Withholding of employees’ tax during liquidation proceedings

In CSARS v Pieters and others, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was tasked with deciding whether liquidators were required to withhold employees’ tax from payments made to employees under section 98A of the Insolvency Act. The company in question was an insolvent transport company which had employed approximately 700 people. Forty-five days after the appointment of the liquidators, the employment contracts for these employees were terminated under section 38(9) of the Insolvency Act.

During the liquidation process, the employees accrued salary entitlements, leave pay and severance pay. The liquidators determined the quantum hereof and paid amounts owing to them in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency Act.

SARS objected to the liquidation and distribution (L&D) account lodged by the liquidators, on the basis that no provision had been made for the payment of employees’ tax (PAYE) in respect of the payments made by the liquidators. The Master of the High Court accepted SARS’ objection and ordered the liquidators to amend the L&D Account to reflect the employees’ tax as administration costs and deduct the actual employees’ tax payable from their liquidators’ fee.

As stated above, the key issue that the SCA had to decide was whether the liquidators were obliged to withhold employees’ tax on payments made in terms of section 98A of the Insolvency Act.

SARS argued that the liquidators fell within the definition of “employer” where they made these payments. The Master of the High Court agreed and ordered the liquidator to amend the liquidation and distribution account.

The SCA held that the provisions in the Insolvency Act were clearly social justice provisions aimed at alleviating the plight of being unpaid as an employee as a result of the financial woes of an employer. The court held that the provisions in the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act do therefore not apply to payments made under section 98A of the Insolvency Act. To categorise PAYE as costs of administration would have the effect that income tax, attributable to the company’s trade before liquidation and which thus becomes payable before the liquidation, would also be a cost of administration. That is plainly untenable. On this basis, SARS’ appeal was dismissed.

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)

SARS changes to employer statement of account

The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has recently made changes with regards to the management of payroll taxes in order for employers to more effectively manage their own accounts by way of a number of functions and tools.

SARS states that the aim of these changes is to allow employers to ensure that all their necessary payroll filings are correctly reflected, payments have been correctly allocated and that all charges to their accounts such as adjustments, interest and penalties have been correctly calculated and recorded.

The most recent changes include changes to the statement of account (“SOA”) which were introduced on 26 April 2019. These changes followed complaints by employers of errors on these accounts.

The purpose of the SOA is to reflect the balance and detailed transactions for a tax year with regards to Pay-As-You-Earn (“PAYE”), the Skills Development Levy, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Employer Tax Incentive (“ETI”) in order to allow for employers to complete their Employer Reconciliation Declaration bi-annually.

In order to make the SOA more clear and comprehensible, SARS made changes to the manner in which financial information is being displayed. In this regard, enhanced descriptions were included for liability and non-liability transactions. Also, all liability transactions are now grouped together and sorted in transaction date order. The exemption to this is any non-financial transactions with a date earlier than the first day of the period under consideration.

In order to identify payments and to better reconcile them with the employer’s bank statements, the SOA now also makes provision for receipt numbers for payments and journals.

Furthermore, ETI transactions (which have no impact on the PAYE account) are now grouped together and reflected at the bottom of the SOA.

In addition to the above, employers previously had to request SARS to make payment reallocations and corrections on their behalf. The monthly employer declaration (“EMP201”) and payment reference number (“PRN”) system was introduced to allow employers to amend their declarations and payments themselves. This tool also allows employers to identify and follow-up on incorrect or missing transactions using the consolidated employer SOA and query function as well as to correct unallocated payments.

Employers also have access to their financial accounts online to view and query transactions processed against their accounts in real-time. SARS also allows for a case management system where employers will be able to log queries, they are unable to resolve themselves and to monitor and track SARS’ progress with regards to the query logged.

With the annual employer reconciliations submission deadline now at 31 May 2019, employers are encouraged to use all these amended functions and tools to submit accurate information and to manage their payroll taxes more effectively in the future.

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)

Employees’ tax (part 1): Personal service providers

For there to be an obligation for PAYE to be withheld is typically dependent on three elements being present. These elements are all defined in the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act[1] and include the presence of an employer, an employee and the payment of remuneration. No employees’ tax can be charged if one of these elements is absent.

As a result of certain avoidance structures being implemented to avoid employees’ tax, specific tax provisions were introduced dealing with “personal service providers” (or “PSPs”) to combat such possible instances of tax avoidance and to limit the available deductions from income in the determination of taxable income for these entities.[2] What individual taxpayers would do to limit their effective tax rate (and to ensure that PAYE is not withheld from remuneration paid to them) otherwise would be to earn their salaries in entities controlled by them. In other words, an employee would arrange with his/her employer that a company owned by the employee would rather be rendering the same services as an employee to the employer. This company would then earn remuneration, even though it would be performing exactly the same services as the employee otherwise would have and had that individual not rendered those services through that company.

It was therefore necessary to include a PSP in the definition of “employee” for tax purposes. A PSP can be a company, close corporation or trust, where any service rendered on behalf of the entity to its client (the would-be employer) is rendered personally by any person who stands in a connected person relationship to such entity. One of three additional requirements must be met for an entity to be a PSP:

  • The client would have regarded the person as an employee if the service was not rendered through the entity.
  • Alternatively, the person must render the service mainly at the premise of the client and he/she is subject to control and supervision of that client as to the manner in which the duties are performed.
  • More than 80% of the income derived from services rendered by the company is received from one client.[3]

A PSP is deemed to be an “employee”[4] and any remuneration[5] received by the PSP is subject to the withholding of employees’ tax in the form of PAYE too. Income tax deductions for PSPs are themselves also severely limited, typically akin to what would have been the case for individual employees themselves. It is recommended that clients of potential PSPs should have policies and systems in place to correctly identify and withhold tax from these entities.

[1] No. 58 of 1962.

[2] Also see SARS Interpretation Note 35 (Issue 4) dated 28 March 2018.

[3] Also includes any associated person in relation to the client.

[4] See the definition of “employee” in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act.

[5] See the definition in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to 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)

Employer Annual Reconciliation Due

Nwanda_PAYE-02

Employers should be aware that Employer Annual Reconciliation submission due date is fast approaching. If the relevant deadlines are missed, certain penalties will apply.

When should it be paid?

The Employer Annual Reconciliation starts on 1 April 2018 and employers have until 31 May 2018 to submit their Annual Reconciliation Declarations (EMP501) for the period 1 March 2017 to 28 February 2018 in respect of the Monthly Employer Declarations (EMP201) submitted, payments made, Employee Income Tax Certificates [IRP5/IT3(a)], and ETI, if applicable.

What do I need to do?

Employer Annual Reconciliation involves an employer submitting an accurate Employer Reconciliation Declaration (EMP501), Employee Tax Certificates [IRP5/IT3(a)s] to be issued and, if applicable, a Tax Certificate Cancellation Declaration (EMP601).

Every employer who is registered at SARS for Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE), Unemployment Insurance Fund(UIF) or Skills Development Levy(SDL), should submit an EMP501. An employer is required to submit an accurate reconciliation declaration (EMP501) in respect of the monthly declarations (EMP201) that was submitted, payments made and the IRP5 / IT3(a) certificates for the following periods:

  • Annual period: this is for the period from 1 March 2017 to 28 February 2018
  • Interim period: this is for the period from 1 March 2018 to 31 August 2018

What is PAYE?

Employees Tax refers to the tax required to be deducted by an employer from an employee’s remuneration paid or payable. The process of deducting or withholding tax from remuneration as it is earned by an employee is commonly referred to as Pay-As-You-Earn, or PAYE.

What happens when you miss the deadline?

Employers who miss deadline submissions on any of the below are subject to a percentage-based penalty:

  1. Non-submission of an Employer Annual Reconciliation (EMP501) on or before the due date.
  2. Non-submission of employee IRP5 / IT3(a) certificates.
  3. Submission of incorrect or inaccurate data relating to the IRP5 / IT3(a) certificates.

This penalty will be charged for each month that the employer continues to fail to remedy the non-submission.

Avoid the confusion and late submission by contacting us for assistance.

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)

Tax consultancy services:
A fringe benefit?

A recent judgment of the Tax Court sitting in Pretoria[1] highlighted yet again the very broad nature of the employment fringe benefit regime governed by the Seventh Schedule of the Income Tax Act[2] and as applies to goods and services provided to employees through an employer. As a general principle, employees’ benefits received from their employers in whatever form could potentially be treated as part of employees’ remuneration and therefore subject to income tax in their hands. Such fringe benefits are therefore also subject to the PAYE regime and which should be applied by employers in withholding PAYE on the value of such benefits.

Paragraph (i) to the “gross income” definition in section 1 of the Income Tax Act specifically includes in gross income “… the cash equivalent, as determined under the provisions of the Seventh Schedule, of the value during the year of assessment of any benefit or advantage granted in respect of employment or to the holder of any office, being a taxable benefit as defined in the said Schedule…”.

In the particular tax court case, a South African subsidiary company, forming part of an international corporate group, employed non-resident employees as part of a global secondment programme which the group was implementing. In terms of that secondment programme, employees were guaranteed an after-tax salary amount of not less than what the employees would have received in their country of residence while working for the South African subsidiary company. In other words, where a higher tax charge would be levied in South Africa on remuneration earned, the South African subsidiary would carry that cost on behalf of that employee.

In order to implement this complex “Tax Equalisation Scheme”, the South African employer company contracted the services of a firm of tax consultants to assist the non-resident employees to submit their tax returns in accordance with the South African income tax laws, and also to ensure that the returns reflect the correct information to give effect to the “Tax Equalisation Scheme”.

The Tax Court found that the services which the tax consultants provided, although arguably necessary for purposes of fulfilment of the employer’s contractual arrangement towards its employees, were in essence a service rendered to the employees and not the employer, even though the tax consultants’ services were paid for and contracted by the employer. As a result, these services constituted a “benefit or advantage” for the employees as envisaged in the gross income definition quoted above, and moreover such services were provided for the “private or domestic purposes” of the employees in question.[3] As a result, the appeal against the PAYE assessment raised by SARS in the amount of R2.4m was dismissed.

Although a fact-specific judgment, it nevertheless again highlights the very broad nature potentially of the PAYE regime. Given the heavy penalties and other sanctions linked to a contravention of the provisions of the Fourth Schedule (which governs the collection and payment of PAYE, which may also be levied on fringe benefits received by employees), employers are advised to approach the tax consequences of employee benefits with caution.

[1] Case No IT13775

[2] 58 of 1962

[3] Paragraph 2(e) of the Seventh Schedule to 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)

Third provisional tax payments

Provisional taxpayers are required to submit two returns annually: one after six months from the start of the relevant year of assessment, and again one on the last day of the relevant tax year.[1] Since provisional taxpayers are taxpayers who earn income in a form other than salaried income (and from which PAYE is deducted every month), the fiscus relies on the provisional tax regime to ensure a steady cash flow throughout a tax year by requiring provisional taxpayers to file returns twice during the course of the year of assessment.

By virtue of returns being filed during the course of a tax year, provisional tax is paid over on estimates of provisional tax. Practically, it is difficult for provisional taxpayers to know exactly how much tax is actually required to be paid by them at that stage already, be it six months into a tax year or on the final day of the tax year. Therefore, it is quite possible that provisional taxpayers may, after the conclusion of a relevant tax year, realise that the estimates submitted were insufficient and would be less than the eventual tax that will ultimately be payable once a final tax calculation is performed. The Income Tax Act therefore provides for a so-called “top up” payment to be made by provisional taxpayers within 6 months after the end of the relevant year of assessment (or 7 months, if the taxpayer’s tax year ends on February).[2]

“Top up” or third payments of provisional tax provide provisional taxpayers with two distinct advantages. First, it allows for a cash flow benefit whereby taxpayers are able to manage their future cash flows by opting to make an additional payment towards taxes that will eventually in any event become due once an annual income tax return is ultimately submitted and assessed. Secondly, a third provisional tax payment also carries with it a significant concession in the form of an interest benefit. Whereas interest would ordinarily accrue in favour of the fiscus on underpaid provisional tax and calculated from the first day following the end of the year of assessment,[3] timely third payments of provisional tax are deemed to have been made on the last day of the year of assessment, in other words together with the second provisional tax payment.

Example: XYZ (Pty) Ltd’s 2017 tax year ends on 30 April 2017. It submitted Rnil provisional tax returns for both its first and second provisional tax estimates. Subsequently though, in finalising its 2017 year accounts, it is realised that XYZ (Pty) Ltd made a significant taxable capital gain of R10 million during the 2017 financial year and which it did not take into account previously in submitting its provisional tax estimates. If it were to pay the taxes due on this amount as a third provisional tax payment by 31 October 2017, no interest will be levied against it on the amount once an assessment for 2017 is issued. If however no third provisional tax payment is made, interest will levied on the underpaid amount with effect from 1 May 2017 upon the issuing of an assessment.

[1] Paragraphs 21 and 23 of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962

[2] Paragraph 23A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962

[3] Section 89bis(2) of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962

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)

SARS now outsourcing Debt Collection

In an attempt to recover outstanding debt worth over R15-billion, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) has outsourced confidential taxpayer information from its debt book to selected service providers. (See notification letter). The outsourcing project, which was implemented on 1 June 2016, appointed the following service providers: CSS Credit Solutions, NDS Credit Management and Trifecta Capital.

The unpaid taxes include Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and Skills Development Levy (SDL) contributions which have remained outstanding for longer than four years by private companies and individuals.

We strongly urge you to contact our office for assistance should SARS or any of their appointed debt collectors contact you regarding an old debt.

Contact us here now

Salary sacrifice schemes – Latest judgment by supreme court of appeal

Salary sacrifice schemes are popular in practice.  Typically, they involve employers paying a decreased salary to their employees, with an added fringe benefit to make up for the lost ‘cost to company’ sacrificed by the employee to obtain the benefit.  For example, an employee may prefer to enter into a salary sacrifice with his/her employer in exchange for being allowed to use an employer provided motor vehicle or accommodation.

From both the employer and employee’s perspective, the income tax and PAYE consequences linked thereto are very often unchanged.  The decreased salary paid by the employer is deductible for income tax purposes as well as such expenditure incurred to provide the benefit to the employee, whilst the employee is subject to income tax on both the decreased cash amount received as a salary as well as the fringe benefit provided by the employer.  The employer is also liable to withhold PAYE as calculated on the total remuneration paid to the employee (which would include both the decreased salary amount as well as the fringe benefit provided).  (See the Seventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962.)

The salary sacrifice scheme of Anglo Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd recently came under scrutiny.  After having lost in the Tax Court, Anglo Platinum appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (Anglo Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd v CSARS [2015] ZASCA 180 (30/11/2015)).  In essence, the appeal involved a salary sacrifice scheme implemented by Anglo Platinum whereby it would purchase motor vehicles – selected by its employees – for use by its employees, in exchange for the employees agreeing to a salary sacrifice equal to the value of the benefit.  The vehicles would remain the property of Anglo Platinum until enough has been sacrificed by the respective employees to equate to the purchase amount of the vehicles plus interest calculated thereon.

During this period, Anglo Platinum withheld PAYE on both the salaries paid to its employees, as well as the value of the fringe benefit derived by the employees in using Anglo Platinum’s motor vehicles.  This is hardly contentious, and SARS did not dispute this treatment.  What was in dispute however was whether there really was a salary sacrifice, and whether PAYE should not also have been withheld on the sacrificed amount (and the employees therefore taxed on this amount too).  SARS argued that the scheme, although valid, was incorrectly implemented.  In essence, so the argument went, the employees were still receiving their full salaries, and amounts withheld from their salaries were in essence payments made to the employer to facilitate funding for the acquisition of the vehicles.  SARS cited two main indications in support of this, being that the employees were ostensibly responsible for insurance payments on the vehicles, and that notional accounts with payments, interest and related vehicle expenses were kept:  employees would be responsible to pay any shortfall amounts on these accounts, and similarly be entitled to access any credits available on excess amounts withheld.

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Anglo Platinum’s appeal, largely based on the evidence of Anglo Platinum’s Mr Broodryk who testified on behalf of the taxpayer and who devised and implemented the scheme.  It is clear that the court placed great emphasis on the implementation of the scheme to objectively consider whether the scheme in implementation reflected a true salary sacrifice by employees.

The legal matters in the case are not contentious.  At issue is the implementation which is what so often goes awry where tax related advice is concerned.  Our clients should take note of this:  it is not good enough to have a positive tax opinion as regards a proposed structure or transaction.  It is necessary, if not essential, to involve your tax experts in implementation too, be it in salary sacrifice matter, or any other transaction.  Had Anglo Platinum not heeded this principle, the judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal may very well have gone in SARS’ favour.

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)

Salary sacrifice schemes – latest judgment by the supreme court of appeal

Salary sacrifice schemes are popular in practice. Typically, they involve employers paying a decreased salary to their employees, with an added fringe benefit to make up for the lost ‘cost to company’ sacrificed by the employee to obtain the benefit.  For example, an employee may prefer to enter into a salary sacrifice with his/her employer in exchange for being allowed to use an employer provided motor vehicle or accommodation.

From both the employer and employee’s perspective, the income tax and PAYE consequences linked thereto are very often unchanged.  The decreased salary paid by the employer is deductible for income tax purposes as well as such expenditure incurred to provide the benefit to the employee, whilst the employee is subject to income tax on both the decreased cash amount received as a salary as well as the fringe benefit provided by the employer.  The employer is also liable to withhold PAYE as calculated on the total remuneration paid to the employee (which would include both the decreased salary amount as well as the fringe benefit provided).  (See the Seventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962.)

The salary sacrifice scheme of Anglo Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd recently came under scrutiny.  After having lost in the Tax Court, Anglo Platinum appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (Anglo Platinum Management Services (Pty) Ltd v CSARS [2015] ZASCA 180 (30/11/2015)).  In essence, the appeal involved a salary sacrifice scheme implemented by Anglo Platinum whereby it would purchase motor vehicles – selected by its employees – for use by its employees, in exchange for the employees agreeing to a salary sacrifice equal to the value of the benefit.  The vehicles would remain the property of Anglo Platinum until enough has been sacrificed by the respective employees to equate to the purchase amount of the vehicles plus interest calculated thereon.

During this period, Anglo Platinum withheld PAYE on both the salaries paid to its employees, as well as the value of the fringe benefit derived by the employees in using Anglo Platinum’s motor vehicles.  This is hardly contentious, and SARS did not dispute this treatment.  What was in dispute however was whether there really was a salary sacrifice, and whether PAYE should not also have been withheld on the sacrificed amount (and the employees therefore taxed on this amount too).  SARS argued that the scheme, although valid, was incorrectly implemented.  In essence, so the argument went, the employees were still receiving their full salaries, and amounts withheld from their salaries were in essence payments made to the employer to facilitate funding for the acquisition of the vehicles.  SARS cited two main indications in support of this, being that the employees were ostensibly responsible for insurance payments on the vehicles, and that notional accounts with payments, interest and related vehicle expenses were kept:  employees would be responsible to pay any shortfall amounts on these accounts, and similarly be entitled to access any credits available on excess amounts withheld.

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Anglo Platinum’s appeal, largely based on the evidence of Anglo Platinum’s Mr Broodryk who testified on behalf of the taxpayer and who devised and implemented the scheme.  It is clear that the court placed great emphasis on the implementation of the scheme to objectively consider whether the scheme in implementation reflected a true salary sacrifice by employees.

The legal matters in the case are not contentious.  At issue is the implementation which is what so often goes awry where tax related advice is concerned.  Our clients should take note of this:  it is not good enough to have a positive tax opinion as regards a proposed structure or transaction.  It is necessary, if not essential, to involve your tax experts in implementation too, be it in salary sacrifice matter, or any other transaction.  Had Anglo Platinum not heeded this principle, the judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal may very well have gone in SARS’ favor.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on 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)