The tax implications of a private equity buy-out : a case study of the Brait-Shoprite buy-out
- Authors: Mawire, Patrick N
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: South African Revenue Service , Consolidation and merger of corporations -- Finance , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:8959 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/803 , South African Revenue Service , Consolidation and merger of corporations -- Finance , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This treatise examines the history of private equity as a context in which to understand its role in the economy and specifically, the background for the high profile leveraged buy-outs that have been entered into in the past year. The treatise then focuses specifically on the Brait-Shoprite buy-out, examining its structure and the tax implications. The treatise then reviews the reaction of the South African Revenue Authority (“SARS”) to the buy-out and evaluates whether it was the best approach that could have been taken under the circumstances. As a result of the research, the following conclusions have been reached: Private equity transactions Private equity transactions have a role to play in the business world despite the apprehensions of tax authorities. The perception that these transactions are tax driven as part of an avoidance scheme is not justified. Structure of the Shoprite buy-out transaction: The Shoprite buy-out transaction was structured to obtain deduction for interest. The transaction was also structured to utilise the relief provisions of Part II of Chapter II (Special Provisions Relating to Companies) of the Income Tax Act no.58 of 1962, as amended (“the Act”). The relief was for capital gains tax (“CGT”) on disposal of the Shoprite assets. Finally, the transaction was designed to allow the existing shareholders to exit their investments free of Secondary Tax on Companies (“STC”). The reaction of SARS to the Shoprite buy-out transaction Whereas SARS may have been justified in questioning the structure and its impact on fiscal revenue, the response in the form of withdrawing STC relief from amalgamation transactions in section 44 was not in the best interest of a stable tax system and the majority of tax payers who are not misusing or abusing loopholes in the income tax legislation. It may have been possible for SARS to attack the structure based on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in part IIA of the Chapter III of the Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
- Authors: Mawire, Patrick N
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: South African Revenue Service , Consolidation and merger of corporations -- Finance , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:8959 , http://hdl.handle.net/10948/803 , South African Revenue Service , Consolidation and merger of corporations -- Finance , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This treatise examines the history of private equity as a context in which to understand its role in the economy and specifically, the background for the high profile leveraged buy-outs that have been entered into in the past year. The treatise then focuses specifically on the Brait-Shoprite buy-out, examining its structure and the tax implications. The treatise then reviews the reaction of the South African Revenue Authority (“SARS”) to the buy-out and evaluates whether it was the best approach that could have been taken under the circumstances. As a result of the research, the following conclusions have been reached: Private equity transactions Private equity transactions have a role to play in the business world despite the apprehensions of tax authorities. The perception that these transactions are tax driven as part of an avoidance scheme is not justified. Structure of the Shoprite buy-out transaction: The Shoprite buy-out transaction was structured to obtain deduction for interest. The transaction was also structured to utilise the relief provisions of Part II of Chapter II (Special Provisions Relating to Companies) of the Income Tax Act no.58 of 1962, as amended (“the Act”). The relief was for capital gains tax (“CGT”) on disposal of the Shoprite assets. Finally, the transaction was designed to allow the existing shareholders to exit their investments free of Secondary Tax on Companies (“STC”). The reaction of SARS to the Shoprite buy-out transaction Whereas SARS may have been justified in questioning the structure and its impact on fiscal revenue, the response in the form of withdrawing STC relief from amalgamation transactions in section 44 was not in the best interest of a stable tax system and the majority of tax payers who are not misusing or abusing loopholes in the income tax legislation. It may have been possible for SARS to attack the structure based on the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) in part IIA of the Chapter III of the Act.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
The tax implications of non-resident sportspersons performing and earning an income in South Africa
- Authors: Wessels, Jacques
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: South African Revenue Service , Sports -- Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Foreign income , Income tax -- South Africa -- Foreign income , Withholding tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:893 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003719 , South African Revenue Service , Sports -- Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Foreign income , Income tax -- South Africa -- Foreign income , Withholding tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: As the number of non-resident sports persons competing in South Africa increases so does the need to tax them more effectively. It was for this reason that the South African legislature decided to insert Part IlIA into the Income Tax Act which regulates the taxation of non-resident sports persons in South Africa. The new tax on foreign sports persons, which came into effect during August 2006, is a withholding tax placing the onus upon the organizer of the event to withhold the tax portion of the payment to the non-resident sportsperson and pay it over to the revenue services. The rate of taxation has been set at 15 percent on all amounts received by or accruing to a foreign sportsperson. The question which the research addressed is whether this new tax will prove to be an effective tax, both from the point of view of its equity and the administration of the tax. In order to determine the impact of the new tax, it was compared to similar taxes implemented in the United Kingdom and Australia and also to other withholding taxes levied in South Africa. The new tax was also measured against a theoretical model for effectiveness, compared to the pre-August 2006 situation and to the taxation of resident sportsmen and women, using hypothetical examples. The major shortcomings of the new withholding tax are the uncertainty with regard to the intention of the legislature on matters such as the taxation of capital income versus revenue income, the question whether payments to support staff are included in the ambit of the new tax, the taxation of the award of assets in lieu of cash payments and the definition of a resident. A further area of concern is that the rate of taxation of 15 percent appears to be too low and creates horizontal inequity between the taxation of resident and non-resident sports persons. The new tax on non-resident sports persons may have its shortcomings but, depending upon the administrative and support structures put in place to deal with it, will be an effective tax. The rate at which the tax is levied could result in a less tax being collected than before but, with the reduced administrative cost of tax collection, the effective/statutory ratio of the tax could well be much higher than it was. This is a new tax in South Africa and certain initial problems are inevitable and will undoubtedly be solved as the administrators gain experience and as the case law governing this tax develops. , KMBT_363
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
- Authors: Wessels, Jacques
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: South African Revenue Service , Sports -- Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Foreign income , Income tax -- South Africa -- Foreign income , Withholding tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: vital:893 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003719 , South African Revenue Service , Sports -- Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Income tax -- Foreign income , Income tax -- South Africa -- Foreign income , Withholding tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: As the number of non-resident sports persons competing in South Africa increases so does the need to tax them more effectively. It was for this reason that the South African legislature decided to insert Part IlIA into the Income Tax Act which regulates the taxation of non-resident sports persons in South Africa. The new tax on foreign sports persons, which came into effect during August 2006, is a withholding tax placing the onus upon the organizer of the event to withhold the tax portion of the payment to the non-resident sportsperson and pay it over to the revenue services. The rate of taxation has been set at 15 percent on all amounts received by or accruing to a foreign sportsperson. The question which the research addressed is whether this new tax will prove to be an effective tax, both from the point of view of its equity and the administration of the tax. In order to determine the impact of the new tax, it was compared to similar taxes implemented in the United Kingdom and Australia and also to other withholding taxes levied in South Africa. The new tax was also measured against a theoretical model for effectiveness, compared to the pre-August 2006 situation and to the taxation of resident sportsmen and women, using hypothetical examples. The major shortcomings of the new withholding tax are the uncertainty with regard to the intention of the legislature on matters such as the taxation of capital income versus revenue income, the question whether payments to support staff are included in the ambit of the new tax, the taxation of the award of assets in lieu of cash payments and the definition of a resident. A further area of concern is that the rate of taxation of 15 percent appears to be too low and creates horizontal inequity between the taxation of resident and non-resident sports persons. The new tax on non-resident sports persons may have its shortcomings but, depending upon the administrative and support structures put in place to deal with it, will be an effective tax. The rate at which the tax is levied could result in a less tax being collected than before but, with the reduced administrative cost of tax collection, the effective/statutory ratio of the tax could well be much higher than it was. This is a new tax in South Africa and certain initial problems are inevitable and will undoubtedly be solved as the administrators gain experience and as the case law governing this tax develops. , KMBT_363
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »