School of Accountancy (ETDs)

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/37779

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20223

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Income Tax Act

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment of administrative burden on South African Controlled foreign company rules relative to the imputation
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2022) Matlou, Tracy; Blumenthal, Roy
    South African multinational enterprises must comply with the controlled foreign company (CFC) rules in section 9D of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act). The provisions of section 9D of the Act are collectively referred to in this document as CFC rules. The CFC rules are anti-avoidance provisions that discourage South African multinational enterprises from shifting income to foreign companies under their control. This study examines the administrative burden placed on South African multinational enterprises (MNEs) to comply with section 9D of the Act and assesses this administrative burden for reasonableness when compared to the amounts eventually imputed. The study investigates whether South African CFC (SA CFC) rules, which are complex, carry a significant administrative burden on South African MNEs. SA CFC rules are confusing and often are misunderstood by the South African multinational enterprises. This study compares SA CFC rules to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) action 3’s recommendations for effective CFC rule
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A critical evaluation and comparative study on section 10(1)(o)(ii) foreign employment exemption
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2022) Margolius, Caryn; Kolitz, Maeve
    In 2001, South Africa changed to a residence-based system of taxation to align with international best practice and to limit the opportunities for tax arbitrage (Manuel, 2000, 36.). Section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act) was amended to exempt foreign employment income of a resident if the resident was outside his or her country of residence for a period exceeding 183 days (National Treasury, 2000, 5). National Treasury cautioned against this exemption and in the Explanatory Memorandum on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2000 it was stated, The effect of the relief measure will be monitored to determine whether certain categories of employees abuse it to earn foreign employment income without foreign taxation. The main purpose of the exemption was to prevent double taxation from occurring, considering the limited number of double taxation agreements concluded between South Africa and other countries at the time (Mzizi, 2017, 10). The exemption created an opportunity for double non-taxation where the source country imposes little or no tax on employment income and no tax was applied in South Africa (Legwaila, 2019). Consequently, in the Budget Review 2017, National Treasury sought to amend the provisions of s 10(1)(o)(ii) as it was seen to be ‘excessively generous’. At first, National Treasury proposed to repeal the exemption, however after much consultation and public comments received, National Treasury introduced a capped exemption limited to R1 million in line with the principle of fairness and progressivity (National Treasury, 2017b, 7). Subsequently, in the 2020 Budget Review, the exemption threshold was revised upwards to R1.25 million per year from 1 March 2020 to encourage all South Africans working abroad to maintain their ties to South Africa. In this report, the researcher investigates the qualifying requirements and implications of s 10(1)(o)(ii) on South African resident expatriates, their employers (local and foreign) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A critical analysis on the taxation implications of clawback provisions on executive performance incentive schemes
    (2020) Mahomed, Naseeha
    Clawback provisions in executive performance incentive schemes serve as a risk management tool, and the use thereof by companies listed on the JSE has increased in recent years. In South Africa, the regulatory regimes have not been developed to address this. Through a comparative study with the USA, this research proposes a taxation framework that South Africa could adopt in regulating the clawback process with respect to cash and equity-based incentive awards. This research scrutinizes the existing definitions of s 8C, the concept of remuneration and the income tax implications of a clawback. Suggestions and recommendations are made for future reform