Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In South Africa, value-added tax (‘VAT’) is classified as an indirect tax which is levied on goods or services supplied in the Republic of South Africa. In South Africa, VAT is a destination-based invoice type tax system which means that the consumption of goods and services are taxed. To register as a vendor for VAT purposes, the business conducted must fall within the ambit of an ‘enterprise’ as defined in section 1(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 (Act No. 89 of 1991) (the VAT Act). Where a registered vendor makes taxable supplies of goods or services, it is subject to VAT at the standard rate in terms of section 7(1) of the VAT Act, unless and exemption or exception applies thereto. VAT incurred will constitute “input tax” as defined in section 1(1) of the VAT Act, where amongst others, the goods or services are acquired wholly for the purpose of consumption, use or supply in the course of making taxable supplies, or where the goods or services are acquired partly for such purpose, to such extent as determined in accordance with section 17(1) of the VAT Act. The vendor will therefore be confronted with various questions with regard to whether the activities are performed by the enterprise, or whether such activities fall outside the scope of VAT and therefore constitute non-enterprise activities. When the activities are regarded as enterprise activities, the vendor will have to determine whether the VAT incurred for the enterprise activities are used, consumed or supplied in making taxable supplies. Where the VAT incurred cannot be attributed to the making of taxable supplies, an apportionment of the VAT incurred is required. The apportionment method used in apportioning the VAT incurred for mixed purposes, must be fair and reasonable. This research assignment will therefore investigate and focus on the treatment of the VAT incurred by the business in deducting the correct amount of input tax. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In Suid-Afrika word belasting op toegevoegde waarde (‘BTW’) geklassifiseer as ‘n indirekte belasting wat gehef word op die lewering van goed of dienste. BTW is ‘n destinasie-gebaseerde faktuurbasis wat beteken dat die verbruik van goed of dienste in Suid-Afrika aan belasting onderhewig is. Om vir BTW doeleindes te registreer, moet die besigheid of die bedryf aan die vereistes van ‘n ‘onderneming’ soos gedefineer in artikel 1(1) van die Belasting op Toegevoegde Waarde Wet (die BTW Wet) voldoen. ‘n Geregistreerde ondernemer wat goed of dienste lewer, moet BTW teen die standaardkoers ingevolge artikel 7(1) van die BTW Wet hef, tensy ‘n vrystelling of uitsondering op hierdie reël van toepassing is. Die belasting gehef ingevolge artikel 7(1) van die BTW Wet verteenwoordig insetbelasting indien die betrokke goed of dienste deur die ondernemer verkry word geheel en al met die doel van verbruik, gebruik of lewering in die loop van die doen vir belasbare lewerings. Indien die goed of dienste gedeeltelik vir daardie doel aangewend word, is die ondernemer verplig om die belasting toe te deel ingevolge artikel 17 van die BTW Wet. Die ondernemer word dus met verskeie vrae gekonfronteer om te bepaal of die goed of dienste aangewend word in die loop ter bevordering van die onderneming. Indien die goed of dienste nie vir daardie doel aangewend word nie, die sogenaamde ondernemingsaktiwiteite, sal die BTW aangegaan deur die ondernemer buite die bestek van die BTW Wet val en gevolglik as nie-ondernemingsaktiwitiete geklassifiseer word. Indien die BTW nie geheel en al gebruik word vir die maak van belasbare lewerings nie, moet die ondernemer die sogenaamde BTW toedeel volgens ‘n erkende toedelingsmetode ingevolge artikel 17 van die BTW Wet. Hierdie metode moet aan die vereistes van regverdigheid en redelikheid voldoen. Hierdie werkstuk fokus en ontleed die hantering van die BTW aangegaan deur die ondernemer met die doel om die korrekte insetbelasting aftrekking te bepaal.

No abstract available. / Theses (LL.M.)- University of Natal, Durban, 1999.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In February 2007 section 11D was inserted into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 as amended. The aim of the section was to encourage private-sector investment in scientific or technological research and development (R&D). This was an indirect approach by National Treasury to increase national scientific and technological R&D expenditure in order to complement government expenditure on the subject matter. Although section 11D provides generous income tax incentives, the interpretation thereof was found to be a hindrance in attaining the goal sought by National Treasury. This is due to the fact that this section demands a firm grasp of intellectual property (IP) law, principles of tax, and technology in general. This is clearly shown by the lapse in time (i.e. three years) between the passing of section 11D into law and the release of the South African Revenue Services’ (SARS) final interpretation of section 11D, i.e. Interpretation Note 50. The release of Interpretation Note 50 in August 2009 sparked wide-spread controversy among many a patent attorneys and tax consultants. The interpretation of the section by SARS was found by many to be so draconian that it destroyed the incentive entirely. The objective of this study is to provide greater clarity on the areas of section 11D which have been found to be onerous to taxpayers. Hence the meaning of “new” and “non-obvious” in the context of a discovery of information as eligible R&D activity1 was examined. Hereafter the ambit of the exclusion of expenditure on “management or internal business process”2 from eligibility for the incentive in the context of computer program development was examined. It was established that the meaning of “novel” and “non-obvious” as construed by IP jurisprudence could mutatis mutandis be adopted for purposes of interpreting section 11D(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, information would be regarded as “new” if it did not form part of the state of the art immediately prior to the date of its discovery. The state of the art was found to comprise all matter which had been made available to the public (both in the Republic and elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way. Information would also be regarded as non-obvious if an ordinary person, skilled in the art, faced with the same problem, would not have easily solved the problem presented to him by having sole reliance on his intelligence and what was regarded as common knowledge in the art at the time of the discovery. It was submitted that in construing the meaning of the “management or internal business process” exclusion, the intention of the lawgiver should be sought and given effect to. The Explanatory Memorandum issued on the introduction of section 11D states that the lawgiver’s intention with the section was to ensure that South Africa is not at a global disadvantage concerning R&D. The R&D tax legislation of Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada was therefore examined to establish the international bar set in this regard. SARS is of the view that the “management or internal business process” exclusion applies to the development of any computer program (with the said application) irrespective of whether the program is developed for the purpose of in-house use, sale or licensing. However, it was found that such a restrictive interpretation would place homebound computer development at a severe disadvantage when compared with the legislation of the above mentioned countries. In order to give effect to the intention of legislature, it was submitted that the exclusion provision should be construed to only include the development of computer programs for in-house management or internal business process use. Computer programs developed for the said application, but for the purpose of being sold or licensed to an unrelated third party, should still be eligible for the R&D tax incentive. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 11D is gevoeg tot die Inkomstebelastingwet 58 van 1962 gedurende Februarie 2007. Die wetgewing het ten doel om privaatsektor investering in tegniese en wetenskaplike navorsing en ontwikkeling (N&O) aan te moedig. Nasionale Tesourie dra dus op ‘n indirekte wyse by tot die hulpbronne wat die regering op nasionale vlak aan tegniese en wetenskaplike N&O bestee in ‘n gesamentlike poging om N&O in Suid-Afrika te stimuleer. Artikel 11D hou op die oog af baie gunstige inkomstebelasting aansporings in. Dit wil egter voorkom asof die interpretasie daarvan as ernstige struikelblok dien in die bereiking van die doel wat Nasionale Tesourie voor oë gehad het. Dit kan toegeskryf word aan die feit dat die artikel ‘n wesenlike begrip van intellektuele eiendom (IE) wetgewing, belasting beginsels en tegnologie in die algemeen vereis. Die feit dat dit die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingdiens (SAID) ongeveer drie jaar geneem het om hul interpretasie (i.e. Interpretasienota 50) van die artikel te finaliseer dien as bewys hiervan. Die SAID het gedurende Augustus 2009, Interpretasienota 50 vrygestel. Die nota het wye kritiek ontlok by menigte IE prokureurs en belastingkonsultante. Daar is algemene konsensus dat die SAID se interpretasie so drakonies van aard is, dat dit enige aansporing wat die artikel bied, geheel en al uitwis. Die doel van hierdie studie is om die problematiese bepalings van die aansporingsartikel te verlig en groter sekerheid daaroor te verskaf. Gevolglik is die betekenis van “nuut” en “nie-ooglopend” soos van toepassing op ‘n ontdekking van inligting as kwalifiserende N&O aktiwiteit, bestudeer. Verder is die omvang van die bepaling wat besteding op “bestuur of interne besigheidsprosesse” uitsluit van kwalifikasie vir die aansporingsinsentief, bestudeer in die konteks van rekenaar programmatuur ontwikkeling. By nadere ondersoek is daar bevind dat die betekenis van “nuut” en “nie-ooglopend” soos uitgelê vir doeleindes van IE wetgewing mutatis mutandis aangeneem kan word vir die uitleg van artikel 11D(1)(a) van die Inkomstebelastingwet. Vervolgens word inligting as “nuut” beskou indien dit nie deel uitmaak van die stand van die tegniek onmiddellik voor die datum waarop dit ontdek is nie. Die stand van die tegniek vir die bepaling van nuutheid behels alle stof wat reeds aan die publiek beskikbaar gestel is (hetsy binne die Republiek of elders) by wyse van skriftelike of mondelinge beskrywing, deur gebruik of op enige ander wyse. Inligting word as nie-ooglopend beskou indien ‘n gewone werker wat bedrewe is in die tegniek en gekonfronteer is met dieselfde probleem, nie geredelik die antwoord tot die probleem sou vind deur bloot staat te maak op sy intelligensie en die algemene kennis in die bedryf op die tydstip van die ontdekking nie. Daar is aan die hand gedoen dat die doel van die wetgewer nagestreef moet word met die uitleg van die “bestuur of interne besigheidsprosesse” uitsluiting. Die Verklarende Memorandum wat uitgereik is met die bekendstelling van artikel 11D het gemeld dat die wetgewer ten doel gehad het om Suid Afrika op ‘n gelyke speelveld met die res van die wêreld te plaas wat betref N&O. Die N&O belastingbepalings van Australië, die Verenigde Koninkryk (VK) en Kanada is dus bestudeer om die internasionale standaard in die opsig vas te stel. Die SAID is van mening dat die strekwydte van die uitsluiting so omvangryk is dat dit alle rekenaar programmatuur wat ontwikkel is vir ‘n bestuur- of interne besigheidsproses toepassing tref, ten spyte daarvan dat die bedoeling van die belastingpligtige was om die programmatuur te verkoop of te lisensieër aan ‘n onverbonde derde party. Dit was egter bevind dat so ‘n beperkende uitleg die aansporing van rekenaar programmatuur ontwikkeling in Suid Afrika geweldig benadeel in vergelyking met die regime wat geld in lande soos Australië, die VK en Kanada. Ten einde gevolg te gee aan die bedoeling van die wetgewer, is daar aan die hand gedoen dat die uitsluiting slegs so ver moet strek as om rekenaar programme vir eie gebruik te diskwalifiseer. Rekenaar programme wat dus ontwikkel word met die doel om dit te verkoop of te lisensieër aan onverbonde derde partye moet steeds vir die aansporingsinsentief kwalifiseer.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Since the recent credit crisis in 2008, innovative lending products have emerged to address the need for enterprises to maintain and improve their cash flows. One such product is the merchant cash advance (MCA). This form of finance is related to debt factoring and is essentially the business equivalent of a payday loan. In its most common form, a lump sum payment is made to a business in exchange for an agreed upon percentage of future credit and/or debit card receivables. A percentage of the merchant’s daily credit or debit card receivables is retained, either directly from the processor that clears and settles the credit or debit card payment or via a debit order from the merchant’s bank account, until the obligation has been met. The future receivables are purchased at a discount and a processing fee is also charged. Many merchant cash advance service providers (MCASP) structure their business in such a way that it resembles traditional debt factoring. In this manner, MCASPs endeavour to distinguish their product offering from traditional loans, in an effort to elude legislation that would affect loans, for example the limiting of interest rates charged. There is however currently a lack of definitive guidance on the taxation consequences from the perspective of the merchant utilising the product and the MCASP providing it. The purpose of this research is to investigate the taxation consequences of MCA transactions in South Africa in an attempt to provide such guidance. The key issue for consideration affecting the taxation consequences of MCAs is the classification of these transactions as either a form of debt factoring or as loans. The research considers and suggests the appropriate classification of these transactions. The taxation treatment is then considered based on this classification from the perspective the merchant utilising the product and the MCASP providing the product. Taxation issues investigated, include the income tax treatment of the discounting cost as “interest”, the availability of deductions allowed by the Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax consequences. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Sedert die onlangse kredietkrisis in 2008 het innoverende leningsprodukte na vore gekom om te voorsien in die vraag van ondernemings om hul kontantvloei te handhaaf en verbeter. Een van hierdie produkte is die handelaarskontantvoorskot (HKV). Hierdie vorm van finansiering is verwant aan skuldfaktorering en is basies die besigheidsekwivalent van ‘n betaaldaglening. In die mees algemene vorm, word ‘n enkelbdragbetaling aan ‘n besigheid gemaak in ruil vir ‘n voorafbepaalde persentasie van die toekomstige krediet- en/of debietkaartdebiteure. ’n Persentasie van die handelaar se daagliske krediet- of debietkaart debiteure word teruggehou totdat die skuld afgelos is. Invordering vind plaas direk vanaf die verwerker wat die krediet- of debietkaartbetaling goedkeur en betaal, of deur middel van ‘n debietorder direk vanaf die handelaar se bankrekening. Die toekomstige debiteure word teen ‘n diskonto aangekoop en ‘n verwerkingsfooi kan ook gehef word. Baie handelaarskontantvoorskot-diensverskaffers (HKVD) struktureer hul besighede op so ‘n wyse dat dit soos tradisionele skuldfaktorering voorkom. Op hierdie manier beoog HKVD’s om hul produk van tradisionele lenings te onderskei, met die doel om wetgewing vry te spring wat lenings sou beïnvloed, byvoorbeeld beperkings op rentekoerse gehef. Daar is egter tans ‘n tekort aan beslissende leiding, wat die belastinggevolge betref, uit die perspektief van die handelaar wat die produk benut en die HKVD wat dit verskaf. Die doel van hierdie navorsing is om te ondersoek wat die belastinggevolge van HKV’e in Suid-Afrika is in ‘n poging om hierdie leiding te verskaf. Die kernaangeleentheid vir oorweging wat die belastinghantering affekteer, is die klassifisering van HKV-transaksies as ‘n vorm van skuldfaktorering of as lenings. Hierdie navorsing skenk oorweging aan hierdie transaksies en stel ‘n toepaslike klassifikasie voor. Die belastinghantering word dan oorweeg, gebaseer op hierdie klassifikasie uit die perskeptief van die handelaar wat die produk benut en die HKVD wat die produk verskaf. Belastingaangeleenthede wat ondersoek word, sluit die inkomstebelastinghantering van die diskonto gehef as “rente” in, die beskikbaarheid van aftrekkings toegelaat kragtens die Inkomstebelastingwet en die gevolge vir Belasting op Toegevoegde Waarde.

Thesis (MComm)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 74D of the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 (the Act) grants the power of search and seizure to the South African Revenue Service, the basic underlying principle being that the Commissioner has to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to a search and seizure operation. The previous section 74(3) of the Act provided that the Commissioner was allowed himself to authorise and conduct a search and seizure operation without the requirement of a warrant. Section 74D of the Act was recently reviewed and the Tax Administration Bill (the TAB) contains the new provisions on search and seizure that will replace section 74D of the Act. In this assignment, the concept of search and seizure was examined by considering the cases, academic writing and other material on the topic. The objectives were to analyse the development of search and seizure in South African income tax law, to provide a basic understanding of the warranted and warrantless search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB, to determine their constitutionality and to determine the remedies available to a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure. It was found that search and seizure has developed from warrantless under the previous section 74(3) of the Act into the requirement of a warrant under section 74D of the Act into a combination of both under the TAB. The concept of an ex parte application was analysed, which was shown to be permissible in certain circumstances under section 74D of the Act, while it is now compulsory in terms of the TAB. It was shown that the TAB closed the lacuna in the Act relating to the validity period of a warrant before it has been executed. It was, however, concluded, regarding whether a warrant expires when exercised or whether the same warrant can be used again to conduct a second search and seizure, that the position is not quite certain in terms of the Act and the TAB. It was found that there is no defined meaning of the reasonable grounds criterion, which is often required to be met in terms of the Act and the TAB, but that anyone that has to comply with the criterion must be satisfied that the grounds in fact exist objectively. The new warrantless search and seizure provisions of the TAB were analysed. It was established that warrantless search and seizure provisions are not uncommon in other statutes, but that the content thereof often differs. The new warrantless provisions were compared to the warrantless search and seizure provisions of, inter alia, the Competition Act No 89 of 1998 (the Competition Act), and it was found that the warrantless TAB provisions are not in all respects as circumscribed as those of the Competition Act and recommendations for counterbalances were made. It was concluded that the warranted search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB should be constitutionally valid but that the constitutionality of the new warrantless provisions of the TAB is not beyond doubt. It was furthermore found that the remedies at the disposal of a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure should indeed be sufficient, but that there are no remedies available to a taxpayer to prevent injustice or harm. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 74D van die Inkomstebelastingwet No 58 van 1962, (die Wet) verleen aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens die mag van deursoeking en beslaglegging, die grondliggende beginsel synde dat die Kommissaris ’n lasbrief van ’n regter moet verkry voor die deursoeking en beslaglegging kan plaasvind. Die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet het bepaal dat die Kommissaris self ’n deursoeking en beslaglegging kon magtig en uitvoer sonder die vereiste van ’n lasbrief. Artikel 74D van die Wet is onlangs hersien en die nuwe Belastingadministrasie-wetsontwerp (BAW) bevat die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging wat artikel 74D van die Wet sal vervang. In hierdie werkstuk is die konsep van deursoeking en beslaglegging ondersoek deur oorweging van die hofsake, akademiese skrywe en ander materiaal oor die onderwerp. Die doelstellings was om die ontwikkeling van deursoeking en beslaglegging in die Suid-Afrikaanse inkomstebelastingreg te ontleed, om ’n basiese begrip van die bepalings in die Wet en die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met en sonder ’n lasbrief te verskaf, om die grondwetlikheid daarvan te bepaal en om die remedies te bepaal wat beskikbaar is vir ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging. Daar is bevind dat deursoeking en beslaglegging ontwikkel het vanaf sonder ’n lasbrief ingevolge die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet tot die vereiste van ’n lasbrief ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet tot die kombinasie van albei ingevolge die BAW. Die konsep van ’n ex parte-aansoek is ontleed, en dit blyk in sekere omstandighede ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet toelaatbaar te wees, terwyl dit nou ingevolge die BAW verpligtend is. Daar is aangedui dat die BAW die lacuna in die Wet oor die geldigheidsperiode van ’n lasbrief voordat dit uitgevoer is, verwyder het. Daar is egter bevind, rakende die vraag of ’n lasbrief verval wanneer dit uitgevoer word en of dieselfde lasbrief weer gebruik kan word om ’n tweede deursoeking en beslaglegging uit te voer, dat daar nie sekerheid ingevolge die Wet of die BAW bestaan nie. Daar is bevind dat daar geen gedefinieerde betekenis vir die kriterium van redelike gronde is nie, waaraan dikwels ingevolge die Wet en die BAW voldoen moet word, maar dat enigiemand wat aan die kriterium moet voldoen tevrede moet wees dat die gronde inderwaarheid objektief bestaan. Die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is ondersoek. Daar is vasgestel dat bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie ongewoon is in ander wette nie, maar dat die inhoud daarvan dikwels verskil. Die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is vergelyk met die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief van, inter alia, die Mededingingswet No 89 van 1998 (die Mededingingswet), en daar is bevind dat die BAW-bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie in alle opsigte so afgebaken is soos dié van die Mededingingswet nie en voorstelle vir teenwigte is gemaak. Die gevolgtrekking is gemaak dat die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met ’n lasbrief van die Wet en die BAW grondwetlik geldig behoort te wees, maar dat die grondwetlikheid van die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie onweerlegbaar is nie. Daar is verder bevind dat die remedies tot die beskikking van ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging inderdaad genoegsaam behoort te wees, maar dat daar geen remedies aan ’n belastingpligtige beskikbaar is om ongeregtigheid of skade te voorkom nie.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The requirements of broad-based black economic empowerment (‘BEE’) are set out in the BEE scorecard. When an entity incurs expenditure relating to indirect empowerment measures (i.e. the preferential procurement, enterprise development, skills development and socio-economic development categories on the BEE scorecard), it is unclear whether the expenditure will be deductible for income tax purposes (BEE Partner, 2008). The objectives of the current study are to determine whether such expenditure is deductible and to formulate best practice guidelines for the deduction of the expenditure. The best practice guidelines consist of factors that should be considered when determining whether expenditure is deductible, as well as recommendations on how to justify that such expenditure should, in fact, be deductible. The methodology used was to first consider the requirements of the BEE scorecard, the types of expenditure and the reasons for incurring expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures. The deduction of such expenditure was then considered in a general sense and specifically for each broad category of expenditure. Lastly, the best practice guidelines were formulated based on the conclusions reached. Common expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures of BEE was grouped into broad categories. The different reasons why entities incur such expenditure were identified, as the reason for incurring expenditure can influence whether it is incurred in the production of income (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110). It is submitted that expenditure that is excessive or that is incurred for philanthropic purposes would not be incurred in the production of income. Four issues were identified that could preclude a deduction in terms of the general deduction formula (section 11(a)) – notably, that expenditure has to be in the production of income and non-capital in nature to be deductible. In addition to section 11(a), special income tax deductions (sections 12H, 12I or 18A) and capital allowances (sections 11(e), 13sex or 15(a)) could also possibly apply, but only for certain types of expenditure and only in qualifying circumstances. The conclusions drawn as to the deductibility of expenditure are summarised as a guideline for taxpayers. The above-mentioned conclusions, along with the literature examined, were used to formulate general best practice guidelines. One such guideline is that the onus is on taxpayers to show (through one of the ways suggested) that expenditure is in the production of income. Taxpayers should also note that excessive expenditure is not in the production of income and that certain expenditure required by sector charters is more likely to be capital in nature. Furthermore, specific best practice guidelines were submitted for each broad category of expenditure and relate to, for example, the applicability of the identified special deductions and the quantification of non-monetary expenditure. The specific best practice guidelines should be considered when incurring expenditure in a specific category. In summary, even though expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures has been found to be deductible in most cases, there are exceptions of which taxpayers should be aware. The proposed best practice guidelines include guidance that could be considered before incurring expenditure towards indirect BEE measures. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vereistes van breë-basis swart ekonomiese bemagtiging (‘SEB’) word in die SEB-telkaart uiteengesit. Wanneer ’n entiteit onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls (die telkaartkategorieë vir voorkeurverkryging, besigheidsontwikkeling, vaardigheidsopleiding en sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling) aangaan, is dit nie duidelik of sodanige onkoste vir inkomstebelasting-doeleindes aftrekbaar sal wees nie (BEE Partner, 2008). Die doelwitte van hierdie studie was om te bepaal of sulke onkostes belastingaftrekbaar is en om bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer vir die aftrekking van die onkostes. Die bestepraktyk-riglyne bestaan uit faktore wat oorweeg moet word in die bepaling of onkostes belastingaftrekbaar is, sowel as aanbevelings oor hoe aftrekbaarheid geregverdig kan word. Die studiemetodologie het eerstens ’n ondersoek behels na die vereistes van die SEB-telkaart, die soorte onkostes sowel as die redes vir die aangaan van onkostes wat met indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls verband hou. Daarna is die belastingaftrekbaarheid van sodanige onkostes in die algemeen sowel as spesifiek vir elke breë kategorie van onkoste oorweeg. Laastens is die bestepraktyk-riglyne opgestel op grond van die gevolgtrekkings wat bereik is. Algemene onkostes wat met indirekte SEB-maatreëls verband hou, is in breë kategorieë gegroepeer. Die verskillende redes waarom entiteite die uitgawes aangaan, is bepaal, aangesien dit kan beïnvloed of die uitgawe in die voortbrenging van inkomste is of nie (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110). Daar word aangevoer dat onkoste wat oormatige is of onkostes met betrekking tot filantropiese doeleindes nie as deel van die voortbrenging van inkomste beskou kan word nie. Vier kwessies is geïdentifiseer wat ’n aftrekking ingevolge die algemene aftrekkingsformule (artikel 11(a)) kan verhoed – die belangrikste is dat die onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan moet word en nie kapitaal moet wees om afgetrek te kan word. Benewens artikel 11(a), kan spesiale belastingaftrekkings (artikel 12H, 12I of 18A) en kapitaaltoelaes (artikel 11(e), 13sex of 15(a)) ook moontlik geld, maar slegs vir sekere soorte onkostes en in omstandighede wat daarvoor in aanmerking kom. Die gevolgtrekkings oor die belastingaftrekbaarheid van onkostes word uiteindelik as ’n riglyn vir belastingbetalers opgesom. Bogenoemde gevolgtrekkings, tesame met die bestudeerde literatuur, is gebruik om algemene bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer. Een so ’n riglyn is dat die bewyslas op die belastingbetaler rus om (op een van die voorgestelde maniere) aan te toon dat onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan word. Belastingbetalers moet ook daarop let dat oormatige onkostes nie as deel van die voortbrenging van inkomste beskou kan word nie en dat sekere onkostes ingevolge die vereistes van sektorhandveste meer waarskynlik kapitaal van aard sal wees. Spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne is voorts vir elke breë kategorie van onkostes voorgestel, byvoorbeeld met betrekking tot die toepaslikheid van die geïdentifiseerde spesiale aftrekkings en die kwantifisering van nie-monetêre onkostes. Hierdie spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne behoort in ag geneem te word wanneer onkostes in ’n spesifieke kategorie aangegaan word. Ter samevatting behoort belastingbetalers daarop bedag te wees dat hoewel onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls in die meeste gevalle belastingaftrekbaar is, daar wel sekere uitsonderings is. Die voorgestelde bestepraktyk-riglyne bied derhalwe leiding oor die faktore wat oorweeg kan word voordat onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls aangegaan word.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Share incentive schemes have become an important part of the remuneration package of employees in South Africa. Employers offer share incentive schemes to employees in order to attract and retain high quality workers while aligning the interests of the employees with those of the shareholders. Employees are motivated to participate in share incentive schemes due to the opportunity to invest in their financial future, as well as the opportunity to share in the economic success and growth of the employer company. Due to the increase in the utilisation of share incentive schemes to remunerate employees, the South African Revenue Service (the SARS) increased its focus on the taxation of such schemes. Section 8C of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (the Act) was introduced by the SARS on 24 January 2005 to govern the taxation of share incentive schemes in South Africa. Prior to the introduction of section 8C, section 8A sought to tax the gains realised by employees participating in share incentive schemes, being the difference between the market value on the exercise date and the grant price. The tax liability incurred by employees in terms of section 8A did not tax the full gain eventually realised by employees upon vesting of the shares and the SARS sought to close this loophole through the introduction of section 8C to the Act. The employer company is required by the Fourth Schedule to withhold employees’ tax amounting to the gain realised by the employee in terms of section 8C of the Act. This assignment analysed the workings of the four share incentive schemes most commonly found in the South African marketplace, namely: share option scheme, share purchase scheme, deferred delivery share scheme and phantom share scheme. The current normal income tax legislation governing share incentive schemes in relation to employees was examined by considering literature contained in the Act, amendment bills and acts, case law and other material. Based on current income tax legislation, the tax implications of each of the four selected share incentive schemes was determined and compared in order to determine which of the selected share incentive schemes are most tax efficient in relation to the employee. It was concluded that the share option scheme and the deferred delivery share scheme are the most tax efficient schemes in relation to the employee. Based on case studies conducted, along with an analysis of the current income tax legislation contained in the Act, the share option scheme and the deferred delivery share scheme resulted in the lowest overall tax liability for employees. It was further concluded that employers will be required to revisit the structuring of their current share incentive schemes in order to ensure that any dividends paid to employees in terms of the schemes will remain exempt in terms of the amended section 10(1)(k)(i)(dd). The assignment includes recommendations relating to how share incentive schemes can be structured to be more tax efficient. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Aandele-aansporingskemas het ’n belangrike deel van die vergoedingspakkette van werknemers in Suid-Afrika geword. Werkgewers bied aandele-aansporingskemas aan werknemers om sodoende hoë-kwaliteit werkers te lok en te behou terwyl die belange van die werknemers met dié van die aandeelhouers belyn word. Werknemers word gemotiveer om aan aandele-aansporingskemas deel te neem vanweë die geleentheid om in hul finansiële toekoms te belê, sowel as die geleentheid om in die ekonomiese sukses en groei van die werkgewer-maatskappy te deel. Weens die toename in die aanwending van aandele-aansporingskemas om werknemers te vergoed, het die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingdiens (die SAID) sy fokus op die belasting van welke skemas verskerp. Artikel 8C van die Inkomstebelastingwet Nr. 58 van 1962 (die Wet) is deur die SAID op 24 Januarie 2005 ingestel om die belasting van aandele-aansporingskemas in Suid-Afrika te beheer. Voor die instelling van artikel 8C het artikel 8A gepoog om die winste gerealiseer deur werknemers wat aan aandele-aansporingskemas deelneem, te belas, synde die verskil tussen die markwaarde op die uitoefeningsdatum en die toekenningsprys. Die belastingaanspreeklikheid aangegaan deur werknemers ingevolge artikel 8A het nie die volle wins uiteindelik gerealiseer deur werknemers ten tye van vestiging van die aandele belas nie, en die SAID het gepoog om hierdie skuiwergat te sluit deur die instelling van artikel 8C in die Wet. Daar word van die werkgewer-maatskappy verwag om werknemersbelasting ingevolge die Vierde Bylaag te weerhou ten bedrae van die wins deur die werknemer ingevolge artikel 8C van die Wet gerealiseer. Hierdie studie het die werking van die vier mees algemene aandele-aansporingskemas in die Suid-Afrikaanse mark geanaliseer, naamlik: die aandele-opsieskema, aandeleaankoopskema, uitgestelde-leweringskema, en die skyn-aandeleskema. Die huidige normale inkomstebelastingwetgewing wat aandele-aansporingskemas ten opsigte van werknemers beheer, is ondersoek deur die literatuur in die Wet, wysigingswetsontwerpe en wette, beslissings en ander materiaal in oënskou te neem. Gebaseer op huidige inkomstebelastingwetgewing is die belastingimplikasies van elk van die vier geselekteerde aandele-aansporingskemas bepaal en vergelyk om sodoende te bepaal watter van die geselekteerde aandele-aansporingskemas die mees belastingdoeltreffend ten opsigte van die werknemer is. Daar is gevind dat die aandele-opsieskema en die uitgestelde-leweringskema die mees belastingdoeltreffende skemas ten opsigte van die werknemer is. Gebaseer op gevallestudies wat uitgevoer is, tesame met ’n analise van die huidige inkomstebelastingwetgewing vervat in die Wet, het die aandele-opsieskema en die uitgestelde-leweringskema gelei tot die laagste algehele belastingaanspreeklikheid vir werknemers. Daar is verder tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat daar van werkgewers verwag gaan word om die strukturering van hul huidige aandele-aansporingskemas te hersien om sodoende te verseker dat enige dividende wat aan werknemers in terme van die skemas betaal word, vrygestel sal bly ingevolge die aangepaste artikel 10(1)(k)(i)(dd). Die studie sluit aanbevelings in oor hoe aandele-aansporingskemas gestruktureer kan word om meer belastingdoeltreffend te wees.

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.