Nwanda Internal News
(March 2017)

DAYS

Awesome Rewards:
Renier Smit – Hard work and dedication during a stressful audit
Ntshepeng Tshotetsi – Hard work and dedication during a stressful audit
Kavitha Bhawanideen – passing APC board exam
Proffessor Mafela – passing APC board exam
Kim Sing – passing Advanced Labour Law

Congratulations:
Esmeralda Lottering for passing CTA level 2 exams
Proffessor Mafela and Kavitha Bhawanideen for passing the SAICA APC exam
Kim Sing for passing the Advanced Labour Law exam

New staff member:
A warm welcome to Melishia Engelbrecht – Audit Supervisor started on 1 March

Farewell to staff members:
We bid farewell to –
Erleen Coetzee
Aasimah Khan
Venice Jordaan
Dean du Toit
Divan Dixon

VAT and common law theft

A recent decision has created some interest in whether the taxpayers failing to pay over the correct amounts of VAT can be charged – in addition to other statutory crimes prescribed by the VAT Act, 89 of 1991 – with the common law crime of theft.

In Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Parker[1] the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) appealed a decision by the Western Cape High Court that Parker, in his capacity as sole representative of a close corporation, had not committed common law theft in relation to the misappropriation of VAT due and payable by the close corporation to SARS. (Parker had been convicted of common law theft earlier in the Bellville Regional Court and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, which conviction he appealed to the High Court.)

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the DPP as related to the charge of common law theft levied against Parker as related to the misappropriation of VAT amounts, due and payable to SARS. Essentially to succeed, the DPP had to show that the monies not paid over to SARS were in law monies received and held effectively by VAT vendors as agents or in trust on behalf of SARS, i.e. that SARS had established ownership over such funds even before it having being paid over. The court directed that no relationship could be established whereby VAT amounts due were received and held by VAT vendors prior to payment thereof over to SARS. In other words, the DPP could not show that Parker had misappropriated property which belonged to another – an essential element of common law theft that had to be present to secure a conviction.

VAT remains a tax in the proper sense of the word: monies received from customers were that of the taxpayer. Only once monies were paid over to SARS did it become SARS’ property. Even when the VAT in question became payable, such obligation did not per se create a right of ownership over the funds for SARS. Admittedly SARS has a legal claim against the taxpayer for an amount of tax, but it cannot be said to have established right of ownership over any specific funds held by the taxpayer.

It should be noted that Parker only appealed his conviction of common law theft. He was also convicted in the Regional Court of those crimes provided for in the VAT Act (section 28(1)(b) read with section 58(d)) which he did not appeal. His sentence in this regard was maintained, being either a fine of R10,000 of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years.

[1] [2015] 1 All SA 525 (SCA)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Interest free loans with companies

The latest annual nation budget presented in Parliament proposed the dividends tax rate to be increased with almost immediate effect from 15% to 20%. The increased rate brings into renewed focus what anti-avoidance measures exist in the Income Tax Act[1] that seeks to ensure that the dividends tax is not avoided.

Most commonly, the dividends tax is levied on dividends paid by a company to individuals or trusts that are shareholders of that company. To the extent that the shareholder is a South African tax resident company, no dividends tax is levied on payments to such shareholders.[2] In other words, non-corporate shareholders (such as trusts or individuals) may want to structure their affairs in such a manner so as to avoid the dividends tax being levied, yet still have access to the cash and profit reserves contained in the company for their own use.

Getting access to these funds by way of a dividend declaration will give rise to such dividends being taxed (now) at 20%. An alternative scenario would be for the shareholder to rather borrow the cash from the company on interest free loan account. In this manner factually no dividend would be declared (and which would suffer dividends tax), no interest accrues to the company on the loan account created (and which would have been taxable in the company) and most importantly, the shareholder is able to access the cash of the company commercially. Moreover, since the shareholder is in a controlling position in relation to the company, it can ensure that the company will in future never call upon the loan to be repaid.

Treasury has for long been aware of the use of interest free loans to shareholders (or “connected persons”)[3] as a means first to avoid the erstwhile STC, and now the dividends tax. There exists anti-avoidance legislation; in place exactly to ensure that shareholders do not extract a company’s resources in the guise of something else (such as an interest free loan account) without incurring some tax cost as a result.

Section 64E(4) of the Income Tax Act provides that any loan provided by a company to a non-company tax resident that is:

  1. a connected person in relation to that company; or
  2. a connected person of the above person

“… will be deemed to have paid a dividend if that debt arises by virtue of any share held in that company by a person contemplated in subparagraph (i).” (own emphasis)

The amount of such a deemed dividend (that will be subject to dividends tax) is considered to be effectively equal to the amount of interest that would have been charged at prime less 2.5%, less so much of interest that has been actually charged on the loan account.

It is important to also appreciate that the interest free loan capital is not subject to tax, but which would also have amounted to a once-off tax only. By taxing the interest component not charged, the very real possibility exists for the deemed dividend to arise annually, and for as long as the loan remains in place on an interest free basis.

[1] 58 of 1962
[2] Section 64F(1)(a)
[3] Defined in section 1 of the Income Tax Act

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Non-executive Directors’ remuneration: VAT and PAYE

Two significant rulings by SARS, both relating to non-executive directors’ remuneration, were published by SARS during February 2017. The rulings, Binding General Rulings 40 and 41, concerned the VAT and PAYE treatment respectively to be afforded to remuneration paid to non-executive directors. The significance of rulings generally is that it creates a binding effect upon SARS to interpret and apply tax laws in accordance therewith. It therefore goes a long way in creating certainty for the public in how to approach certain matters and to be sure that their treatment accords with the SARS interpretation of the law too – in this case as relates the tax treatment of non-executive directors’ remuneration.

The rulings both start from the premise that the term “non-executive director” is not defined in the Income Tax or VAT Acts. However, the rulings borrow from the King III Report in determining that the role of a non-executive director would typically include:

  • providing objective judgment, independent of management of a company;
  • must not be involved in the management of the company; and
  • is independent of management on issues such as, amongst others, strategy, performance, resources, diversity, etc.

There is therefore a clear distinction from the active, more operations driven role that an executive director would take on.

As a result of the independent nature of their roles, non-executive directors are in terms of the rulings not considered to be “employees” for PAYE purposes. Therefore, amounts paid to them as remuneration will no longer be subject to PAYE being required to be withheld by the companies paying for these directors’ services. Moreover, the limitation on deductions of expenditure for income tax purposes that apply to “ordinary” employees will not apply to amounts received in consideration of services rendered by non-executive directors. The motivation for this determination is that non-executive directors are not employees in the sense that they are subject to the supervision and control of the company whom they serve, and the services are not required to be rendered at the premises of the company. Non-executive directors therefore carry on their roles as such independently of the companies by whom they are so engaged.

From a VAT perspective, and on the same basis as the above, such an independent trade conducted would however require non-executive directors to register for VAT going forward though, since they are conducting an enterprise separately and independently of the company paying for that services, and which services will therefore not amount to “employment”. The position is unlikely to affect the net financial effect of either the company paying for the services of the non-executive director or the director itself though: the director will increase its fees by 14% to account for the VAT effect, whereas the company (likely already VAT registered) will be able to claim the increase back as an input tax credit from SARS. From a compliance perspective though this is extremely burdensome, especially in the context where SARS is already extremely reluctant to register taxpayers for VAT.

Both rulings are applicable with effect from 1 June 2017. From a VAT perspective especially this is to be noted as VAT registrations would need to have been applied for and approved with effect from 1 June 2017 already. The VAT application process will have to be initiated therefore by implicated individuals as a matter of urgency, as this can take several weeks to complete.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)