The South African fiscal legislators have found it necessary to introduce anti-avoidance legislation which governs controlled foreign companies in order to counteract schemes devised by taxpayers where companies are established outside South Africa for the purpose of diverting income from the South African fiscal net. Whilst the enforcement of such legislation does have merit in that the intention behind the introduction of such domestic legislation is to prevent the erosion of the South African tax base, it is submitted that this does pose a problem from an international perspective. The objective of this treatise is to conduct a critical analysis of how compatible the South African fiscal legislation which governs controlled foreign companies is with the provisions of the double taxation agreement as prescribed in terms of the OECD Model Tax Convention (which was published in July 2010). In addition, the aim of this study is to deduce whether the purpose of the double taxation agreement is not only the avoidance of juridical double taxation but also that it addresses the avoidance of economic double taxation. This will assist in determining whether domestic controlled foreign company legislation (as embodied in section 9D of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962) conflicts with the purpose of the double taxation agreement. By conducting an extensive research study and by depicting a certain scenario which addresses the issue at hand, the following is concluded: The tax treatment of the business profits generated by a controlled foreign company resident in a State outside South Africa and which have been generated from active business operating activities, is held to be in agreement with the provisions of the double taxation agreement. By contrast, the tax treatment of the controlled foreign company’s passive income in the form of interest income, is found not to correlate with the aforesaid agreement. As will be demonstrated in the chapters that follow, the controlled foreign company’s interest income is subjected to economic double taxation in terms of the scenario depicted in this treatise. This means that such income is taxed twice in the hands of two different taxpayers in two different States. As a result of this it is submitted that the following problem arises: Because section 9D of the Income Tax Act causes economic double taxation to occur (as illustrated in the previous paragraphs) and owing to the fact that the purpose of the double taxation agreement is the avoidance of economic double taxation, it can be shown that the section 9D domestic legislation conflicts with the terms of the double taxation agreement. This conflict is considered to be an area of concern because a contravention of the purpose of the double taxation agreement is regarded as a breach of the Contracting States’ international obligations in terms of the aforesaid agreement. It is further submitted that paragraph 23 of the OECD Commentary on article 1 and paragraph 14 of the OECD Commentary on article 7 are incorrect when they express the sentiment that domestic controlled foreign company legislation does not conflict with the provisions of the double taxation agreement. It is proposed that this be corrected to state the contrary.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:20442 |
| Date | January 2014 |
| Creators | Froom, Natalie Marie |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Business and Economic Sciences |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, MCom |
| Format | x, 131 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds