The lack of specific tax legislation and practice dealing with the taxation of derivatives in South Africa necessitates the construction of a framework for the taxation of derivatives: the subject of this dissertation. The lack of sophistication within the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962 and the lack of clarity provided by the South African Revenue Service with regard to derivatives, specifically in a hedging context, is expected to be overcome to a large degree by virtue of the contents of this dissertation. The dissertation considers the meaning of a derivative and a hedge in a tax context and culminates in the drafting of suggested definitions of a derivative and a hedge to be housed within our tax legislation. The definitions have been constructed from key themes and features extracted from various comparative studies. Given the changes in accounting methodologies and practice of derivative transactions, it is considered that the need, from a tax perspective, is to move closer to the accounting treatment of gains and losses on derivative transactions. The analysis in this dissertation favours this approach in the instance specifically where derivatives are transacted as a hedge of an underlying capital transaction. The purposes for which derivatives are used are finally considered specifically in the context of the common law doctrine of substance over form. The subjective test of the taxpayer’s mindset plays a major part in balancing the legal form of a transaction and its legal substance. It is hoped that a fresh view on the taxation of derivatives and the construction of this framework provides users of tax legislation with a concise pathway to the tax effect and consequences of their application. / Prof. D Coetsee

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Tax policy makers in South Africa have to a large extent neglected the tax treatment of derivative instruments. The Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962, currently only takes into account three types of financial arrangements that can be classified as being derivative in nature: forward exchange and option contracts relating to foreign exchange, interest rate swaps based on notional capital amounts and option contracts. Although the Commissioner for Inland Revenue has appointed a number of internal working committees to research this area of the law, the legislation resulting from these efforts has been piecemeal in nature, dealing only with limited aspects of the taxation of a few specific transactions. Due to the lack of specific legislative provisions regulating the tax aspects of derivatives, the general principles of South African income tax law have to be applied to these instruments. This leads to imprecise and inconsistent results, primarily due to the development of these principles long before the widespread use of derivatives in sophisticated and complex transactions. The taxation of transactions involving derivative instruments is becoming a subject of increasing practical importance in South Africa due to the number of derivative transactions escalating in quantity. The introduction of capital gains tax in South Africa has added yet a further dimension to the taxation of derivatives. In light of the increasing volume and value of derivative transactions entered into by South African taxpayers, it is imperative that clarity regarding the taxation of these transactions be reached as soon as possible. Any reform and revised tax rules which is made applicable to these instruments, need to be very flexible, as further developments in the financial instrument environment are extremely dynamic and almost changing by day. It is furthermore important that the South African tax system keeps track with international developments to enhance the countl-y's trading status and to ensure that cross border transactions do not have anomalous conseq Llences, especially for foreign counter-parties. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Belastingbeleidmakers in Suid-Afrika het tot 'n groot mate die belastinghantering van afgeleide instrumente verwaarloos. Die Inkomstebelasingwet, No. 58 van 1962, neem tans slegs drie soorte finansiele ooreenkomste wat as afgeleide instrumente geklassifiseer kan word, in aanmerking: termynwissel- en opsiekontrakte met betrekking tot buitelandse valuta, rentekoers ruilkontrakte gebaseer op denkbeeldige kapitaalbedrae en opsiekontrakte. Alhoewel die Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste 'n aantal interne werkskomitees aangestel het om ondersoek in te stel na hierdie afdeling van die reg, is die wetgewing wat voortgespruit het as uitvloeisel van hierdie pogings broksgewys van aard deurdat dit slegs met beperkte aspekte van die belasbaarheid van 'n aantal spesifieke transaksies gehandel het. Vanwee die gebrek aan spesifieke wetgewende bepalings wat die belastingaspekte van afgeleides reguleer, moet die algemene beginsels van die Suid-Afrikaanse inkol11stebelastingreg toegepas word op hierdie instrumente. Dit gee aanleiding tot onnollkeurige en teenstrydige resllltate, hoofsaaklik omdat hierdie beginsels reeds lank voor die wydverspreide gebruik van afgeleides in gesofistikeerde en ingewikkelde transaksies ontwikkel het.- Die belasbaarheid van transaksies waarby afgeleide instrumente betrokke is, is 'n onderwerp van loenemende praktiese belang in Suid-Afrika vanwee die styging in die aantal transaksies in afgeleides. Die inwerkingstelling van kapitaalwinsbelasting in Suid-Afrika het nog 'n verdere dimensie aan die belasbaarheid van afgeleide instmmente toegevoeg. lndien aggeslaan word op die toename in die aantal en waarele van transaksies in afgeleiele instrllmente wat deur Suid-Afrikaanse belastingbetalers aangegaan word, is elit noodsaaklik clat ciuidelikheid rakencle ciie belasbaarheid van hierdie transaksies so spoedig doenlik verkry word. Enige hervOiming en hersiende belastingreels wat van toepassing gemaak word op hierdie instrllmente, moet baie buigsaam wees aangesien verdere ontwikkelings in die finansieie instrumente-omgewing uiters dinamies is en bykans daagliks verander. Dit is vnorts belangrik dat die Suid-Afrikaanse belastingstelsel tred hou met intemasionale ontwikkelinge ten eincle ciie lanci se handelstatus te versterk en te verseker ciat tral1saksies oor grense heen nie onreeimatige gevolge inhou, veral vir buitelandse teenpartye nie.

Thesis (MComm)--Stellenbosch University, 2003. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Belastingbeleidmakers in Suid-Afrika het tot 'n groot mate die belastinghantering van afgeleide instrumente verwaarloos. Die Inkomstebelastingwet, No. 58 van 1962, neem tans slegs drie soorte finansiele ooreenkomste wat as afgeleide instrumente geklassifiseer kan word, in aanmerking: termynwissel- en opsiekontrakte met betrekking tot buitelandse valuta, rentekoers ruilkontrakte gebaseer op denkbeeldige kapitaalbedrae en opsiekontrakte. Alhoewel die Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste 'n aantal interne werkskomitees aangestel het om ondersoek in te stel na hierdie afdeling van die reg, is die wetgewing wat voortgespruit het as uitvloeisel van hierdie pogings broksgewys van aard deurdat dit slegs met beperkte aspekte van die belasbaarheid van 'n aantal spesifieke transaksies gehandel het. Vanweë die gebrek aan spesifieke wetgewende bepalings wat die belastingaspekte van afgeleides reguleer, moet die algemene beginsels van die Suid-Afrikaanse inkomstebelastingreg op hierdie instrumente toegepas word. Dit gee aanleiding tot onnoukeurige en teenstrydige resultate, hoofsaaklik omdat hierdie beginsels reeds lank voor die wydverspreide gebruik van afgeleides in gesofistikeerde en ingewikkelde transaksies ontwikkel het. Die belasbaarheid van transaksies waarby afgeleide instrumente betrokke is, is 'n onderwerp van toenemende praktiese belang in Suid-Afrika vanweëdie styging in die aantal transaksies in afgeleides. Die inwerkingstelling van kapitaalwinsbelasting in Suid-Afrika het nog 'n verdere dimensie aan die belasbaarheid van afgeleide instrumente toegevoeg. Indien ag geslaan word op die toename in die aantal en waarde van transaksies in afgeleide instrumente wat deur Suid-Afrikaanse belastingbetalers aangegaan word, is dit noodsaaklik dat duidelikheid rakende die belasbaarheid van hierdie transaksies so spoedig doenlik verkry word. Enige hervorming en hersiende belastingreels wat van toepassing gemaak word op hierdie instrumente moet baie buigsaam wees, aangesien verdere ontwikkelings in die finansiële instrumente-omgewing uiters dinamies is en bykans daagliks verander. Dit is voorts belangrik dat die Suid-Afrikaanse belastingstelsel tred hou met internasionale ontwikkelinge ten einde die land se handel status te versterk en te verseker dat transaksies oor grense heen nie onreëlmatige gevolge inhou nie, veral vir buitelandse teenpartye. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Tax policy makers in South Africa have, to a large extent, neglected the tax treatment of derivative instruments. The Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962, currently only takes into account three types of financial arrangements that can be classified as being derivative in nature: forward exchange and option contracts relating to foreign exchange, interest rate swaps based on notional capital amounts and option contracts. Although the Commissioner for Inland Revenue has appointed a number of internal working committees to research this area of the law, the legislation resulting from these efforts has been piecemeal in nature, dealing only with limited aspects of the taxation of a few specific transactions. Due to the lack of specific legislative provisions regulating the tax aspects of derivatives, the general principles of South African income tax law have to be applied to these instruments. This leads to imprecise and inconsistent results, primarily as a result of the development of these principles long before the widespread use of derivatives in sophisticated and complex transactions. The taxation of transactions involving derivative instruments is becoming a subject of increasing practical importance in South Africa due to the number of derivative transactions escalating in quantity. The introduction of capital gains tax in South Africa has added yet a further dimension to the taxation of derivatives. In light of the increasing volume and value of derivative transactions entered into by South African taxpayers, it is imperative that clarity regarding the taxation of these transactions be reached as soon as possible. Any reform and revised tax rules that are made applicable to these instruments, need to be very flexible, as further developments in the financial instrument environment are extremely dynamic and changing almost daily. It is furthermore important that the South African tax system keeps track with international developments to enhance the country's trading status and to ensure that cross border transactions do not have anomalous consequences, especially for foreign counter-parties.

Micro-economic reform is a primary objective of modern Australian socio-economic policy. The key outcome targetted by this reform is increased efficiency, measured by a range of factors, including cost reduction, increased savings, and a more facilitative environment for business activity. These benefits are sought by the proponents of reform as part of a push to increase national prosperity, but concerns that social equity is undermined by it are expressed by opponents of that reform. The debate between efficiency and equity is raging in current Australian tax policy, a key site for micro-economic reform. As Government Budget restructuring occurs in Australia, demographic change (eg, the ageing population) undermines the ability of public funded welfare to provide retirement benefits. Responsibility for self-funded retirement is an important contributor to increasing private savings. Investment in growth assets such as corporate stock is increasing in Australia, however concerns about volatility of asset values and yield stimulate the importance of investment risk management techniques. Financial contract innovation utilising financial derivatives is a dominant mechanism for that risk management. Synthetic equity products which are characterised by capital protection and enhanced yield are popular and efficient equity risk management vehicles, and are observed globally, particularly in the North American market. Financial contract innovation, risk management using financial derivatives, and synthetic equity products suffer from an adverse tax regulatory response in Australia, which deprives Australian investors from access to important savings vehicles. The negative Australian tax response stems from anachronistic legislation and jurisprudence, which emphasises tax outcomes based on legal form. The pinnacle of this approach is the tax law insistence on characterisation of financial contracts as either debt or equity, despite some important financial similarities between these two asset types. Since derivatives produce transactions with novel legal forms this approach is unresponsive to innovation. The negative tax result also stems from a perception that the new products are tax arbitrage vehicles, offering tax benefits properly available to investment in stocks, which is thought to be inappropriate when the new products resemble debt positions (particularly when they are capital protected and yield enhanced). The negative tax response reflects administrative concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage. This approach seeks to impose tax linearity by proxy: rather than utilising systemic reform to align the tax treatment of debt and equity, the current strategy simply denies the equity tax benefits to a variety of innovative financial contracts. It deprives Australians of efficiency enhancing savings products, which because of an adverse tax result are unattractive to investors. The weakness of the current approach is illustrated by critical analysis of three key current and proposed tax laws: the ???debt dividend??? rules in sec. 46D Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the ???Tax Act???); the 1997 Budget measures (which seek to integrate related stock and derivative positions); and the proposals in the Taxation of Financial Arrangements Issues Paper (which include a market value tax accounting treatment for ???traded equity,??? and propose a denial of the tax benefits for risk managed equity investments). The thesis develops a model for financial analysis of synthetic equity products to verify the efficiency claims made for them. The approach is described as the ???Tax ReValue??? model. The Tax ReValue approach isolates the enhanced investment returns possible for synthetic equity, and the model is tested by application to the leading Australian synthetic equity product, the converting preference share. The conclusions reached are that the converting preference share provides the key benefits of enhanced investment return and lower capital costs to its corporate issuer. This financial efficiency analysis is relied upon to support the assertion that a facilitative tax response to such products is appropriate. The facilitative response can be delivered by a reformulation of the existing tax rules, or by systemic reform. The reformulation of the existing tax rules is articulated by a Rule of Reason, which is proposed in the thesis as the basis for the allocation and retention of the equity tax benefits. To avoid concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage the Rule of Reason proposes a Two Step approach to the allocation of the equity tax benefits to synthetics. The financial analysis is used to quantify non-tax benefits of synthetic equity products, and to predict whether and to what extent the security performs financially like debt or equity. This financial analysis is overlayed by a refined technical legal appraisal of whether the security contains the essential legal ???Badges of Equity.??? The resulting form and substance approach provides a fair and equitable control mechanism for perceived tax arbitrage, whilst facilitating efficient financial contract innovation. The ultimate source of non-linearity in the taxation of investment capital is the differential tax benefits provided to equity and debt. To promote tax linearity the differentiation needs to be removed, and the thesis makes recommendations for systemic reform, particularly concerning the introduction of a system of ???Franked Debt.??? The proposed system of ???Franked Debt??? would align the tax treatment of debt and equity by replacing the corporate interest deduction tax benefit with a lender credit in respect of corporate tax paid. This credit would operate mechanically like the existing shareholder imputation credit. The interface of this domestic tax credit scheme with the taxation of International investment capital, and the problems occasioned by constructive delivery of franking credits to Australian taxpayers via synthetics, are resolved by the design and costings of the new system, which has the potential to be revenue positive.

Micro-economic reform is a primary objective of modern Australian socio-economic policy. The key outcome targetted by this reform is increased efficiency, measured by a range of factors, including cost reduction, increased savings, and a more facilitative environment for business activity. These benefits are sought by the proponents of reform as part of a push to increase national prosperity, but concerns that social equity is undermined by it are expressed by opponents of that reform. The debate between efficiency and equity is raging in current Australian tax policy, a key site for micro-economic reform. As Government Budget restructuring occurs in Australia, demographic change (eg, the ageing population) undermines the ability of public funded welfare to provide retirement benefits. Responsibility for self-funded retirement is an important contributor to increasing private savings. Investment in growth assets such as corporate stock is increasing in Australia, however concerns about volatility of asset values and yield stimulate the importance of investment risk management techniques. Financial contract innovation utilising financial derivatives is a dominant mechanism for that risk management. Synthetic equity products which are characterised by capital protection and enhanced yield are popular and efficient equity risk management vehicles, and are observed globally, particularly in the North American market. Financial contract innovation, risk management using financial derivatives, and synthetic equity products suffer from an adverse tax regulatory response in Australia, which deprives Australian investors from access to important savings vehicles. The negative Australian tax response stems from anachronistic legislation and jurisprudence, which emphasises tax outcomes based on legal form. The pinnacle of this approach is the tax law insistence on characterisation of financial contracts as either debt or equity, despite some important financial similarities between these two asset types. Since derivatives produce transactions with novel legal forms this approach is unresponsive to innovation. The negative tax result also stems from a perception that the new products are tax arbitrage vehicles, offering tax benefits properly available to investment in stocks, which is thought to be inappropriate when the new products resemble debt positions (particularly when they are capital protected and yield enhanced). The negative tax response reflects administrative concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage. This approach seeks to impose tax linearity by proxy: rather than utilising systemic reform to align the tax treatment of debt and equity, the current strategy simply denies the equity tax benefits to a variety of innovative financial contracts. It deprives Australians of efficiency enhancing savings products, which because of an adverse tax result are unattractive to investors. The weakness of the current approach is illustrated by critical analysis of three key current and proposed tax laws: the ???debt dividend??? rules in sec. 46D Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the ???Tax Act???); the 1997 Budget measures (which seek to integrate related stock and derivative positions); and the proposals in the Taxation of Financial Arrangements Issues Paper (which include a market value tax accounting treatment for ???traded equity,??? and propose a denial of the tax benefits for risk managed equity investments). The thesis develops a model for financial analysis of synthetic equity products to verify the efficiency claims made for them. The approach is described as the ???Tax ReValue??? model. The Tax ReValue approach isolates the enhanced investment returns possible for synthetic equity, and the model is tested by application to the leading Australian synthetic equity product, the converting preference share. The conclusions reached are that the converting preference share provides the key benefits of enhanced investment return and lower capital costs to its corporate issuer. This financial efficiency analysis is relied upon to support the assertion that a facilitative tax response to such products is appropriate. The facilitative response can be delivered by a reformulation of the existing tax rules, or by systemic reform. The reformulation of the existing tax rules is articulated by a Rule of Reason, which is proposed in the thesis as the basis for the allocation and retention of the equity tax benefits. To avoid concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage the Rule of Reason proposes a Two Step approach to the allocation of the equity tax benefits to synthetics. The financial analysis is used to quantify non-tax benefits of synthetic equity products, and to predict whether and to what extent the security performs financially like debt or equity. This financial analysis is overlayed by a refined technical legal appraisal of whether the security contains the essential legal ???Badges of Equity.??? The resulting form and substance approach provides a fair and equitable control mechanism for perceived tax arbitrage, whilst facilitating efficient financial contract innovation. The ultimate source of non-linearity in the taxation of investment capital is the differential tax benefits provided to equity and debt. To promote tax linearity the differentiation needs to be removed, and the thesis makes recommendations for systemic reform, particularly concerning the introduction of a system of ???Franked Debt.??? The proposed system of ???Franked Debt??? would align the tax treatment of debt and equity by replacing the corporate interest deduction tax benefit with a lender credit in respect of corporate tax paid. This credit would operate mechanically like the existing shareholder imputation credit. The interface of this domestic tax credit scheme with the taxation of International investment capital, and the problems occasioned by constructive delivery of franking credits to Australian taxpayers via synthetics, are resolved by the design and costings of the new system, which has the potential to be revenue positive.