Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-81). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-81). Also available on the Internet.

O presente trabalho busca examinar o conteúdo normativo de regras e limites de dedutibilidade do imposto de renda no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Pretende-se analisar a sua relevância como um instrumento de proteção de direitos fundamentais e de realização da igualdade tributária por meio da simplificação que proporciona. Com base nessa premissa, pretende-se, primeiro, afastar o entendimento de que regras e limites de dedutibilidade são fruto da discricionariedade legislativa e, segundo, apresentar parâmetros de controle que permitam o seu controle jurisdicional. / The presente study aims to examine the normative content of deductions in the context of income tax in brazilian law. Its purpose is to analyze the relevance of deductions as an instrument of protection of fundamental rights and achieving equality through tax simplification. Based on this premise, it seeks, first, overcome the understanding that deductibility rules and limits are the result of legislative discretion and, second, provide control parameters that allow its jurisdictional control.

O presente trabalho busca examinar o conteúdo normativo de regras e limites de dedutibilidade do imposto de renda no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Pretende-se analisar a sua relevância como um instrumento de proteção de direitos fundamentais e de realização da igualdade tributária por meio da simplificação que proporciona. Com base nessa premissa, pretende-se, primeiro, afastar o entendimento de que regras e limites de dedutibilidade são fruto da discricionariedade legislativa e, segundo, apresentar parâmetros de controle que permitam o seu controle jurisdicional. / The presente study aims to examine the normative content of deductions in the context of income tax in brazilian law. Its purpose is to analyze the relevance of deductions as an instrument of protection of fundamental rights and achieving equality through tax simplification. Based on this premise, it seeks, first, overcome the understanding that deductibility rules and limits are the result of legislative discretion and, second, provide control parameters that allow its jurisdictional control.

O presente trabalho busca examinar o conteúdo normativo de regras e limites de dedutibilidade do imposto de renda no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Pretende-se analisar a sua relevância como um instrumento de proteção de direitos fundamentais e de realização da igualdade tributária por meio da simplificação que proporciona. Com base nessa premissa, pretende-se, primeiro, afastar o entendimento de que regras e limites de dedutibilidade são fruto da discricionariedade legislativa e, segundo, apresentar parâmetros de controle que permitam o seu controle jurisdicional. / The presente study aims to examine the normative content of deductions in the context of income tax in brazilian law. Its purpose is to analyze the relevance of deductions as an instrument of protection of fundamental rights and achieving equality through tax simplification. Based on this premise, it seeks, first, overcome the understanding that deductibility rules and limits are the result of legislative discretion and, second, provide control parameters that allow its jurisdictional control.

This study serves to critically assess the effectiveness of South Africa’s thin capitalisation framework in dealing with Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) through excessive interest deductions by multinational enterprises (MNEs). Given the impact of globalisation in interconnecting economic activities across multiple countries, BEPS presents a major policy concern both internationally and domestically. Thin capitalisation, a situation in which an entity utilises to their tax benefit the deductions/exemption mismatch that arises from crossborder debt financing, is one of the most common methods of BEPS utilised by MNEs. This study aims to ascertain whether the framework is effective in dealing with thin capitalisation whilst balancing the need to attract investment and boost economic development and, to assess whether the framework is reflective of South Africa’s contextual realities. It achieves this by engaging with the South Africa’s legislative framework consisting of s 31 and s 23M of the Income Tax Act and the Draft Note on Thin Capitalisation and their relationship with international tax norms and standards. The study relies on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to identify the international standards and contrasts South Africa’s framework with Canada, a developed and OECD member state. The study concludes that the framework is fraught with uncertainties and administrative difficulties that hinder its effectiveness. It also concludes that the framework’s reliance on the OECD’s standards is misguided and does not reflect South Africa’s contextual realities. This is a stark contrast to Canada which opted for a thin capitalisation approach outside the OECD’s recommendations which more reflects its context. The study thus concludes that South Africa’s thin capitalisation framework is ineffective in dealing with BEPS by way of thin capitalisation.

Nearly all traditional charitable-giving studies conclude donors are more responsive to price-reducing charitable deductions (the price effect) than they are to income-reducing tax payments (the income effect). Thus, taxes stimulate giving. In addition, this empirical evidence also indicates that the charitable deduction is treasury efficient. This traditional understanding was recently challenged by studies employing observations on the same individuals across time (panel data). These panel studies provide evidence which suggest that donors are either much more responsive to income reducing tax payments than they are to price-reducing charitable deductions or just as responsive to both. Further, price elasticity estimates are much greater than negative one. Thus, the deduction is inefficient and giving is either neutral to, or inhibited by, taxes. / Ph. D.

Base erosion in the form of profit shifting has become an increasing concern internationally as well as in South Africa. A significant type of base erosion in South Africa is in the form of excessive interest deductions where income is effectively shifted to a no-tax or low-tax jurisdiction. One of the key developments affecting the South African tax laws was the introduction of provisions that target base erosion and profit shifting. Included in these provisions is section 23M, which limits the deduction of interest paid to persons in whose hands the interest received is not subject to tax in South Africa. It was, however, identified that section 23M may target the same interest risks that the new section 31 thin capitalisation provisions address. Section 23M was said to be the enactment of thin capitalisation. Although one of the purposes of tax treaties is to encourage international trade and investment, there is also discriminatory taxation, which runs counter to that purpose and therefore the prevention of such discrimination is important when dealing with tax treaties. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Model Tax Convention contains a handful of special criteria in article 24, which must not lead to different or less favourable treatment with regard to taxation. It was found that the non-discrimination article, in particular articles 24(4) and 24(5), may prevent the application of a thin capitalisation regime if the provisions are in contrast with the OECD non-discrimination provisions. Article 24(4) and article 24(5), however, contain an exception that the non-discrimination provisions would not be applicable provided that the thin capitalisation regimes are compatible with the arm’s length principles of article 9. If section 23M was therefore found to be an arm’s length transaction, the article 24(4) and (5) non-discrimination provisions would without further consideration, not be applicable. It was, however, found that section 23M does not consider the factors that should be considered when an arm’s length transaction is applicable, but merely applies the same formula to each company regardless of the size of the company or the industry sector. As a result of this, it appears as if section 23M is arbitrary in nature and therefore would not represent an arm’s length transaction. The exception would not be applicable and would therefore increase the potential non-compliance with the non-discrimination provision. The objective of this study was to determine whether any aspect of section 23M would be contrary to the OECD guidelines relevant to thin capitalisation and in particular the non-discrimination provisions. It was, however, found that although it appears as if section 23M’s primary focus is on cross-border transactions, the provisions do not directly discriminate on the basis of residence. As a result of the discrimination being indirect discrimination and the fact that the cause of section 23M being applicable is not foreign ownership, but rather due to the creditor not being subject to tax, it was concluded that the OECD non-discrimination provisions would not be applicable to section 23M. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Base erosion in the form of profit shifting has become an increasing concern internationally as well as in South Africa. A significant type of base erosion in South Africa is in the form of excessive interest deductions where income is effectively shifted to a no-tax or low-tax jurisdiction. One of the key developments affecting the South African tax laws was the introduction of provisions that target base erosion and profit shifting. Included in these provisions is section 23M, which limits the deduction of interest paid to persons in whose hands the interest received is not subject to tax in South Africa. It was, however, identified that section 23M may target the same interest risks that the new section 31 thin capitalisation provisions address. Section 23M was said to be the enactment of thin capitalisation. Although one of the purposes of tax treaties is to encourage international trade and investment, there is also discriminatory taxation, which runs counter to that purpose and therefore the prevention of such discrimination is important when dealing with tax treaties. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Model Tax Convention contains a handful of special criteria in article 24, which must not lead to different or less favourable treatment with regard to taxation. It was found that the non-discrimination article, in particular articles 24(4) and 24(5), may prevent the application of a thin capitalisation regime if the provisions are in contrast with the OECD non-discrimination provisions. Article 24(4) and article 24(5), however, contain an exception that the non-discrimination provisions would not be applicable provided that the thin capitalisation regimes are compatible with the arm’s length principles of article 9. If section 23M was therefore found to be an arm’s length transaction, the article 24(4) and (5) non-discrimination provisions would without further consideration, not be applicable. It was, however, found that section 23M does not consider the factors that should be considered when an arm’s length transaction is applicable, but merely applies the same formula to each company regardless of the size of the company or the industry sector. As a result of this, it appears as if section 23M is arbitrary in nature and therefore would not represent an arm’s length transaction. The exception would not be applicable and would therefore increase the potential non-compliance with the non-discrimination provision. The objective of this study was to determine whether any aspect of section 23M would be contrary to the OECD guidelines relevant to thin capitalisation and in particular the non-discrimination provisions. It was, however, found that although it appears as if section 23M’s primary focus is on cross-border transactions, the provisions do not directly discriminate on the basis of residence. As a result of the discrimination being indirect discrimination and the fact that the cause of section 23M being applicable is not foreign ownership, but rather due to the creditor not being subject to tax, it was concluded that the OECD non-discrimination provisions would not be applicable to section 23M. / MCom (South African and International Tax), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Thesis (MAcc) -- Stellenbosch University, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In order for a taxpayer to be entitled to a deduction for expenditure actually incurred, the taxpayer must meet the requirements of section 11(a), read with the provisions of sections 23(f) and 23(g). The preamble of section 11 requires that the taxpayer should incur the expenditure in the carrying on of a trade, before it will be deductible. Therefore, taxpayers who do not carry on a trade will not be allowed any deductions for expenditure actually incurred in terms of section 11(a). In the case of a holding company that grants loans to its subsidiaries or associates, there is a general prevailing view that the holding company does not carry on a trade in respect of the loans granted. Therefore it is argued that the holding company is not entitled to any deductions in terms of section 11(a). This study questions the above-mentioned general view by considering case law and the opinions of various tax experts. The question is raised whether the holding company could be regarded as carrying on a trade, and if so, under what circumstances that will be the case. A secondary issue that will be considered is whether the holding company is entitled to deductions in respect of interest expenditure actually incurred. In this regard a distinction is made between moneylenders and non-moneylenders. The writer reaches the conclusion that the definition of “trade” is not all-inclusive, and that the Legislator intended that the term should be interpreted as widely as possible. Therefore, the writer is of the opinion that taxpayers who are not moneylenders could, under certain circumstances, be carrying on a trade in respect of the granting of loans and should thus be entitled to income tax deductions for expenditure incurred. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Vir ‘n belastingpligtige om op ‘n aftrekking vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan, geregtig te wees, moet aan die bepalings van artikel 11(a), saamgelees met dié van artikels 23(f) en 23(g) voldoen word. Die aanhef tot artikel 11 vereis dat ‘n belastingpligtige die uitgawes in die beoefening van ‘n bedryf moet aangaan voordat ‘n aftrekking gëeis kan word. Belastingpligtiges wat dus nie ‘n bedryf beoefen nie, sal op geen aftrekkings vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan ingevolge artikel 11(a) geregtig wees nie. Met betrekking tot ‘n houermaatskappy wat lenings aan sy filiale of geassosieerdes toestaan, heers daar ‘n algemene siening dat die houermaatskappy nie ‘n bedryf beoefen met betrekking tot die toestaan van lenings nie. Daarom word geargumenteer dat die houermaatskappy nie ingevolge artikel 11(a) op enige aftrekkings geregtig is nie. In hierdie studie word bogenoemde algemene siening krities aan die hand van regspraak en menings van belastingkenners oorweeg. Die vraag word gevra of die houermaatskappy nie wel beskou kan word om ‘n bedryf te beoefen nie, en indien wel, onder watter omstandighede dit so sal wees. ‘n Sekondêre aspek wat oorweeg word, is of die houermaatskappy op ‘n aftrekking vir rente uitgawes werklik aangegaan by die toestaan van die lenings geregtig is. In hierdie verband word ‘n onderskeid tussen geldskieters en nie-geldskieters getref. Die skrywer kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat die omskrywing van “bedryf” nie allesomvattend is nie, en dat dit blyk of dit die Wetgewer se bedoeling was om die begrip so wyd as moontlik te stel. Dit is die skrywer se mening dat belastingpligtiges wat nie geldskieters is nie, wel onder bepaalde omstandighede beskou kan word om ‘n bedryf te beoefen met betrekking tot die toestaan van lenings. Daarom behoort sulke belastingpligtiges wel op inkomstebelastingaftrekkings vir uitgawes werklik aangegaan, geregtig te wees.