A comparative analysis of the new behaviours and terms introduced in the understatement penalty table in section 223 of the Tax Administration Act
- Authors: Doolan, Kim
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: South Africa. Tax Administration Act, 2011 , Taxation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax administration and procedure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax penalties -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxpayer compliance -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/5802 , vital:20977
- Description: The Tax Administration Act became effective on the 1 October 2012 and in Chapter 16 introduced the understatement penalty regime which replaced section 76 of the Income Tax Act. The understatement penalty is calculated by applying a percentage in terms of the table included in section 223 of the Tax Administration Act to the shortfall in tax giving rise to the imposition of the penalty. There are five behaviours reflected in the understatement penalty table in section 223, namely, “substantial understatement”, “reasonable care not taken in completing return”, “no reasonable grounds for tax position taken”, “gross negligence” and “intentional tax evasion”. “Substantial understatement” is the only behaviour defined in the Tax Administration Act. Section 222(1) of the Tax Administration Act requires SARS to impose the penalty reflected in the table in the event of an “understatement”, unless the “understatement” results from a “bona fide inadvertent error”. The term “bona fide inadvertent error” is not defined in the Tax Administration Act; neither is the term “obstructive”. The Memorandum on the Objects of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill confirmed that guidance would be developed in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials. This guidance has not yet been released. Media reports express the view that the lack of definition of the behaviours is problematic for both SARS and taxpayers as the table is new and there is still room for interpretation and understanding of the meaning of each of the behaviours. The primary goal of this study was is to obtain a better understanding of the meaning of the new behaviours and terms introduced in the understatement penalty table. In addressing this main goal, the penalty tables and behaviours in legislation in New Zealand were compared to South Africa’s understatement penalty. The similarities and differences between the understatement penalty imposed in terms of Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act and the additional tax previously imposed in terms of section 76 of the Income Tax Act were also discussed to determine whether this would be of assistance in enabling a better understanding of the meaning of the behaviours and terms in section 223. Guidance on the interpretation of the various behaviours and terms was developed and a definition was proposed for the meaning of “bona fide inadvertent error” and “obstructive” to assist in the objective and consistent application of the understatement penalty table in relation to each shortfall identified. The proposed definition for “bona fide inadvertent error” is as follows: “An honest mistake made or simple oversight, which the taxpayer was not aware of, despite taking reasonable care and displaying a prudent attitude while making a genuine attempt to comply with all applicable tax obligations.” The definition for “obstructive” is proposed as: “Deliberately interfering with, causing difficulties (impeding) or delays in, or preventing the progress of a SARS audit or review.”
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Doolan, Kim
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: South Africa. Tax Administration Act, 2011 , Taxation -- South Africa , Taxation -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax administration and procedure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax penalties -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Taxpayer compliance -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/5802 , vital:20977
- Description: The Tax Administration Act became effective on the 1 October 2012 and in Chapter 16 introduced the understatement penalty regime which replaced section 76 of the Income Tax Act. The understatement penalty is calculated by applying a percentage in terms of the table included in section 223 of the Tax Administration Act to the shortfall in tax giving rise to the imposition of the penalty. There are five behaviours reflected in the understatement penalty table in section 223, namely, “substantial understatement”, “reasonable care not taken in completing return”, “no reasonable grounds for tax position taken”, “gross negligence” and “intentional tax evasion”. “Substantial understatement” is the only behaviour defined in the Tax Administration Act. Section 222(1) of the Tax Administration Act requires SARS to impose the penalty reflected in the table in the event of an “understatement”, unless the “understatement” results from a “bona fide inadvertent error”. The term “bona fide inadvertent error” is not defined in the Tax Administration Act; neither is the term “obstructive”. The Memorandum on the Objects of the Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill confirmed that guidance would be developed in this regard for the use of taxpayers and SARS officials. This guidance has not yet been released. Media reports express the view that the lack of definition of the behaviours is problematic for both SARS and taxpayers as the table is new and there is still room for interpretation and understanding of the meaning of each of the behaviours. The primary goal of this study was is to obtain a better understanding of the meaning of the new behaviours and terms introduced in the understatement penalty table. In addressing this main goal, the penalty tables and behaviours in legislation in New Zealand were compared to South Africa’s understatement penalty. The similarities and differences between the understatement penalty imposed in terms of Chapter 16 of the Tax Administration Act and the additional tax previously imposed in terms of section 76 of the Income Tax Act were also discussed to determine whether this would be of assistance in enabling a better understanding of the meaning of the behaviours and terms in section 223. Guidance on the interpretation of the various behaviours and terms was developed and a definition was proposed for the meaning of “bona fide inadvertent error” and “obstructive” to assist in the objective and consistent application of the understatement penalty table in relation to each shortfall identified. The proposed definition for “bona fide inadvertent error” is as follows: “An honest mistake made or simple oversight, which the taxpayer was not aware of, despite taking reasonable care and displaying a prudent attitude while making a genuine attempt to comply with all applicable tax obligations.” The definition for “obstructive” is proposed as: “Deliberately interfering with, causing difficulties (impeding) or delays in, or preventing the progress of a SARS audit or review.”
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
The illegal diamond trade in South Africa and its tax consequences
- Authors: Kumm-Schmidt, Megan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Diamond industry and trade -- South Africa , Diamond industry and trade -- Corrupt practices -- South Africa , Diamond industry and trade -- South Africa -- Taxation , Conflict diamonds -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax evasion -- South Africa , South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , South Africa. Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 , South Africa. Tax Administration Act, 2011 , South Africa. ǂt Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 , Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/4389 , vital:20656
- Description: The object of the research was to discuss the taxability of the illegal diamond trade in South Africa and to identify the consequences of not declaring income obtained from the illegal diamond trade to the South African Revenue Services. The research was conducted by means of a critical analysis of documentary data with specific reference to the Income Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax (VAT) Act, the Tax Administration Act and relevant case law. The Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act were referred to in relation to the tax consequences of the illegal diamond trade and the Tax Administration Act was used to determine the consequences of not declaring income to the South African Revenue Services. It was established that amounts received from the sale of illegal diamonds are to be included in the taxpayer's gross income, whilst in relation to income received from diamond theft it was not as clear. The MP Finance Group case held that the nature of the receipt and the way in which the transaction occurred in each individual situation will be the deciding factor as to whether or not the stolen diamonds will be taxable in the hands of the thief. The buying and selling of "blood" or stolen diamonds can amount to a trade. As there have been no definitive case decisions in South Africa, it remains unclear whether expenses relating to an illegal trade are deductible. Assuming that expenses relating to an illegal trade are deductible, the provisions of section 11(a) will apply to expenses incurred as a result of dealing in illegal diamonds and it was concluded that qualifying expenses will be deductible. A taxpayer buying and selling "blood" or stolen diamonds is required to register for VAT if sales exceed the threshold and would be required to account for VAT on these transactions. If the taxpayer does not declare the income for income tax purposes or register for and pay VAT to the South African Revenue Services from either the sale of illegal diamonds or the theft of diamonds, this will amount to tax evasion and the dealer will be subject to penalties and even imprisonment
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Kumm-Schmidt, Megan
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Diamond industry and trade -- South Africa , Diamond industry and trade -- Corrupt practices -- South Africa , Diamond industry and trade -- South Africa -- Taxation , Conflict diamonds -- South Africa , Income tax -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Tax evasion -- South Africa , South Africa. Income Tax Act, 1962 , South Africa. Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 , South Africa. Tax Administration Act, 2011 , South Africa. ǂt Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 , Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MCom
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/4389 , vital:20656
- Description: The object of the research was to discuss the taxability of the illegal diamond trade in South Africa and to identify the consequences of not declaring income obtained from the illegal diamond trade to the South African Revenue Services. The research was conducted by means of a critical analysis of documentary data with specific reference to the Income Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax (VAT) Act, the Tax Administration Act and relevant case law. The Income Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act were referred to in relation to the tax consequences of the illegal diamond trade and the Tax Administration Act was used to determine the consequences of not declaring income to the South African Revenue Services. It was established that amounts received from the sale of illegal diamonds are to be included in the taxpayer's gross income, whilst in relation to income received from diamond theft it was not as clear. The MP Finance Group case held that the nature of the receipt and the way in which the transaction occurred in each individual situation will be the deciding factor as to whether or not the stolen diamonds will be taxable in the hands of the thief. The buying and selling of "blood" or stolen diamonds can amount to a trade. As there have been no definitive case decisions in South Africa, it remains unclear whether expenses relating to an illegal trade are deductible. Assuming that expenses relating to an illegal trade are deductible, the provisions of section 11(a) will apply to expenses incurred as a result of dealing in illegal diamonds and it was concluded that qualifying expenses will be deductible. A taxpayer buying and selling "blood" or stolen diamonds is required to register for VAT if sales exceed the threshold and would be required to account for VAT on these transactions. If the taxpayer does not declare the income for income tax purposes or register for and pay VAT to the South African Revenue Services from either the sale of illegal diamonds or the theft of diamonds, this will amount to tax evasion and the dealer will be subject to penalties and even imprisonment
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »