Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The requirements of broad-based black economic empowerment (‘BEE’) are set
out in the BEE scorecard. When an entity incurs expenditure relating to indirect
empowerment measures (i.e. the preferential procurement, enterprise
development, skills development and socio-economic development categories on
the BEE scorecard), it is unclear whether the expenditure will be deductible for
income tax purposes (BEE Partner, 2008).
The objectives of the current study are to determine whether such expenditure is
deductible and to formulate best practice guidelines for the deduction of the
expenditure. The best practice guidelines consist of factors that should be
considered when determining whether expenditure is deductible, as well as
recommendations on how to justify that such expenditure should, in fact, be
deductible. The methodology used was to first consider the requirements of the BEE
scorecard, the types of expenditure and the reasons for incurring expenditure
towards indirect empowerment measures. The deduction of such expenditure was
then considered in a general sense and specifically for each broad category of
expenditure. Lastly, the best practice guidelines were formulated based on the
conclusions reached.
Common expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures of BEE was
grouped into broad categories. The different reasons why entities incur such
expenditure were identified, as the reason for incurring expenditure can influence
whether it is incurred in the production of income (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110).
It is submitted that expenditure that is excessive or that is incurred for
philanthropic purposes would not be incurred in the production of income. Four issues were identified that could preclude a deduction in terms of the general
deduction formula (section 11(a)) – notably, that expenditure has to be in the
production of income and non-capital in nature to be deductible. In addition to
section 11(a), special income tax deductions (sections 12H, 12I or 18A) and
capital allowances (sections 11(e), 13sex or 15(a)) could also possibly apply, but
only for certain types of expenditure and only in qualifying circumstances.
The conclusions drawn as to the deductibility of expenditure are summarised as a
guideline for taxpayers.
The above-mentioned conclusions, along with the literature examined, were used
to formulate general best practice guidelines. One such guideline is that the onus
is on taxpayers to show (through one of the ways suggested) that expenditure is
in the production of income. Taxpayers should also note that excessive
expenditure is not in the production of income and that certain expenditure
required by sector charters is more likely to be capital in nature. Furthermore, specific best practice guidelines were submitted for each broad
category of expenditure and relate to, for example, the applicability of the
identified special deductions and the quantification of non-monetary expenditure.
The specific best practice guidelines should be considered when incurring
expenditure in a specific category.
In summary, even though expenditure towards indirect empowerment measures
has been found to be deductible in most cases, there are exceptions of which
taxpayers should be aware. The proposed best practice guidelines include
guidance that could be considered before incurring expenditure towards indirect
BEE measures. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vereistes van breë-basis swart ekonomiese bemagtiging (‘SEB’) word in die
SEB-telkaart uiteengesit. Wanneer ’n entiteit onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte
bemagtigingsmaatreëls (die telkaartkategorieë vir voorkeurverkryging, besigheidsontwikkeling,
vaardigheidsopleiding en sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling) aangaan,
is dit nie duidelik of sodanige onkoste vir inkomstebelasting-doeleindes aftrekbaar
sal wees nie (BEE Partner, 2008).
Die doelwitte van hierdie studie was om te bepaal of sulke onkostes
belastingaftrekbaar is en om bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer vir die aftrekking
van die onkostes. Die bestepraktyk-riglyne bestaan uit faktore wat oorweeg moet
word in die bepaling of onkostes belastingaftrekbaar is, sowel as aanbevelings
oor hoe aftrekbaarheid geregverdig kan word. Die studiemetodologie het eerstens ’n ondersoek behels na die vereistes van die
SEB-telkaart, die soorte onkostes sowel as die redes vir die aangaan van
onkostes wat met indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls verband hou. Daarna is die
belastingaftrekbaarheid van sodanige onkostes in die algemeen sowel as
spesifiek vir elke breë kategorie van onkoste oorweeg. Laastens is die
bestepraktyk-riglyne opgestel op grond van die gevolgtrekkings wat bereik is.
Algemene onkostes wat met indirekte SEB-maatreëls verband hou, is in breë
kategorieë gegroepeer. Die verskillende redes waarom entiteite die uitgawes
aangaan, is bepaal, aangesien dit kan beïnvloed of die uitgawe in die
voortbrenging van inkomste is of nie (Van Schalkwyk, 2010b:110). Daar word
aangevoer dat onkoste wat oormatige is of onkostes met betrekking tot
filantropiese doeleindes nie as deel van die voortbrenging van inkomste beskou
kan word nie. Vier kwessies is geïdentifiseer wat ’n aftrekking ingevolge die algemene
aftrekkingsformule (artikel 11(a)) kan verhoed – die belangrikste is dat die
onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan moet word en nie kapitaal
moet wees om afgetrek te kan word. Benewens artikel 11(a), kan spesiale
belastingaftrekkings (artikel 12H, 12I of 18A) en kapitaaltoelaes (artikel 11(e),
13sex of 15(a)) ook moontlik geld, maar slegs vir sekere soorte onkostes en in
omstandighede wat daarvoor in aanmerking kom. Die gevolgtrekkings oor die
belastingaftrekbaarheid van onkostes word uiteindelik as ’n riglyn vir
belastingbetalers opgesom.
Bogenoemde gevolgtrekkings, tesame met die bestudeerde literatuur, is gebruik
om algemene bestepraktyk-riglyne te formuleer. Een so ’n riglyn is dat die
bewyslas op die belastingbetaler rus om (op een van die voorgestelde maniere)
aan te toon dat onkostes in die voortbrenging van inkomste aangegaan word.
Belastingbetalers moet ook daarop let dat oormatige onkostes nie as deel van die
voortbrenging van inkomste beskou kan word nie en dat sekere onkostes
ingevolge die vereistes van sektorhandveste meer waarskynlik kapitaal van aard
sal wees. Spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne is voorts vir elke breë kategorie van onkostes
voorgestel, byvoorbeeld met betrekking tot die toepaslikheid van die
geïdentifiseerde spesiale aftrekkings en die kwantifisering van nie-monetêre
onkostes. Hierdie spesifieke bestepraktyk-riglyne behoort in ag geneem te word
wanneer onkostes in ’n spesifieke kategorie aangegaan word.
Ter samevatting behoort belastingbetalers daarop bedag te wees dat hoewel
onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls in die meeste
gevalle belastingaftrekbaar is, daar wel sekere uitsonderings is. Die voorgestelde
bestepraktyk-riglyne bied derhalwe leiding oor die faktore wat oorweeg kan word
voordat onkostes met betrekking tot indirekte bemagtigingsmaatreëls aangegaan
word.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/71712 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Acker, Tim |
| Contributors | Nel, R., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. Dept. of Accountancy. |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 87 p. |
Page generated in 0.0034 seconds