Thesis (MAcc)--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In November 2006 section 103(1) of the Act was abolished and replaced by a
new Part IIA, containing sections 80A to 80L, which targets impermissible tax
avoidance arrangements. Section 80A(c)(ii) introduced a new concept to the
South African tax law: a misuse or abuse of the provisions of the Act,
including Part IIA thereof.
The objective of this study was to establish the origin, meaning, application
and effect of section 80A(c)(ii) of the Act. The evolution of section 80A(c)(ii)
was therefore examined where after the enacted version was analyzed. It
was essential to determine the origin of section 80A(c)(ii) in order to establish
some point of reference from which inferences could be drawn as to the
possible application and effect thereof. Case law, practice statements and
articles relating to its proposed root was then examined.
A ‘misuse or abuse’ of a provision, it was found, implies, frustrating or
exploiting the purpose of the provision. This contention was confirmed by
existing Canadian precedent. Such an interpretation, however, has a strong
resemblance to the words in which the draft version of section 80A(c)(ii) was
couched. It is therefore in contrast to the presumption that different words (in
the enacted version) imply a different meaning. The precise meaning of the
words ‘misuse or abuse’ is thus still elusive.
It was established that section 80A(c)(ii) has its roots in section 245 of the
Canadian Act. Section 245(4) was regarded as an effective comparative to
section 80A(c)(ii) as it also contained a so-called misuse or abuse rule. The
application of this rule in the Canadian tax environment required the following
process:
- Interpret (contextually and purposively) the provisions relied on by the
taxpayer, to determine their object, spirit and purpose.
- Determine whether the transaction frustrates or defeats the object, spirit or
purpose of the provisions.
Section 245(4) had the effect of reviving the modern approach (a contextual
and/or purposive theory) to the interpretation of statutes in Canada.
Reference to the ‘spirit’ of a provision (above) was found not to extend the
modern approach to statutory interpretation: it does not require of the court to
look for some inner and spiritual meaning within the legislation. As section
245(4) was regarded as an effective comparative to section 80A(c)(ii) it was
contented that it would have a similar effect, than that of its Canadian
counterpart, on the approach to statutory interpretation in South Africa.
However, it was established that a modern approach to statutory
interpretation was already authoritative in South Africa. This finding led the
author to the conclusion that section 80A(c)(ii) could at best only reinforce the
case for applying such an approach. Such a purpose for section 80A(c)(ii)
was however found to be void in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, which was enacted in 1996, and provides a sovereign authority
for the application of the modern approach.
It was also found that the practical burden of showing that there was a
‘misuse or abuse of the provisions of this Act (including the provisions of this
Part)’ will rest on the shoulders of the Commissioner, notwithstanding section
82 of the Act. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 103(1) van die Inkomstebelastingwet is herroep in November 2006 en
vervang deur Deel IIA, bestaande uit artikels 80A tot 80L, wat daarop gemik is
om ontoelaatbare belastingvermydingsreëlings te teiken. Artikel 80A(c)(ii) het
‘n nuwe konsep in die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingreg ingebring: ‘n
misbruik of ‘n wangebruik van die bepalings van die Wet, insluitende Deel IIA.
Die doel van hierdie studie was om die oorsprong, betekenis, toepassing en
uitwerking van artikel 80A(c)(ii) vas te stel. Die ontwikkeling van artikel
80A(c)(ii) is daarom ondersoek waarna die verordende weergawe daarvan
geanaliseer is. ‘n Sleutelaspek van die analise was om die oorsprong van
artikel 80A(c)(ii) vas te stel. Hierdie oefening het ‘n verwysbare bron
daargestel waarvan afleidings rondom die moontlike toepassing en uitwerking
van artikel 80A(c)(ii) gemaak kon word. Hofsake, praktyknotas en artikels
rakende die voorgestelde oorsprong is vervolgens ondersoek.
Daar is vasgestel dat ‘n ‘misbruik of wangebruik’ van ‘n bepaling neerkom op
die frustering of uitbuiting van die doel van ‘n bepaling. Hierdie bewering is
bevestig deur bestaande Kanadese presedent. So ‘n interpretasie is egter
soortgelyk aan die woorde waarin die konsepweergawe van artikel 80A(c)(ii)
uitgedruk is. Dit is daarom in teenstelling met die vermoede dat ‘n wysiging
van die woorde (in die verordende weergawe) ‘n gewysigde betekenis
impliseer. Die presiese betekenis van die woorde ‘misbruik of wangebruik’ is
dus steeds ontwykend.
Daar is bevind dat artikel 80A(c)(ii) waarskynlik sy ontstaan in artikel 245 van
die Kanadese Inkomstebelastingwet gehad het. Artikel 245(4) van die
Kanadese Inkomstebelastingwet is beskou as ‘n effektiewe vergelykende
artikel vir artikel 80A(c)(ii), aangesien dit ook oor ‘n sogenaamde misbruik of
wangebruik reël beskik. Die toepassing van hierdie reël in die Kanadese
belastingmilieu vereis die volgende werkswyse:
- Interpreteer (kontekstueel en doeldienend) die bepalings waarop die
belastingpligtige steun, ten einde die oogmerk, gees en doel daarvan vas
te stel.
- Bepaal of die transaksie, deur die belastingpligtige aangegaan, die
oogmerk, gees of doel van die bepalings frustreer.
Artikel 245(4) het aanleiding gegee tot die herstel van die moderne
benadering (‘n kontekstuele en/of doeldienende teorie) tot die interpretasie
van wetgewing in Kanada. Daar is bevind dat die verwysing na die ‘gees’ van
‘n bepaling (hierbo) nie aanleiding gee tot die uitbreiding van die moderne
benadering tot wetsuitleg nie: dit vereis nie dat die hof moet soek na die
innerlike of geestelike betekenis van die wetgewing nie. Aangesien artikel
245(4) as ‘n effektiewe vergelykende artikel vir artikel 80A(c)(ii) beskou is, is
daar aangeneem dat dit ‘n soortgelyke uitwerking, as sy Kanadese eweknie,
op wetsuitleg in Suid Afrika sal hê.
By nadere ondersoek is daar egter bevind dat ‘n moderne benadering tot
wetsuitleg alreeds gesaghebbend in Suid Afrika is. Hierdie bevinding het die
skrywer tot die gevolgtrekking gebring dat artikel 80A(c)(ii), in beginsel, slegs
die saak vir die moderne benadering tot wetsuitleg in Suid Afrika sal versterk.
Indien hierdie die doel is wat die wetgewer gehad het met die verordening van
artikel 80A(c)(ii), sal dit egter niksseggend wees in die lig van die Grondwet
van die Republiek van Suid Afrika, wat verorden is in 1996, en ‘n
oppermagtige gesag bied vir die moderne benadering tot wetsuitleg.
Daar is ook vasgestel dat die onus op die Kommissaris rus om te bewys dat
daar ‘n ‘misbruik of wangebruik van die bepalings van hierdie Wet (waarby
ingesluit die bepalings van hierdie Deel)’ was, ondanks artikel 82 van die Wet.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/15520 |
| Date | 03 1900 |
| Creators | Geldenhuys, Bernard, Van Schalkwyk, Linda |
| Contributors | University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. Dept. of Accountancy. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en_ZA |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 131 p. |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds