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.

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

Den 1 januari 2009 trädde en ny lagstiftning i kraft gällande ränteavdragsbegränsningar i syfte att förhindra skatteupplägg med ränteavdrag inom en intressegemenskap. Förändringarna innebar att en huvudregel infördes vilken stipulerar att bolag inom en intressegemenskap inte får dra av ränteutgifter avseende en intern skuld som hänför sig till förvärv av delägarrätter inom koncernen. Till huvudregeln infördes två undantag som stadgar att avdrag ändock får göras om särskilda krav är uppfyllda. Undantagen kom att benämnas tioprocentsregeln och ventilen. När det gäller tillämpningen av tioprocentsregeln ligger svårigheten i att utföra det så kallade hypotetiska testet där man ska beräkna till vilken skattesats det räntemottagande bolaget ska beskattas till om det endast hade haft ränteinkomsten som sin enda inkomst. Tillämpningsproblemet gällande ventilen är att det är en lagregel vilken vilar på domstolens subjektiva värderingar av affärsmässigheten i de uppkomna skuldförhållandena. Trots införandet av de nya reglerna uppmärksammade Skatteverket att skatteplaneringsförfaranden fortfarande föreligger varför ett nytt lagförslag nu har publicerats av Finansdepartementet. Förslaget innebär i kort tre stora förändringar av de nuvarande reglerna. Samtliga interna lån ska numera omfattas, en omvänd ventil införs vilken ger Skatteverket rätt att neka avdrag oavsett till vilken skattesats ränteinkomsten beskattas till samt att avdrag enligt ventilen endast ska kunna medges gällande ränteutgifter som betalas till bolag belägna i ett land inom EES eller till ett land vilket Sverige har ett skatteavtal med. Huruvida lagförslaget kommer att antas eller inte är i nuläget oklart. Flera remissinstanser har varit kritiska till förslaget, framförallt gällande den omvända ventilen då man anser att den leder till stor rättsosäkerhet. / On January 1st 2009, a new legislation was set in force with regards to deduction limitations on interests in order to prevent tax schemes with the use of interest deductions within a corporate group. The changes that were made imposed a general rule which stipulates that companies within a corporate group are not allowed to deduct interests regarding internal debts if that debt relates to an acquisition of shares in a company within the corporate group. To the general rule two exceptions were introduced which stipulates that deductions can be made if certain requirements are fulfilled. The exceptions were called the ten percent-rule and “ventilen”. Regarding the application of the ten percent-rule the difficulty lies in the performing of the so called hypothetical test in which you have to calculate to what tax rate the interest-receiving company will be taxed at if it only had the interest as it´s only income. The application problem regarding “ventilen” is based on the fact that it is a rule which rests on the Court’s subjective evaluation of the commercial reasonableness of the transaction. Despite the introduction of the new rules the Swedish Tax Authorities noticed that tax schemes still exists why a new proposal now has been published by the Ministry of Finance. The proposal contains in short of three major changes to the current rules. All internal loans are now covered, a reverse ”ventil” is introduced which gives the Tax Authorities a right to deny deductions regardless of what tax rate the income is taxed to and finally that deductions according to “ventilen” only will be allowed regarding interest payments to a country within the EEA or to a country which Sweden has a tax agreement with. Whether the proposal will be adopted or not is currently unclear and several respondents have been critical to the proposal.

On the 1st of January 2009, a new regulation regarding interest deduction limitations was enforced. The aim was to prevent tax structure with interest deductions in a community of interest. The changes meant that intra-group share transfers, which generates an intra-group loan structure, can lead to borrower losing their right to deduct interest expenses. Except from the main rule two exceptions were also introduced. These eliminates the limitations, and accept the deductibility despite the above conditions. The exceptions are named ten-percent rule and “ventilen”. It was found that Swedish municipal communities also engaged in such arrangements. As a result of this discovery the Swedish Tax Authority was delegated the task to investigate companies that are in a community of interest with a fully or partially exempted taxpayer in general and its relationship to the tax structure of interest deductions in particular. The application of “ventilen” creates problems regarding the definition of business purpose as well as the relationship between business and organizational purposes. The assessment of organizational purposes is of particular importance for municipal communities of interest where transparency, control and quality assurance are of great importance. Needs of rationalization and organizational changes occurs continually within municipal community groups. Unclarity due to organizational purpose makes these changes, within the municipal communities, problematic. Both municipal communities as well as experts regard the deduction limitations due to municipal community interest unclear. Due to the unclarity a few municipal communities have chosen to switch their internal loans to ones through Kommuninvest. This to avoid the rising risk-taking as any interest deductibility limitations may entail. The Swedish High Administrative Court has in their judgements expressed their support for this kind of loan structure. It is unclear how the law concerning “ventilen” should be applied in regards to municipal communities interest, which also raises questions about “ventilens” compatibility with the principle of legality. The High Swedish Administrative Court has solved the problem, at least for now, by approving an alternative approach, the one including Kommuninvest, which thereby reduces the stress for the Court to come to a conclusion regarding “ventilens” proper functioning and application. / Den 1 januari 2009 trädde en ny lagstiftning i kraft gällande ränteavdragsbegränsningar. Syftet var att förhindra skatteupplägg med ränteavdrag inom en intressegemenskap. Förändringarna innebar att koncerninterna andelsöverlåtelser, som genererar en koncernintern upplåning hänförlig till lånet, kan resultera i att låntagaren förlorar sin avdragsrätt för ränteutgifterna. Till huvudregeln infördes två undantag som undanröjer begräsningen, och godtar avdragsrätt trots ovan förutsättningar. Undantagsreglerna betecknas tioprocentsregeln samt ventilen. Syftet med ränteavdragsbegränsningarna är att förhindra skatteupplägg med ränteavdrag inom intressegemenskaper, och då främst inom privata internationella sådana. Det har dock framkommit att även svenska kommunala intressegemenskaper ägnar sig åt dylika upplägg. Med anledning av denna upptäckt fick SKV i uppdrag att utreda bolag som befinner sig i intressegemenskap med helt eller delvis skattebefriade skattesubjekt i allmänhet samt dess relation till skatteupplägg med ränteavdrag i synnerhet. Tillämpningen av ventilen, i förhållande till kommunala intressegemenskaper, genererar problem gällande såväl definitionen av affärsmässigt samt relationen mellan affärsmässiga och organisatoriska skäl. Bedömning kring organisatoriska skäl blir av stor vikt för kommunala intressegemenskaper där insyn, kontrollutövande och kvalitetssäkring är betydelsefullt. Det uppkommer ständigt behov av effektivisering och förändring för att kunna uppnå en acceptabel nivå av kontroll och inblick i bolagen som kommunen äger och förvaltar.  Då rättsläget enligt kommuner och sakkunniga är oklart har flertalet kommunala intressegemenskaper lagt om sina interna lån via Kommuninvest. Det har gjorts för att undvika det ökade riskatagande som en eventuell förlorad ränteavdragsrätt kan komma att innebära. HFD har i praxis uttryckt sitt stöd för denna typ av omläggning. Gällande rätt bör dock anses vara oklar gällande ventilens tillämpning inom kommunala intressegemenskaper, vilket även väcker frågor kring ventilens kompatibilitet med legalitetsprincipen. HFD kan dock ha ansetts finna en, om än en provisorisk sådan, lösning på problematiken genom att godkänna en omläggning till Kommuninvest som därmed minskar stressen för HFD att komma till en slutsats gällande ventilens korrekta tolkning och tillämpning.