Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management (ETDs)

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/37778

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Income tax deductions--South Africa

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An analysis of the deductibility of interest expenditure rules in South Africa
    (2019) Pillay, Kerusha
    Taxpayers are broadly financed in two ways, namely through the use of debt and equity. The returns on capital and debt are treated differently from an income tax perspective (SARS 2013). The interest expense incurred by taxpayers in the production of income by a person carrying on a trade, are deductible in determining taxable income, subject to certain conditions and limitations. The number of provisions contained in the Income Tax Act of 1962 (the Act) which deal with the tax treatment of interest income and interest expenditure have gradually increased over time. There are numerous aspects to be borne in mind by resident and foreign companies when considering the income tax and withholding tax implications which may arise in respect of transactions giving rise to interest income and interest expenditure (SAICA 2015). This is affirmed by the number of provisions in the income tax act dealing with the deductibility of interest primarily dealt with in section 24J of the Act as well as indicated by the 2014 amendments to section 8F, the introduction of section 8FA, sections 23M and 23N into the legislation. The purpose of this report is to assess whether the Department of National Treasury (National Treasury) have taken the number of provisions of the deductibility of interest too far.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The foreign business establishment exemption and other aspects of section 9D of the Income Tax Act
    (2018) Ismail, Faizel
    This research report considers a number of practical issues that arise in relation to the enforcement of section 9D of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (“ITA”) read together with complementary provisions of the Tax Administration Act No. 28 of 2011 (“TAA”). More particularly, this research report considers the following issues: the onus and burden of proof under section 9D; the scope of SARS’ power under section 46 of the Tax Administration Act No. 28 of 2011 (“TAA”) to request information in order to give effect to section 9D; the interlinking definitions in terms of section 9D; whether an outsourcing business model can constitute the primary or core operations of a CFC for the purposes of determining whether the CFC qualifies for the ‘foreign business establishment’ exemption under section 9D status; and, if the issue of whether a CFC correctly claimed an FBE status during the years of assessment be revisited by SARS, particularly in respect of years of assessment which have prescribed. It is submitted as follows. Section 46 of the TAA provides SARS with the effective procedural powers to ensure compliance with section 9D. SARS is however required to provide the taxpayer with grounds for assessment with sufficient and reasonable detail in order to enable the taxpayer to understand the basis of and reason for such assessment and respond appropriately thereto. SARS is constrained by a three-year prescription period (from the date of an original assessment) for issuing additional assessments unless SARS can demonstrate that the taxpayer committed a fraud or misrepresentation which caused SARS failure to properly assess the taxpayer. The onus is on the taxpayer to show, on a preponderance of probability, that the decision/s of SARS in terms of section 9D against which it appeals is/are wrong. There is an arguable case for contending that the active management of service providers and agents may constitute the primary operations for purposes of determining whether an FBE arises in relation to a CFC.