An analysis, from a South African case law perspective, of the deductibility of losses due to embezzlement, fraud, theft, damages and compensation
- Authors: Jachi, Adelaide Gamuchirai
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Tax deductions -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax courts -- South Africa , Tax administration and procedure -- South Africa , Tax accounting -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/60855 , vital:27846
- Description: When calculating the income tax payable for a year of assessment, a taxpayer deducts from his or her or its income, allowable deductions in terms of the preamble to section 11 and section 11(a) as read with section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962. Amongst the expenditure and losses incurred by a taxpayer during a year of assessment, a claim may be sought for the deduction of losses incurred due to embezzlement, fraud and theft as well as damages and compensation. The requirements of the preamble and section 11(a) include the requirement that expenditure and losses must be incurred “in the production of the income”. Losses incurred due to defalcations, as well as expenditure on damages and compensation must satisfy this requirement to be allowed as deductions. The objective of the research was to analyse the judicial decisions dealing with “in the production of the income” in granting a deduction for income tax purposes in cases dealing with embezzlement, fraud and theft, and damages and compensation, to establish why the courts grant or disallow the deduction of expenditure and losses. A doctrinal research methodology was applied to the research. The provisions of the Income Tax Act, relevant case law relating to embezzlement, fraud and theft, and damages and compensation, and the contributions of the revenue authority and tax experts in articles of accredited journals, textbooks and other writings were analysed. The major conclusions drawn from the research were that losses due to defalcations are regarded as having been incurred “in the production of the income” if the taxpayer discharges the onus of proof that the risk of the act leading to misappropriation is an incidental risk of the business. Expenditure on damages and compensation is deductible provided the expense is attached to the performance of a business operation bona fide performed for the purpose of earning income and the expense is so closely connected with the business operation as to be regarded as part of the cost of performing it. Where negligence is attached to an expense or loss, the South African courts have held that negligence does not increase the likelihood of disallowing an expense or loss as not having been incurred “in the production of the income”.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
- Authors: Jachi, Adelaide Gamuchirai
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Tax deductions -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax courts -- South Africa , Tax administration and procedure -- South Africa , Tax accounting -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/60855 , vital:27846
- Description: When calculating the income tax payable for a year of assessment, a taxpayer deducts from his or her or its income, allowable deductions in terms of the preamble to section 11 and section 11(a) as read with section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962. Amongst the expenditure and losses incurred by a taxpayer during a year of assessment, a claim may be sought for the deduction of losses incurred due to embezzlement, fraud and theft as well as damages and compensation. The requirements of the preamble and section 11(a) include the requirement that expenditure and losses must be incurred “in the production of the income”. Losses incurred due to defalcations, as well as expenditure on damages and compensation must satisfy this requirement to be allowed as deductions. The objective of the research was to analyse the judicial decisions dealing with “in the production of the income” in granting a deduction for income tax purposes in cases dealing with embezzlement, fraud and theft, and damages and compensation, to establish why the courts grant or disallow the deduction of expenditure and losses. A doctrinal research methodology was applied to the research. The provisions of the Income Tax Act, relevant case law relating to embezzlement, fraud and theft, and damages and compensation, and the contributions of the revenue authority and tax experts in articles of accredited journals, textbooks and other writings were analysed. The major conclusions drawn from the research were that losses due to defalcations are regarded as having been incurred “in the production of the income” if the taxpayer discharges the onus of proof that the risk of the act leading to misappropriation is an incidental risk of the business. Expenditure on damages and compensation is deductible provided the expense is attached to the performance of a business operation bona fide performed for the purpose of earning income and the expense is so closely connected with the business operation as to be regarded as part of the cost of performing it. Where negligence is attached to an expense or loss, the South African courts have held that negligence does not increase the likelihood of disallowing an expense or loss as not having been incurred “in the production of the income”.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Assessed losses: the trade and income from trade requirements as set out in section 20 of the Income Tax Act of 1962
- Authors: Pillay, Neermala Neelavathy
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- Australia , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:8949 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1670 , South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- Australia , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Section 20 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 allows a taxpayer that incurs an assessed loss to carry forward the balance of assessed loss incurred, to be set off against taxable income earned in or added to losses incurred in future years. The issues regarding the carry forward of assessed losses in terms of section 20 is complex and in terms of the said section, a company is only entitled to set off its assessed loss from the previous year against its taxable income in the current year, if the taxpayer has carried on a trade during the current year and has derived income from that trade. Under the provisions of section 20(2A), a taxpayer other than a company can utilise an assessed loss even if no trading has been conducted. Assessed losses of natural persons, may however be ring-fenced. The aim of this treatise was twofold. Firstly it was to gain clarity on the „trade‟ and „income from trade‟ issues and secondly to compare South African legislation with that of Australia, with a view to recommending a change in our rules regarding the treatment of assessed losses in the context of companies. The critical lessons to be learned from the cases presented, is that liquidators, creditors and others must ensure that the company continues trading in order to x keep the assessed losses valid. Realisation of assets (including stock), and the collection of outstanding debts during liquidation does not constitute the carrying on of a trade in terms of s 20(1). The continuity of trade is an important element in regard to the carry forward of assessed losses to be utilised in the current and future years. Therefore it is important that a company carries on some activity that falls within the definition of trade. In the landmark case of SA Bazaars, it was held that a company did not have to trade continuously throughout the year to qualify for the set-off of the assessed loss or carry forward of the assessed loss, that is, to trade for say part of the year. The court however left open the issue of whether it was necessary to derive income from that trade. In order to clarify the issues regarding assessed losses, SARS issued Interpretation Note 33 granting taxpayers a concession in certain cases where a company has traded, but not derived income from that trade. But in ITC 1830, the court ruled that a company must trade and must derive income from that trade in order to carry forward its assessed loss, which effectively means that SARS cannot apply Interpretation Note 33. SARS does not have the authority to make concession which is contrary to the wording of the Act. xi In Australia, operating losses can be carried forward indefinitely to be set-off against future income, provided a company meets the more than 50% continuity of ownership test. Where the continuity test fails, losses can be deducted if the same business is carried on in the income year (the same business test). From the research conducted and in order to solve the issues surrounding the carry forward of assessed losses it was suggested that one of the following be adopted :- The method used in Australia for the carry forward of assessed losses., or A decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is needed for a departure from the literal meaning of the words pertaining to the requirements regarding the carry forward of assessed losses. Furthermore, to clarify the definition of „income‟, as used in the context of s20, is it gross income less exempt income or taxable income?. If section 20 relates to taxable income, then an assessed loss will never be increased, which it is submitted, is not what the legislature intended. Section 20 ought to be revisited to eliminate any uncertainty about the income requirement and in the context in which the word „income‟ is used in that section.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- Authors: Pillay, Neermala Neelavathy
- Date: 2012
- Subjects: South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- Australia , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:8949 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/1670 , South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , Income tax deductions for losses -- South Africa , Income tax deductions for losses -- Australia , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: Section 20 of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 allows a taxpayer that incurs an assessed loss to carry forward the balance of assessed loss incurred, to be set off against taxable income earned in or added to losses incurred in future years. The issues regarding the carry forward of assessed losses in terms of section 20 is complex and in terms of the said section, a company is only entitled to set off its assessed loss from the previous year against its taxable income in the current year, if the taxpayer has carried on a trade during the current year and has derived income from that trade. Under the provisions of section 20(2A), a taxpayer other than a company can utilise an assessed loss even if no trading has been conducted. Assessed losses of natural persons, may however be ring-fenced. The aim of this treatise was twofold. Firstly it was to gain clarity on the „trade‟ and „income from trade‟ issues and secondly to compare South African legislation with that of Australia, with a view to recommending a change in our rules regarding the treatment of assessed losses in the context of companies. The critical lessons to be learned from the cases presented, is that liquidators, creditors and others must ensure that the company continues trading in order to x keep the assessed losses valid. Realisation of assets (including stock), and the collection of outstanding debts during liquidation does not constitute the carrying on of a trade in terms of s 20(1). The continuity of trade is an important element in regard to the carry forward of assessed losses to be utilised in the current and future years. Therefore it is important that a company carries on some activity that falls within the definition of trade. In the landmark case of SA Bazaars, it was held that a company did not have to trade continuously throughout the year to qualify for the set-off of the assessed loss or carry forward of the assessed loss, that is, to trade for say part of the year. The court however left open the issue of whether it was necessary to derive income from that trade. In order to clarify the issues regarding assessed losses, SARS issued Interpretation Note 33 granting taxpayers a concession in certain cases where a company has traded, but not derived income from that trade. But in ITC 1830, the court ruled that a company must trade and must derive income from that trade in order to carry forward its assessed loss, which effectively means that SARS cannot apply Interpretation Note 33. SARS does not have the authority to make concession which is contrary to the wording of the Act. xi In Australia, operating losses can be carried forward indefinitely to be set-off against future income, provided a company meets the more than 50% continuity of ownership test. Where the continuity test fails, losses can be deducted if the same business is carried on in the income year (the same business test). From the research conducted and in order to solve the issues surrounding the carry forward of assessed losses it was suggested that one of the following be adopted :- The method used in Australia for the carry forward of assessed losses., or A decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is needed for a departure from the literal meaning of the words pertaining to the requirements regarding the carry forward of assessed losses. Furthermore, to clarify the definition of „income‟, as used in the context of s20, is it gross income less exempt income or taxable income?. If section 20 relates to taxable income, then an assessed loss will never be increased, which it is submitted, is not what the legislature intended. Section 20 ought to be revisited to eliminate any uncertainty about the income requirement and in the context in which the word „income‟ is used in that section.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2012
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »