Editorial
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Date | 01 March 2023 |
Published date | 01 March 2023 |
DOI | 10.10520/ejc-btclq_v14_n1_a1 |
Pages | v-vi |
Author | Des Kruger Kruger |
v
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
Editorial
DES KRUGER
There can be little argument that our tax laws are complex. Added to the
complexity of our tax laws is a large measure of uncertainty in the appli-
cation of these complex laws. Should anyone have any doubt regarding
these two statements, this will be quickly dispelled after reading these three
erudite articles.
* * *
The fi rst article is by Ed Liptak, who had been very heavily involved in the
design of South Africa’s new general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) while
he was still with SARS. Liptak’s article focuses on one important aspect
of the GAAR, namely s80J of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (‘the Act’).
Section80J was introduced in 2006 as part of the then new GAAR. This
section requires the Commissioner to notify a taxpayer at the point in
an audit when he/she fi rst comes to believe that the GAAR may be appli-
cable to an arrangement entered into or carried out by the taxpayer. It was
enacted in response to concerns that the new GAAR might be automati-
cally relied upon by SARS as a ‘catch-all’ section of last resort without due
and proper consideration. Commentators also expressed concerns about
conduct of audits under former s103, particularly with respect to delays
they encountered and the time and expensed they incurred.
The author noted that two recent judgments have raised concerns about
the current approach being taken to s80J by taxpayers and, to a certain
extent, SARS itself. In particular, taxpayers appear to be taking the position
that s80J(1), read together with the statutory defi nition of ’arrangement’,
have imposed a burden upon the Commissioner to identify and describe
a transaction, operation or scheme with an exacting degree of precision
never before required under the former s103 or its predecessors. Liptak
argues that this approach cannot be support by a textual, contextual, and
purposive interpretation of the provisions involved, and, in fact, would
severely frustrate both the overriding purpose of the current GAAR and the
specifi c purposes of s80J itself.
* * *
Wally Horak and James McKinnell of Bowmans provide interesting insight
on the recent judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the case
of CSARS v Coronation Investment Management SA (Pty) Ltd, that has caused
signifi cant uncertainty and concern amongst South African multina-
tional enterprises which operate via subsidiaries in foreign countries. The
judgment had to consider the requirements under s9D of the Income Tax
Act to qualify for the foreign business establishment (FBE) exemption from
To continue reading
Request your trial