Thesis (M. A.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (the TA Act) deals with understatement penalties, which replaced the penalty provisions included under section 76 of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991). In the event of an ‗understatement‘, in terms of Section 222 of the TA Act, a taxpayer must pay an understatement penalty as determined by the understatement penalty table which is contained in Section 223 of the TA Act, unless the understatement results from a bona fide inadvertent error. In the Draft Response Document presented by National Treasury and SARS to the Committee on Finance (SCOF) on 11 September 2013, it was stated that SARS would develop guidance in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials (SARS, 2013d:42). The determining of a bona fide inadvertent error on taxpayers‘ returns as stipulated in Section 222 of the TA Act, as amended in 2013, is a totally new concept in the tax fraternity. It is of utmost importance that this section is applied correctly based on sound evaluation principles and not on professional judgement when determining if the error was indeed the result of a bona fide inadvertent error. This research study focuses on exploring key considerations when determining bona fide inadvertent errors resulting in understatements. The role and importance of tax penalty provisions is explored and the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ critically analysed with the purpose to find a possible definition for the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The study also compares the provisions of other tax jurisdictions with regards to errors made resulting in tax understatements in order to find possible guidelines on the application of bona fide inadvertent errors as contained in Section 222 of the TA Act. The term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ is evaluated by comparing the term with the characteristics of a good tax system and improvements for the practical execution of the new amendment to the TA Act are suggested. A literature review is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the role and importance of tax penalty provisions. Doctrinal research is also carried out to perform a critical analysis on the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. A comparative analysis between different countries regarding errors being made when dealing with understatements is performed and a normative research approach is followed to critically evaluate the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The findings of the research study revealed that the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ contained in Section 222 of the TA Act should be defined urgently and that guidelines must be provided by SARS on the application of the new amendment. SARS should also clarify the application of a bona fide inadvertent error in light of the behaviours contained in Section 223 of the TA Act to avoid any confusion. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (the TA Act) deals with understatement penalties, which replaced the penalty provisions included under section 76 of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991). In the event of an ‗understatement‘, in terms of Section 222 of the TA Act, a taxpayer must pay an understatement penalty as determined by the understatement penalty table which is contained in Section 223 of the TA Act, unless the understatement results from a bona fide inadvertent error. In the Draft Response Document presented by National Treasury and SARS to the Committee on Finance (SCOF) on 11 September 2013, it was stated that SARS would develop guidance in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials (SARS, 2013d:42). The determining of a bona fide inadvertent error on taxpayers‘ returns as stipulated in Section 222 of the TA Act, as amended in 2013, is a totally new concept in the tax fraternity. It is of utmost importance that this section is applied correctly based on sound evaluation principles and not on professional judgement when determining if the error was indeed the result of a bona fide inadvertent error. This research study focuses on exploring key considerations when determining bona fide inadvertent errors resulting in understatements. The role and importance of tax penalty provisions is explored and the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ critically analysed with the purpose to find a possible definition for the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The study also compares the provisions of other tax jurisdictions with regards to errors made resulting in tax understatements in order to find possible guidelines on the application of bona fide inadvertent errors as contained in Section 222 of the TA Act. The term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ is evaluated by comparing the term with the characteristics of a good tax system and improvements for the practical execution of the new amendment to the TA Act are suggested. A literature review is used to gain an in-depth understanding of the role and importance of tax penalty provisions. Doctrinal research is also carried out to perform a critical analysis on the meaning of the different components in the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. A comparative analysis between different countries regarding errors being made when dealing with understatements is performed and a normative research approach is followed to critically evaluate the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘. The findings of the research study revealed that the term ‗bona fide inadvertent error‘ contained in Section 222 of the TA Act should be defined urgently and that guidelines must be provided by SARS on the application of the new amendment. SARS should also clarify the application of a bona fide inadvertent error in light of the behaviours contained in Section 223 of the TA Act to avoid any confusion. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

Nous nous proposons dans cette étude d’analyser l’œuvre narrative, théâtrale et théorique de l’écrivain italien Natalia Ginzburg (1916-1991) au travers de la notion d’insignifiance. Tout en mettant en évidence les ressemblances et les divergences entre ce corpus et des courants littéraires du XXe siècle qui se sont interrogés sur la question du sens de l’œuvre et du monde tels que l’Absurde et le Nouveau Roman, nous cernerons ce que recouvre d’un point de vue axiologique et d’un point de vue sémantique la notion d’insignifiance.Ce corpus produit un effet d’insignifiance grâce à un style et des procédés d’écriture qui tendent à niveler le signifiant et l’insignifiant. Notre objectif principal est de montrer que d’un point de vue axiologique, l’œuvre ne valorise pas l’insignifiant et le petit au détriment du signifiant et du grand. Grâce à « l’understatement », l’auteur a dissimulé le signifiant (l’Histoire et Dieu) qui réémerge, non seulement intentionnellement de l’écriture, à travers des réseaux de symboles et de récurrences, mais aussi inconsciemment grâce au rythme et à la musicalité spécifiques de ce style. Dans ce système où tout fait sens, le lecteur est appelé à amplifier la portée de ce qui est dit et à expliciter les nombreux indices et références intertextuelles. Par ailleurs, si Ginzburg vise la représentation d’un réel au sein duquel tout aurait une importance égale, c’est parce que signifiant et insignifiant s’équivalent au sein d’une approche totalisatrice du réel qui relève d’une dimension métaphysique influencée par la psychanalyse jungienne et le mysticisme juif. / Comparing and contrasting Ginzburg's works with 20th century literary trends that broached the meaning of the world and of literature itself, such as Absurdism and the Nouveau Roman, we aim to identify the implications of insignificance from an axiological and a semantic viewpoint.Ginzburg's works create an impression of insignificance using writing style and specific techniques to give the significant and insignificant equal weight. Our main purpose is to show that, from an axiological viewpoint, Ginzburg's works do not promote the small or insignificant at the expense of the large and significant. The author uses understatement to downplay the significant (History, God), then lets it re-emerge, both intentionally through written networks of symbols and recurrences, and subconsciously through the rhythm and musicality of her specific writing style. In a context where everything has a meaning, readers are required to amplify the scope of the written word and interpret the manifold signs and inter-textual references. Indeed, Ginzburg aims to represent a reality where everything has equal importance, precisely because the significant and insignificant are equal when reality is portrayed from a totalising perspective that is inspired by metaphysical cons! iderations and influenced by Jungian psychoanalysis and Jewish mysticism.

Nous nous proposons dans cette étude d'analyser l'œuvre narrative, théâtrale et théorique de l'écrivain italien Natalia Ginzburg (1916-1991) au travers de la notion d'insignifiance. Tout en mettant en évidence les ressemblances et les divergences entre ce corpus et des courants littéraires du XXe siècle qui se sont interrogés sur la question du sens de l'œuvre et du monde tels que l'Absurde et le Nouveau Roman, nous cernerons ce que recouvre d'un point de vue axiologique et d'un point de vue sémantique la notion d'insignifiance.Ce corpus produit un effet d'insignifiance grâce à un style et des procédés d'écriture qui tendent à niveler le signifiant et l'insignifiant. Notre objectif principal est de montrer que d'un point de vue axiologique, l'œuvre ne valorise pas l'insignifiant et le petit au détriment du signifiant et du grand. Grâce à " l'understatement ", l'auteur a dissimulé le signifiant (l'Histoire et Dieu) qui réémerge, non seulement intentionnellement de l'écriture, à travers des réseaux de symboles et de récurrences, mais aussi inconsciemment grâce au rythme et à la musicalité spécifiques de ce style. Dans ce système où tout fait sens, le lecteur est appelé à amplifier la portée de ce qui est dit et à expliciter les nombreux indices et références intertextuelles. Par ailleurs, si Ginzburg vise la représentation d'un réel au sein duquel tout aurait une importance égale, c'est parce que signifiant et insignifiant s'équivalent au sein d'une approche totalisatrice du réel qui relève d'une dimension métaphysique influencée par la psychanalyse jungienne et le mysticisme juif.

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The Tax Administration Act (28 of 2011) (TA Act), which was promulgated on 4 July 2012 and came into effect on 1 October 2012, was enacted with the purpose of aligning all the administrative provisions dealt with under the various sections of the Income Tax Act (58 of 1962) (IT Act) and the Value-Added Tax Act (89 of 1991) (VAT Act) under one piece of legislation. The TA Act (28 of 2011) provides guidance on various matters of tax administration, including a very controversial penalty levying regime. Prior to the TA Act (28 of 2011), section 76 of the IT Act (58 of 1962) and section 60 the VAT Act (89 of 1991) (hereafter referred to as the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions) dealt with the levying of additional taxes in cases of understated tax returns. Sections 76 and 60 of the respective acts unfortunately did not provide proper guidelines on the assessment and calculation of these additional taxes or on how the levying of these additional taxes could conform to matters of administrative justice. These matters have been included under sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011)) and have been welcomed by most taxpayers. This research study focused on the critical evaluation of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) as well as the provisions which were repealed and replaced by the TA Act (28 of 2011) and which were previously applied in terms of the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. A comparison between the latter provisions, the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and foreign legislation is made with the purpose of addressing how effective and fair the TA Act (28 of 2011) will prove to be. The study also includes brief advice on any possible improvements or practical approaches regarding the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011). It is also seen as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations promulgated in terms of sections 221 to 223 of the TA Act (28 of 2011), and to identify possible problems with the application and interpretation of the relevant understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) by the Commissioner. A literature review was used to critically analyse and compare various pieces of legislation and precedents, including South African and foreign laws and legislation, with possible practical illustrative examples. The objective with the literature review was to clarify issues such as the fairness of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) and the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. The findings of the research study revealed that the enactment of the understatement penalty percentage provisions under the TA Act (28 of 2011) on 1 October 2012 partially achieves the objective of providing taxpayers with a penalty levying system that is more reasonable and fair in comparison with the pre-TA Act (28 of 2011) penalty provisions. Despite a more favourable outcome achieved by the TA Act (28 of 2011), the research concludes that proper guidance and measures for levying a penalty are still lacking and that the legislation is unfortunately still failing in this regard. Harsh penalty percentages based on certain behavioural criteria that are not defined create the need for obvious improvements. That said, the TA Act (28 of 2011) is still young and creates a basis on which further amendments and improvements can take place. / MCom (South African and International Taxation), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014