The third sphere of government (Local Government) has been persistently clouded by unfavourable Annual Financial Statement (AFS) audit reports. This results in local government losing credibility and its stakeholders losing confidence in the institutions or municipalities. In-depth analysis of the root cause of this dilemma is an opportunity for the municipality to reorganise its house and redeem its dignity and credibility to its stakeholders through addressing the identified challenges. The importance of the study can be attributed to the need to investigate the root causes of unfavourable audit opinion and recommend possible remedies that can assist municipalities to improve their audit report outcomes which in turn will improve the confidence of its stakeholders. The primary objective of the study was to investigate variables that impact on the audit report outcomes on annual financial statements of the municipalities that are within Alfred Nzo District (AND) Jurisdiction, including Alfred Nzo District Municipality (ANDM). This was achieved through investigating the root causes of the audit report outcomes with specific focus on the relationship that exists between the management role and audit outcomes of the Alfred Nzo District Municipalities. This was measured by the municipality’s leadership, governance, internal controls and human capital management. Convenient sampling was used wherein 150 questionnaires (30 per municipality) were sent out to the selected employees in all the municipalities in the Alfred Nzo District. Out of the questionnaires that were sent out, 103 responses were received. These were analysed to draw findings, conclusion and recommendations. The empirical results of the study revealed that there is strong evidence that leadership, governance and human capital management have a positive influence on the municipality’s AFS audit report outcomes. It also revealed that there is overwhelming evidence that internal controls have a positive influence on the municipality’s AFS audit report outcomes. The study recommends how leadership, governance, internal controls and human capital management must be improved. It also provides future research recommendations to improve this study.

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

Master thesis is focused on how a change of Czech law affects functionality of information systems. Content of the work is describing a reactions of information systems suppliers to keep functionality with a current law. Thesis is focused on ERP systems especially SAP, Microsoft Dynamics and Helios. Defining of a new functionality is done by analyzing Value-added tax act, Electronic records of sales act and Accounting act. According to the change of accounting act we develop ad hoc application to keep duty defined by law.