A comparison between the South African "source rules" in relation to income tax and the "permanent establishment rules" as contained in double taxation agreements
- Authors: Fourie, Leonie
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Income tax -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Double taxation -- South Africa , Business enterprises -- Taxation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:905 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1008203
- Description: South Africa's right to tax the income of a non-resident is determined in terms of the South African "source rules" established by court decisions in relation to the imposition of tax in terms of the Income Tax Act. Unless a non-resident's income is captured by the South African "source rules" (on the basis that hi slits income is derived from a South African source), South Africa would have no right to tax such income, even if such non-resident creates a permanent establishment in South Africa by performing business activities within South Africa which could be considered essential (but not dominant) in nature. In such scenario the activities performed by the non-resident in South Africa may utilise the natural resources and the infrastructure of South Africa, but the South African fiscus would be deprived of the right to any tax revenues attributable to the income produced partly by such activities within South Africa. The South African "source rules" refer only to the main or dominant activities giving rise to the income for the purpose of determining the source of such income (and accordingly the right to tax such income). On the other hand, the "permanent establishment rules" as set out under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital refer to all the taxpayer's essential business activities for the purpose of determining whether or not such activities create a pennanent establishment. The result of the narrow nature of the South African "source rules" is that, under certain circumstances, the South African fiscus would not necessarily be granted the right to tax all income produced partly within South Africa. The research demonstrated that incorporating the principles underlying the "pennanent establishment rules" into South African legislation would be a reasonable and logical solution to the problem of detennining the source of income. In so doing, the South African "source rules" would determine the source of income, and consequently South Africa's taxing rights, with reference to the essential business activities giving rise to such income. In such case South Africa would be afforded the right to tax the income of a non-resident in the event that it performs any of its essential business activities within South Africa, albeit not the dominant or main activities giving rise to the income.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
A critical analysis of the definition of gross income
- Authors: Beck, Tracy Geraldine
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa -- Interpretation and construction , Capital gains tax -- South Africa , Income tax -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MTech
- Identifier: vital:8977 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/805 , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa -- Interpretation and construction , Capital gains tax -- South Africa , Income tax -- South Africa
- Description: Income tax is levied upon a taxpayer’s taxable income. Various steps are taken in order to arrive at the taxpayer’s taxable income. The starting point when calculating taxable income is determining the taxpayer’s ‘gross income’. ‘Gross income’ is defined in terms of section 1 of the Act. Various terms within the gross income definition are not clearly defined, except in the case of a ‘resident’. Even in the case of the definition of a ‘resident’, the aspect of ‘ordinarily resident’ is not defined and nor is the ‘place of effective management’. The following components fall within the definition of ‘gross income’: • The total amount in cash or otherwise; • received by or accrued to, or in favour of, a person; • from anywhere, in the case of a person who is a resident; • from a South African source (or deemed source), in the case of a non-resident; • other than receipts or accruals of a capital nature. The ‘total amount’ in ‘cash or otherwise’ is the first step when determining the taxable income of a taxpayer for a particular year of assessment. Gross income only arises if an amount is received or has accrued; this amount need not be in the form of money but must have a money value. The next component, ‘received by or accrued to’, is related to time and implies that a taxpayer should include amounts that have been ‘received by’, as well as amounts that have ‘accrued to’ him during the year of assessment. ‘Resident’ and ‘non-resident’ unlike the other components, are defined in terms of section 1 of the Income Tax Act. There are two rules used to determine whether natural persons are residents, these are: • To determine whether natural persons are ‘ordinarily resident’; or • where the natural person is not an ‘ordinarily resident’, the ‘physical presence test’ will be applied. ‘Source’ means origin and not place; it is therefore the ‘originating cause of the receipt of the money’. There is no single definition for the word ‘source’ as circumstances may differ in various cases. The facts of each case must be analysed in order to determine the actual source of income for that particular case. The last component of the definition of ‘gross income’ is the exclusion of ‘receipts and accruals of a capital nature’. The Act does not define the meaning of ‘capital nature’ but does indicate that receipts or accruals of a capital nature are, with certain exceptions, not included in ‘gross income’. Receipts or accruals that are not of a capital nature is known as ‘revenue’ and subjected to tax. This study is primarily aimed at an examination of court cases related to the various components falling within the definition of ‘gross income’.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
The distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning
- Authors: Tarrant, Greg
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: South African Revenue Service , Tax evasion -- South Africa , Tax planning -- South Africa , Income tax -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:897 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1004549
- Description: Tax avoidance has been the subject of intense scrutiny lately by both the South African Revenue Service ("the SARS") and the media. This attention stems largely from the recent withdrawal of section 103(1) together with the introduction of section 80A to 80L of the South African Income Tax Act. However, this attention is not limited to South Africa. Revenue authorities worldwide have focused on the task of challenging tax avoidance. The approach of the SARS to tackling tax avoidance has been multi-faceted. In the Discussion Paper on Tax Avoidance and Section 103 (1) of the South African Income Tax Act they begin with a review of the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning. Following a call for comment the SARS issued an Interim Response followed by the Revised Proposals which culminated in the withdrawal of the longstanding general anti-avoidance rules housed in section 103(1) and the introduction of new and more comprehensive anti-avoidance rules. In addition, the SARS has adopted an ongoing media campaign stressing the importance of paying tax in a country with a large development agenda like that of South Africa, the need for taxpayers to adopt a responsible attitude to the management of tax and the inclusion of responsible tax management as the greatest measure of a taxpayer's corporate and social investment. In tandem with this message the SARS have sought to vilify those taxpayers who engage in tax avoidance. The message is clear: tax avoidance carries reputational risks; those who engage in tax avoidance are unpatriotic or immoral and their actions simply result in an unfair shifting of the tax burden. The SARS is not alone in the above approach. Around the world tax authorities have been echoing the same message. The message appears to be working. Accounting firms speak of a "creeping conservatism" that has pervaded company boardrooms. What is not clear, however, is whether taxpayers, in becoming more conservative, are simply more fully aware of tax risks and are making informed decisions or whether they are simply responding to external events, such as the worldwide focus by revenue authorities and the media on tax avoidance. Whatever the reason, it is now critical, particularly in the case of corporate taxpayers, that their policies for tax and its attendant risks need to be as sophisticated, coherent and transparent as its policies in all other areas involving multiple stakeholders, such as suppliers, customers, staff and investors. How does a company begin to set its tax philosophy and strategic direction or to determine its appetite for risk? A starting point, it is submitted would be a review of the distinction between tax evasion, avoidance and planning with a heightened sensitivity to the unfamiliar ethical, moral and social risks. The goal of this thesis was to clearly define the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning from a legal interpretive, ethical and historical perspective in order to develop a rudimentary framework for the responsible management of strategic tax decisions, in the light of the new South African general anti-avoidance legislation. The research methodology entails a qualitative research orientation consisting of a critical conceptual analysis of tax evasion and tax avoidance, with a view to establishing a basic framework to be used by taxpayers to make informed decisions on tax matters. The analysis of the distinction in this work culminated in a diagrammatic representation of the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning emphasising the different types of tax avoidance from least aggressive to the most abusive and from the least objectionable to most objectionable. It is anticipated that a visual representation of the distinction, however flawed, would result in a far more pragmatic tool to taxpayers than a lengthy document. From a glance taxpayers can determine the following: That tax avoidance is legal; that different forms of tax avoidance exist, some forms being more aggressive than others; that aggressive forms of tax avoidance carry reputational risks; and that in certain circumstances aggressive tax avoidance schemes may border on tax evasion. This, it is envisaged, may prompt taxpayers to ask the right questions when faced with an external or in-house tax avoidance arrangement rather than simply blindly accepting or rejecting the arrangement.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008