Tax Law | Guthrie & Theron Attorneys
For more information on the VAT Increase, download the SARS VAT Increase general guide and FAQs here.
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged Eiendomstransaksies met trusts, property, VAT Increase on March 23, 2018 by Guthrietheron.
There was fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts.
The above fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure of the material facts was the direct cause that the taxpayer had been assessed for a lower amount of tax than if the taxpayer had disclosed these material facts referred to in section (i) above, to SARS.
There must be evidence of a direct link between the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the material facts and the taxpayer paying too little tax. If the fraud, non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the material facts did not cause the taxpayer to be liable for less tax than he was assessed for without the material facts, the second requirement listed above is not met and SARS shouldn’t be able to apply this section of the TAA.
TAA: Section 99
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged Assessment, Fraud, SARS on July 22, 2016 by Guthrietheron.
The cost of disposing of the property, e.g. advertising costs, cost of obtaining a valuation for capital gains purposes, and estate agents’ commission.
20% x (proceeds less expenditure incurred on or after 1 October 2001).
Time-apportionment base cost method. (Original cost (proceeds – original cost) x number of years held before 1 October 2001) divided by (the number of years held before 1 October 2001 number of years held after 1 October 2001).
This entry was posted in Property Law, Tax Law and tagged capital gains tax., Profit, Sale of a property on February 17, 2016 by Guthrietheron.
This entry was posted in Property focus, Tax Law and tagged SARS, Transfer duty, Transfer property on July 6, 2015 by Guthrietheron.
If the seller is registered for VAT (Vendor) and he sells the property in the cause of his business, VAT will be payable to SARS. A vendor is a person who runs a business and whose total taxable earnings per year exceed R1 000 000. He will then have to be registered for VAT. A further stipulation is that the person who is a vendor should be selling a property that is related to his business from which he derives an income.
The first R600 000 of the value is exempted from transfer duty,
Thereafter transfer duty is levied at 3% of the value up to R1 000 000.
From R1 000 000 to R1 500 000, transfer duty will be R12 000 plus 5% on the value above R1 000 000.
On R1 500 001 and above transfer duty is R37 000 plus 8% of the value above R1 500 000.
Transfer duty is levied on the reasonable value of the property, which normally will be the purchase price, but should the market value be higher than the purchase price, transfer duty will be payable on the highest amount. Transfer duty is payable within six months from the date that the Offer to Purchase was signed.
This entry was posted in Property Law, Tax Law and tagged Transfer of a property on August 30, 2013 by Guthrietheron.
Oordrag van eiendom: Is BTW of hereregte betaalbaar?
Die Koper is verantwoordelik vir die betaling van die oordragkoste wanneer ‘n onroerende eiendom aangekoop word, maar dan moet verder bepaal word of BTW of hereregte op die transaksie aan SAID betaalbaar is.
By die oordrag van onroerende eiendom is daar altyd BTW of hereregte betaalbaar aan SAID. Daar word na die status van die verkoper en die aard van die transaksie gekyk ten einde te bepaal of BTW of hereregte betaalbaar sal wees.
Indien die Verkoper vir BTW geregistreer is en die eiendom verkoop in die loop van of ter bevordering van sy onderneming, is BTW op die transaksie betaalbaar. ‘n Ondernemer is ‘n persoon wat ‘n onderneming bedryf en wie se totale jaarlikse belasbare inkomste R1 000 000 oorskry, en is verplig om vir BTW te registreer. ‘n Verdere vereiste is dat die eiendom wat verkoop word verband moet hou met die onderneming waaruit die ondernemer sy inkomste verdien.
Die koopkontrak moet dan stipuleer of die koopprys BTW insluit of uitsluit. Indien die koopkontrak nie melding maak van BTW nie en die verkoper is vir BTW geregistreer, word BTW geag ingesluit te wees by die koopprys en sal die verkoper 14% van die koopprys aan SAID moet betaal. Die verkoper is verantwoordelik vir die oorbetaling van die BTW aan SAID tensy die kontrak bepaal dat dit die koper se verantwoordelikheid is .
Indien die koper vir BTW geregistreer is maar die verkoper nie, sal hereregte betaalbaar wees maar kan die koper ná registrasie die hereregte wat betaal is van SAID terugeis.
As die verkoper nie vir BTW geregistreer is nie is dit redelik seker dat hereregte betaalbaar sal wees, en wel deur die koper. Die koers waarteen hereregte tans bereken word is soos volg :
Die eerste R600 000 van die waarde is vrygestel van hereregte,
Daarna is die hereregte 3% van die waarde tot en met R1 000 000
Vanaf R1 000 001 – R1 500 000 is die hereregte R12 000 plus 5% van die waarde bo R1 000 000
Op ‘n waarde van R1 500 001 en hoër is die hereregte R37 000 plus 8% van die waarde bó R1 500 000
Die koers waarteen hereregte betaal word is tans dieselfde vir natuurlike- en regspersone (maatskappy, beslote korporasie of trust).
Daar is enkele gevalle waar hereregte nie betaalbaar is nie, o.a. waar ‘n party ‘n eiendom bekom kragtens ‘n egskeidingsbevel of ‘n erfgenaam is uit ‘n boedel.
Hereregte word bereken op die billike waarde van die eiendom wat gewoonlik die koopsom is. Indien die markwaarde van die eiendom egter hoër as die koopsom is sal hereregte op die hoogste bedrag gehef word. Hereregte moet oorbetaal word aan SAID binne ses maande vanaf datum van kontraksluiting.
Dit beteken dat BTW wel betaalbaar is maar teen ‘n koers van 0%. Waar beide die verkoper en koper vir BTW geregistreer is en die eiendom as ‘n lopende saak verkoop word, word BTW teen ‘n nulkoers gehef, bv. waar ‘n boer sy plaas tesame met die implemente en vee verkoop.
Waar die verkoper vir BTW geregistreer is en sy besigheid die koop en verkoop van eiendom en die verhuring daarvan vir woondoeleindes behels, en hy die verhuurde eiendom verkoop, is daar nie BTW betaalbaar nie maar wel hereregte.
Dit is dus belangrik vir die koper om met die sluiting van die kontrak navraag te doen oor die BTW-status van die verkoper. Die verkoper wat vir BTW geregistreer is moet met kontraksluiting die koopprysklousule deeglik nagaan om seker te maak of die verkoopprys BTW insluit of uitsluit.
Kliek hier om die volledige vrywaring te sien
This entry was posted in Property Law, Tax Law and tagged BTW, Oordrag van eiendom on August 30, 2013 by Guthrietheron.
What is meant by Capital Gain
What is base cost
The costs of acquiring the property, including the purchase price, transfer costs, transfer duty and professional fees e.g. attorneys fees and fees paid to a surveyor and auctioneer.
The cost of improvements, alterations and renovations which can be proved by invoices and/ or receipts.
The cost of disposing of the property, e.g. advertising costs, cost of obtaining a valuation for capital gains purposes, and estate agents commission .
How is base cost calculated of assets held before 1 October 2001
If the property was acquired before 1 October 2001 you may use one of the following methods to value the property :
Time -apportionment base cost method. Original cost + (proceeds – original cost) x number of years held before 1 October 2001divided by the number of years held before 1 October 2001 + number of years held after 1 October 2001).
How is Capital Gains Tax paid
How is Capital Gain calculated
If you are an individual, the first R30 000 of your total capital gain will be disregarded. Then 33.3% of the capital gain made on disposal of the property must be included in the taxable income for the year of assessment in which the property is sold. When the property is owned by a company, a close corporation or an ordinary trust, 66,6% of the capital gain must be included in their taxable income.
As from 1 March 2012 the first R2 million of any capital gain on the sale of a primary residence is exempted from Capital Gains Tax. This exemption only applies where the property is registered in the name of an individual or in the name of a special trust. The property should furthermore not exceed 2 hectares.
If the property is used partially for residential and partially for business purposes, an apportionment must be done. If more than one person holds an interest in a primary residence, the exclusion will be in proportion to the interest held by each party. For example, if you and your spouse have an equal interest in the primary residence, you will each qualify for a primary residence exclusion of R1 million. You will also be entitled to the annual exclusion, currently R30 000.
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged capital gains tax. on June 25, 2013 by Guthrietheron.
Ondernemingsredding – SARS ook saam in die tou.
SARS het nog altyd, tydens sekwestrasies en likwidasies voorkeur geniet ten opsigte van hulle aansprake en eise ingevolge die toepaslike insolvensie wetgewing.Dividende word eers aan versekerde skuldeisers (“verbandhouers”) en daarna gedeeltelik aan personeel toegeken. Hierna is die Suid – Afrikaanse Inkomstediens as skuldeiser wat statutêre voorkeur geniet, die volgende in die rangorde van betalings. Dit bring mee dat in gevalle waar SARS ‘n groot eis geniet, dit onwaarskynlik raak dat die gewone skuldeisers ‘n gewone dividend sal ontvang. Hierdie geval kan goed uitgedruk word in die volgende stelreël: “You have about a 5% chance of getting about 5 cents in the Rand”.Jou kanse op ‘n dividend het verbeter, indien…In die geval waar die maatskappy in finansiële nood verkeer en formeel in ondernemingsredding geplaas word, stel dit algemene skuldeisers in ‘n beter posisie. Die Hoë Hof het onlangs beslis dat SARS tydens ondernemingsredding sy voorkeurposisie verloor. SARS word dus as gelyke en gewone skuldeiser hanteer vir doeleindes van dividende sowel as stemreg tydens vergaderings van skuldeisers met betrekking tot ondernemingsredding.
In die praktyk beteken dit dat selfs wanneer ‘n ondernemingsredding onsuksesvol is, behoort die kanse groter te wees dat gewone konkurrente skuldeisers wel ‘n dividend sal ontvang.
SARS se posisie gedurende ondernemingsredding word tans deur die Maatskappywet gereguleer. Dit is dus voorsienbaar dat SARS druk op die wetgewer sal plaas om die Maatskappywet te wysig om dit in lyn te bring met hul voorkeurposisie ingevolge die Insolvensiewet. Totdat dit gebeur, is hierdie ‘n belangrike faktor waarom skuldeisers ondernemingsredding bo likwidasie van ‘n skuldeiser kan verkies.
© DotNews, 2005-2013. Hierdie is ‘n algemene inligtingstuk en moet gevolglik nie as regs- of ander professionele advies benut word nie. Geen aanspreeklikheid kan aanvaar word vir enige foute of weglatings of enige skade of verlies wat volg uit die gebruik van enige inligting hierin vervat nie. Kontak altyd u regsadviseur vir spesifieke en toegepaste advies.
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged Ondernemingsredding, SARS on February 19, 2013 by Guthrietheron.
Business rescue – SARS told to stand in line (for now).
SARS has always enjoyed a privileged position in liquidation matters because its claims are “preferent”, in other words whatever money may be left in the liquidation pot after secured creditors and staff claims have been settled goes to SARS first.
As a result concurrent creditors, who only get a look in if there’s anything left after SARS has had its fill, will normally have little hope of receiving any dividend at all. As an old rule of thumb puts it: “You have about a 5% chance of getting about 5 cents in the Rand”.
Your recovery odds just got better, if…
If – and only if – a distressed company is in business rescue rather than liquidation, your odds of getting at least something back just got better. The High Court has recently held that in rescue proceedings, SARS loses its preference and joins the queue with the other unsecured creditors – not only does it lose its liquidation preference, but it has no special voting rights when a business rescue plan is under consideration.
What that means in practice is this – even if a rescue attempt fails in its primary objective of restoring the company to viability and paying all creditors in full, there is at least now more chance of a reasonable payment accruing to creditors generally.
Of course SARS’ loss of preference in a business rescue situation stems from the current wording of the Companies Act, which could well now be amended to put SARS back at the head of the queue. But perhaps that won’t happen, and anyway for now at least it seems that concurrent creditors have one more reason to prefer a genuine (and viable) rescue attempt over final liquidation.
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged Business rescue, SARS on February 19, 2013 by Guthrietheron.
‘n Lening van sewe miljoen rand aan ‘n vriend: Die reg en die risiko’s!
“Be careful about lending a friend money. It may damage her memory” (Anoniem)
Daar is baie potensiële slaggate wanneer jy ‘n lening aan ‘n vriend maak. ‘n Minder bekende slaggat word deur die Nasionale Kredietwet geskep. Indien daar nie aan die vereistes van die Nasionale Kredietwet voldoen word nie, loop jy die risiko van aansienlike verliese.
Dit sluit eerstens in dat jou leningsooreenkoms ongeldig verklaar kan word en tweedens hou dit die gevaar in dat jy al jou regte om uitstaande gelde in te vorder, kan verloor. Hierdie risiko’s is duidelik uitgewys in ‘n onlangse beslissing van die Grondwetlike Hof.
‘n Boer in Namibië het vir sy vriend R 7 000 000.00 (Sewe Miljoen Rand) geleen om eiendom in Kaapstad te ontwikkel. Die partye het drie geskrewe leningsooreenkomste aangegaan.
Op daardie stadium was die boer nie as ‘n kredietverskaffer geregistreer nie, soos vereis volgens die Nasionale Kredietwet nie.
Al het die verskaffing van krediet nie deel uitgemaak van die boer se gewone sakebedrywighede nie, vereis die Nasionale Kredietwet steeds dat hy as ‘n kredietverskaffer geregistreer moes wees. Die boer het geen kennis van hierdie vereiste gehad nie en het ook geen bedoeling gehad om die Nasionale Kredietwet te oortree nie.
Die vriend kon die boer nie teen die ooreengekome datum terugbetaal nie. Die boer het hierna by die Hoë Hof aansoek gedoen vir die sekwestrasie van die vriend se boedel.
Die Nasionale Kredietwet maak voorsiening vir die volgende:
‘n Verskeidenheid van situasies word in die Nasionale Kredietwet gelys wat jou sal verplig om as kredietverskaffer te registreer indien jy daaraan voldoen. In die onderhawige geval moes die boer as kredietverskaffer registreer, omdat die leningsbedrag die vasgestelde drempel van R 500 000.00 oorskry het.
Die feit dat die lener ‘n vriend was, speel hier geen rol nie. Dit is van belang dat die lening binne die definisie van “kredietooreenkoms” val en dat die partye ‘n oënskynlike “armlengte leningsooreenkoms” aangegaan het.
As jy versuim om as kredietverskaffer te registreer, verplig die Nasionale Kredietwet die hof om –
a. die ooreenkoms nietig te verklaar, asook
b. ‘n bevel te maak dat jy jou reg om vergoeding aan die staat verbeur.
In die onderhewige geval het hierdie bepaling onder die loep gekom. Die Hoë Hof en die Grondwetlike Hof het dit as ongrondwetlik verklaar aangesien dit indruis teen ons grondwetlike reg teen die verbod op die arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom.
Die praktiese gevolge van hierdie uitspraak
Tot tyd en wyl hierdie ongeldige kansellasie/ ontnemingsklousule gewysig word, sal die gemenereg van toepassing wees. Die Hof bevestig dat die ongeldige ooreenkomste ongetwyfeld nietig is, maar bevind dan dat die kredietverskaffer wel in kwalifiserende gevalle die leningsbedrag op grond van ongeregverdigde verryking van die verbruiker sal kan terug eis: “The credit provider would be able to claim successfully from the consumer on the basis of unjustified enrichment, if the requirements of the action are met. This could include the consideration of the circumstances of each case and especially the degree of blameworthiness of the unregistered credit provider, in order to reach a just outcome”.
Indien die wet vereis dat jy as kredietverskaffer moet registreer, is jy verplig om dit te doen. Versuim jy om dit te doen, sal al jou kredietooreenkomste nietig wees. Jy sal dan individueel by die hof moet aansoek doen om jou toe te laat om jou lenings te verhaal, maar dit bly binne die diskresie van die hof. Indien die hof jou nie te hulp gaan kom nie, sal jy geen verdere verhaalsreg hê nie. Daarom is dit belangrik dat jy eerder vanuit die staanspoor behoorlike advies verkry en jou handelinge dienooreenkomstig rig.
Selfs indien jy suksesvol is met die verkryging van ‘n hofbevel, beteken dit nog nie dat jy jou geld gaan terugkry nie. Soos in hierdie geval kan jou vriend bankrot verklaar word en gaan jy dan slegs ‘n gewone eis teen sy insolvente boedel hê, met geen waarborg dat jy uiteindelik enige dividend gaan ontvang nie.
Geen wonder dat Shakespeare as volg waarsku nie: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend”.
This entry was posted in Tax Law and tagged Lening on February 19, 2013 by Guthrietheron.