M.Comm. / The purpose of this study is to discuss the deductibility of interest paid. Interest income is ignored for the purposes of this document. This study investigates the South African tax consequences of the eductibility of interest paid only. Interest is not defined in the Income Tax Act (South Africa, 1962) and therefore gives rise to litigation. Case law is an important source of this study. The deductibility of interest paid is of great importance, because of the aggressive globalization of groups of companies and the relaxation of exchange control. The companies should structure their finances in such a way that the interest on the financing of their new overseas ventures is still deductible and that the structuring does not give rise to diversionary transactions and be open to attack by SARS.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1957. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 281-284).

The strict and narrow scope of the general deduction formula may result in taxpayers being denied deductions for business expenditure, which are clearly and legitimately incurred in the course of operating their businesses, which in turn will result in an increase in tax costs, an important component of business costs. Although audit fees often fail the deductibility test, in general they are regarded by taxpayers as automatically deductible despite the fact that such fees were not incurred in the production of income. The deductibility of audit fees reached the High Court recently for the first time in the MTN case. It was argued by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) in this case that audit fees should never been allowed as a deduction because the role of an auditor does not relate to the production of income and that an auditor’s duty is restricted to verification of financial information ex post facto for the benefit of investors, creditors and other users of the financial information. The Court held that statutory audit fees should be deductible relying on the basis of the time spent during the audit in verifying deductible and non-deductible income. It is concluded by the author that law which creates uncertainty needs to be updated in keeping with the Government’s intention of creating a business environment in order to promote commerce and entrepreneurship. It is therefore proposed that all audit fees relating to statutory audits should be declared as a specific statutory deduction to ensure legal certainty.

No description available.

For any expenditure to qualify as a deduction against income, the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 as amended (the Act), requires that the expenditure fall within the ambit of section 11 (a) (the general deduction formula) read together with section 23 (g). What may be considered a prudent and proper deduction from an accounting point of view is of no consequence, unless, that deduction is permissible under the Act. Consequently, a deduction will only be allowed when it is incurred in the production of income. The deductibility of interest has always been a vexing question. Although its deductibility is determined in terms of the general deduction formula, the courts have held widely differing views on the subject of its deductibility. The taxpayer's purpose in borrowing money is an important factor in determining the deductibility of interest. If the money was borrowed for the purposes of earning income, the interest will be deductible. It is immaterial that the borrowed money was not applied in a manner that produced income; as long as the taxpayer's purpose in borrowing the money was to use it in the production of income. The courts have, however, failed to settle the issue. Similar cases have resulted in different judgements. It is therefore essential that taxpayer carefully applies sections 11 (a) and 23 (g) to determine the deductibility of interest before obtaining financing for business purposes. / Thesis (M.Com.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2004.

M. Comm. / The purpose of the study is to identify some guidelines to determine if any legal expenses — as defined in section 11(c) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 ("the Act") actually incurred in respect of any claim, dispute or action at law arising in the course of or by any reason of the ordinary operations of a taxpayer in the carrying on of his trade —, are deductible. The admissibility of legal fees as a deduction depends primarily upon whether, in applying the provisions of section 11(a), the taxpayer is able to establish that such expenditure had been incurred in the production of income and was not of a capital nature. Furthermore, in terms of paragraph (c) of section 11, a taxpayer is entitled to deduct from his income any legal expenses, other than those of a capital nature, which he incurs and which arise in the course or by reason of the ordinary operations undertaken by him in the carrying on of his trade.The deduction is, however, limited to so much thereof as it: Is not of capital nature; Is not incurred in respect of any claim made against the taxpayer for the payment of damages or compensation if by reason of the nature of the claim or the circumstances, any payment which is or might be made in satisfaction or settlement of the claim does not or would not rank for deduction under section 11(a) or (b) of the Act; Is not incurred in respect of any claim made by the taxpayer for the payment to him of any amount which does not or would not constitute income of the taxpayer; and is not incurred in respect of any dispute or action at law relating to any such claim as in referred to in (ii) and (iii) above. The admissibility of legal expenses as a deduction depends primarily upon whether, in applying the provisions of section 11(a), the taxpayer is able to establish that such expenditure had been incurred in the production of income and was not of a capital nature. Furthermore, to establish, in terms of paragraph (c) of section 11, whether a taxpayer is entitled to deduct from income any legal expenses, other than those of a capital nature, which he incurs and which arise in the course or by reason of the ordinary operations undertaken by him in the carrying on of his trade.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 1976. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 143-145). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1984. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 244-257).

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 / Taxpayers are broadly financed in two ways, namely through the use of debt and equity. The returns on capital and debt are treated differently from an income tax perspective (SARS 2013). The interest expense incurred by taxpayers in the production of income by a person carrying on a trade, are deductible in determining taxable income, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The number of provisions contained in the Income Tax Act of 1962 (the Act) which deal with the tax treatment of interest income and interest expenditure have gradually increased over time. There are numerous aspects to be borne in mind by resident and foreign companies when considering the income tax and withholding tax implications which may arise in respect of transactions giving rise to interest income and interest expenditure (SAICA 2015). This is affirmed by the number of provisions in the income tax act dealing with the deductibility of interest primarily dealt with in section 24J of the Act as well as indicated by the 2014 amendments to section 8F, the introduction of section 8FA, sections 23M and 23N into the legislation. The purpose of this report is to assess whether the Department of National Treasury (National Treasury) have taken the number of provisions of the deductibility of interest too far. / NG (2020)