much more important as far as the original investment is concerned. The tax “tail” should not wag the commercial “dog”.1 Similarly, the decision to trade onshore or offshore should never result from a “taxable person or taxable entity decision”, i.e. a decision to trade onshore or offshore based on the manipulation of the existing mismatch in tax treatment between different ‘persons’ as recognised (whether defined or not) in the relevant tax legislation. Persons typically recognised for the purpose of tax legislation include, inter alia, natural individuals, companies2 and trusts. ‘A partnership, in South African law, is not a legal person distinct from the partners of whom it is composed, nor is a partnership a taxable persona for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the ‘Act’).’3 The purpose of this research will be to reveal the creation of a bias in the matter of double taxation of companies, in comparison to, the avoidance of double taxation within partnerships, even where it is observed that the characteristics of a modern partnership are increasingly akin to those of a company. This is a phenomenon found to occur in many jurisdictions across the world. Essentially, the premise of this research is to assert that a company is subject to economic double taxation in South Africa and certain jurisdictions, whereas a partnership, although closely resembling a company (i.e. a ‘quasi-partnership’), is not. / MT2017

No description available.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether a discretionary inter vivos trust is still an effective instrument for estate planning. The process of estate planning, the role the trust plays in it and the background to the trust are described. The taxability and tax saving opportunities when the trust are utilised are discussed in the light of the Estate Duty Act, 45 of 1955, the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962 (including the Eighth Schedule thereof) and the Transfer Duty Act, 40 of 1949. The opinions of tax and legal authorities in articles and relevant case law are also discussed. The impact of the "letter of wishes" on the stipulations of the trust deed is examined. Amendments to the Income Tax Act have placed a limit on the use of a trust for estate planning through a number of anti-avoidance measures, the introduction of a capital gains tax (in the Eighth Schedule) and the imposition of a high tax rate. The increase in the deduction granted in arriving at the dutiable amount of an estate, in terms of section 4A of the Estate Duty Act, from R1 500 000 to R2 500 000 has imposed a further limit on the use of the trust as an instrument in estate planning. The research demonstrates that, notwithstanding the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the trust still is a viable instrument, mainly because the trust operates as a conduit and because of its potential use in dividing taxable income amongst a number of beneficiaries. The stipulations included in the trust deed and the "letter of wishes" (if one exists), must be thought through carefully when estate planning is done, as it can give rise to the application of the general and specific anti-avoidance provisions as included in sections 7 and 103 of this Act. The research also concludes that, in assessing the effectiveness of the trust as an instrument in tax planning, the disadvantage of paying the higher transfer duty when the immovable asset is transferred to the trust should be weighed up against the possible saving in income tax and estate duty at a later stage. It is also clear that most assets owned by the trust are tax neutral, whilst many of the amendments under discussion deal with the taxability of trust income. The quantitative considerations underlying the use of the trust as part of the estate plan, remain unchanged. The research concludes by providing a framework of quantitative and qualitative criteria that can be used by an estate planner to determine whether it will be advantageous to transfer an asset to the trust to achieve the objectives of the estate plan.

M. Comm. / The objective of the study is to critically evaluate the process of implementation of the residence—based system of taxation in South Africa and to evaluate whether the South African Revenue Service achieved their goals mentioned above through the implementation of this complex, sophisticated system of taxation. A well known cross border preference share structure will be utilised to illustrate the effect of the changes from a source to a residence taxation system. In order for a residence-based taxation system to be effective, it is essential that it draws into the tax net income earned by South Africanowned foreign entities (principally South African-owned foreign subsidiaries). If such income is not taxed, it is easy for South African residents to avoid tax by shifting their income to foreign entities in tax havens and preferential regimes, in which event the income earned by the foreign entity will be subjected to South African taxation only when repatriated as a dividend (Jooste, 2001:473-502). An efficient residence-based system spurns such a delay or deferral of taxation because taxpayers often delay repatriation for years, or never repatriate funds at all. This was exactly what the South African Revenue Service wanted to achieve through the introduction of the full-blown residence-based taxation system. The South African taxation system was based on a pure source system. Gradual changes in the economic environment necessitated certain amendments to the South African Income Tax Act to ensure that South Africa protects its tax base. Even though the residence based system of taxation was implemented over a number of years since 1997, numerous problems are still being encountered with the practical application of this complex system of taxation. South Africa's participation as a global player is examined from a tax perspective and practical application issues are examined. The taxation of foreign dividends introduced with effect 22 February 2002 serves as an example of the major impact that these changes had on cross-border structuring. Although this only serves as an example of the extent of the impact, various other cross-border structuring have been drastically impacted by these changes.