DGTL12002 – Week 3 – candicegouckwordpress
Posted on August 26, 2016 August 26, 2016 by gouckc
Previous Post DGTL12002 – Week 2 Find the Snapchat in you…
Next Post DGTL12002 – Week 4 'n Kritiese evaluering van die inkomste- en kapitaalwinsbelastinghantering van kollektiewe beleggingskemas in effekte en kollektiewe beleggingskemas in eiendom
Isaacs, Henry David
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas in Effekte ("KBS in Effekte") en Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas in Eiendom ("KBS in Eiendom") is besigheidstrukture wat baie gewild is in Suid-Afrika. Desondanks bestaan daar nog heelwat onsekerhede rondom die belastinghantering van hierdie twee tipes Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas ("KBS"). Die Suid-Afrikaanse KBS industrie is In multi biljoen rand industrie hoofsaaklik as gevolg van die feit dat dit uitstekende beleggingsgeleenthede vir Jan en alleman asook groot finansiële instellings soos versekeraars bied. Dit is dus logies om te verwag dat die belastinghantering van KBS met redelike sekerheid gereguleer word.
In KBS kan of as In trust opgerig word of as In oop beleggingsmaatskappy. Die belastinghantering van In KBS hang dus daarvan af of dit as In trust of oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is.
Die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 ("die Inkomstebelastingwet") bevat inkomsteen kapitaalwinsbelastingbepalings wat uitdruklik die belastinghantering van KBS in Effekte en KBS in Eiendom reguleer ("die spesiale belastingreels").
In KBS in Effekte word vir belastingdoeleindes as In maatskappy beskou en so hanteer. Dit is nie maklik om vas te stel wat die wetgewer se onderliggende bedoeling was toe daar besluit is om In KBS in Effekte as In maatskappy te hanteer. Dit blyk wei dat hierdie besluit van die wetgewer nie deeglik deurdink is nie na aanleiding van die verskeie praktiese en teoretiese probleme wat met die belastinghantering van KBS in Effekte bestaan. Meeste van hierdie probleme is In direkte gevolg van die besluit om In KBS in Effekte vir belastingdoeleindes as In maatskappy te hanteer. Een die probleme wat in die konteks van KBS in Effekte bestaan hou verband met die vraag of die geleibuisbeginsel, wat bepaal dat inkomste wat deur In trust aan sy begunstigdes uitgekeer word hul aard en karakter behou, in die konteks van In KBS in Effekte (wat as In trust opgerig is) toepassing vind. Alhoewel die KBS in Effekte as In trust opgerig is, word dit vir belastingdoeleindes as 'n maatskappy hanteer en dit is duidelik dat die geleibuisbeginsel nie in die konteks van 'n maatskappy geld nie. Na oorweging van die regsaard van 'n KBS in Effekte wat as 'n trust opgerig is asook die gevolge van die vrystellingsbepalings in artikel 10 van die Inkomstebelastingwet wat ten opsigte van KBS in Efekte geld, word daar aan die hand gedoen dat die geleibuisbeginsel wei toepassing sal vind in die geval van 'n KBS in Effekte was as 'n trust opgerig is. Die gevolge van die vrystellingsbepalings in artikel 10 van die Inkomstebelastingwet is sodanig dat die inkomste wat die KBS in Effekte (wat as 'n trust opgerig is) aan sy begunstigdes uitkeer op dieselfde basis as die geleibuisbeginsel belas word. Gevolglik blyk dit of voorgenoemde standpunt van die skrywer in ooreenstemming met die bedoeling van die wetgewer is.
Soortgelyke probleme kom voor in die konteks van die 'verbonde persoon' definisie in artikel 1 van die Inkomstebelastingwet sowel as die terugkoop van 'n deelnemende belang deur 'n KBS in Effekte, veral waar daardie KBS in Effekte as 'n trust opgerig is.
Daarteenoor word 'n KBS in Eiendom nie as 'n maatskappy vir belastingdoeleindes hanteer nie. Indien "n KBS in Eiendom dus as 'n trust opgerig is word dit vir belastingdoeleindes soos "n trust hanteer. Ewe-eens, indien 'n KBS in Eiendom as "n oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is, is dit vir aile doeleindes In maatskappy en sal so hanteer word vir belastingdoeleindes. Die belastinghantering van KBS in Eiendom bied ook sekere probleme veral waar die KBS in Eiendom wat as 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy opgerig is sy aandele terugkoop. In hierdie verband bepaal die Wet op Beheer van Kollektiewe Beleggingskemas No. 45 van 2002 ("die Wet op Beheer van KBS") dat artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet No. 61 van 1973 ("die Maatskappywet") nie ten opsigte van 'n terugkoop van 'n deelnemende belang deur 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy geld nie. Dit beteken egter nie dat 'n oop beleggingsmaatskappy nie sy eie aandele mag terugkoop nie. Vir belastingdoeleindes sal daar vasgestel moet word of bepalings in die Inkomstebelastingwet wat na artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet verwys, soos paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie, steeds met betrekking tot sodanige terugkoop toepassing sal vind siende dat die terugkoop nie ingevolge artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet gedoen word nie. Na oorweging van die wye omvang van paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie, word daar aan die hand gedoen dat paragraaf (c) van die 'dividend' definisie steeds toepassing sal vind om die terugkoop van aandele deur "n oop beleggingsmaatskappy te reguleer, nieteenstaande die feit dat artikel 85 van die Maatskappywet nie op die terugkoop van toepassing is nie. ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Notwithstanding that Collective Investment Schemes in Securities ("CISS") and Collective Investment Schemes in Property ("CISP") are common business vehicles in the South African economy, there remains uncertainty with regard to the tax treatment of these business structures. The South African Collective Investment Scheme ("CIS") industry is a multibillion rand industry as it offers attractive investment vehicles for the general public as well as for big financial institutions such as insurers. One would therefore think that the tax treatment thereof would be fairly tightly regulated. A CISS and CISP may either be constituted as a trust or as an open ended investment company ("OEIC"). The tax treatment of a CIS differs depending on whether it is constituted as a trust or as an OEIC. The Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 ("the Income Tax Act") contains specific income tax and capital gains tax provisions that regulates the tax treatment of CISS and CISP (the "special tax provisions"). For tax purposes, a CISS is deemed to be a company and treated as such. It is difficult to ascertain what the intention of the legislature was in deciding to treat a CISS as a company. It does however seem as if this decision was not thoroughly considered by the legislature based on the fact that the application of the special tax provisions to CISS presents many practical and theoretical problems. Most of these problems are directly attributable to the legislature's decision to treat CISS as companies for tax purposes. For example, one difficulty relates to the question whether the conduit pipe principle, which determines that income distributed by a trust during a year of assessment will retain its nature and character, will find application in respect of a CISS constituted as a trust. For although the CISS is constituted as a trust, it is deemed to be company for tax purposes and it is clear that the conduit pipe principle cannot find application in the instance of a company. However, considering the legal nature of a CISS constituted as a trust, as well as the effect of the exemption provisions in section 10 of the Income Tax Act relating to CISS, it is submitted that the conduit pipe principle will find application in respect of a CISS constituted as a trust. The effect of the exemption provisions is such that the income distributed by a CISS to its investors will be taxed on the same basis as if the conduit pipe principle applied. As such, the aforementioned submission also appears to be in accordance with the intention of legislator. Similar difficulties arise in the context of the 'connected person' definition in section 1 of the Income Tax Act as well as the repurchase of a participatory interest by a CISS, especially where such CISS is constituted as a trust. Contrary to a CISS, a CISP is not deemed to be a company for tax purposes. Thus, where the CISP is constituted as a trust, it will be treated as a trust for tax purposes. By the same token, if the CISP is constituted as an OEIC, it will be a company for all intends and purposes and will therefore be treated as such. The tax treatment of CISP also presents difficulties, especially where it is constituted as an OEIC. In the instance of a repurchase of a participatory interest by a CISP constituted as a OEIC, the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act 45 of 2002 ("CISCA") states that the provisions of section 85 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 (lithe Companies Act"), does not apply in respect of such repurchase. However, that does not mean that an OEIC may not repurchase its own shares. For tax purposes, one will have to determine whether the provisions in the Income Tax Act relating to section 85 of the Companies Act that governs the repurchase of shares by an OEIC, such as paragraph (c) of the 'dividend income' definition, will still apply to determine the tax consequences of the repurchase. After considering the wide scope of paragraph (c) of the 'dividend' definition, it is submitted that paragraph (c) of the 'dividend' definition will still find application in respect of a repurchase of shares by a OEIC, notwithstanding the fact that the repurchase is not effected in terms of section 85 of the Companies Act. Description:
Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2006.
Masters Degrees (School of Accounting)