Interest free loans and trusts

The recent introduction of section 7C to the Income Tax Act[1] brought the taxation of trusts, and the funding thereof specifically, under the spotlight again. Briefly, section 7C seeks to levy donations tax on loans owing by trusts to connected parties (typically beneficiaries or the companies they control). To the extent that interest is not charged, a donation is deemed to be made by the creditor annually amounting to the difference between the interest actually charged (if at all), and interest that would have been charged had a rate of prime – 2.5% applied.

What many lose focus of is that interest free (or low interest) loans have income tax consequences too, over and above the potential donations tax consequence arising by virtue of section 7C. Section 7 of the Income Tax Act is specifically relevant. This section aims to ensure that taxpayers are not able to donate assets away and which would rid themselves of a taxable income stream.

In broad terms, section 7 deems any income that accrues to a trust or beneficiary to be the income of the donor if the income accrues from an asset previously the subject of a “donation, settlement or other disposition”. In other words, where a person donates a property to a trust, the rental income generated will not be taxed in the hands of the beneficiary or the trust, but in the hands of the donor. Section 7 therefore acts as an anti-avoidance provision to ensure that taxpayers do not “shift” tax onto persons subject to less tax through donating income producing assets out of their own estates.

It is interesting to now consider what an “other disposition” would amount to. Various cases have confirmed that an interest free loan would be treated as such and that, to the extent that interest is not charged, this would amount to a continuing donation.[2] The implication thereof is this: assume the funder of a discretionary trust sells a property to that trust on interest free loan account. Any rental earned would ordinarily have been taxed in the hands of the trust or the beneficiary, depending on whether distributions will have been made. However, since section 7 will apply to the extent that no interest was charged on the loan account, a portion of the rental income will now be taxable in the hands of the trust funder.

The take-away is that donations to trusts have income tax implications for the donor too, over and above a donations tax consequence. This will also be the case where interest free loans are involved.

[1] 58 of 1962

[2] Honiball and Olivier, The Taxation of Trusts (2009) at p. 84 and following

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)

Capital gains and cancelled sales

Many transactions in terms in which assets are sold are subject to suspensive conditions. In terms of such agreements, the sales transaction will only take place once all the suspensive conditions have been met.[1] Many other agreements may however be subject to a resolutive condition. A resolutive condition involves one whereby an agreement is cancelled if that condition is subsequently met. For example, where a person (A) sells a vehicle to B, subject to the condition that the agreement be cancelled if B is unable to obtain a driving license within a year, such a condition could be described as a resolutive condition. From a legal perspective, it is important to understand though that a valid agreement of sale had already been entered into between A and B, irrespective thereof that a year has not yet passed within which B is afforded the opportunity to obtain the contemplated driving license. This is also the case for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes. Only later, if the resolutive condition is met, is the agreement cancelled with retrospective effect.

Where a resolutive condition becomes operational, and a historic sale cancelled, this may give rise to practical problems for the seller from a CGT perspective. A CGT cost may already have been suffered in a previous year of assessment in relation to the asset disposed of. Now that the sale is cancelled, a taxpayer cannot revisit previous returns already submitted. The Income Tax Act only makes provision for a capital loss to be created in those instances,[2] but which in and of itself does not necessarily carry any value. Consider for example where future capital gains will not be realised again by the taxpayer and against which it can set-off the loss now created. It is possible therefore for a person to pay CGT on a transaction that was cancelled subsequently.

Such a scenario recently played itself out in the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in New Adventure Shelf 122 (Pty) Ltd v CSARS.[3] There the taxpayer had sold a property near Stilbaai in September 2006 and declared a capital gain of R9,746,875 to SARS. On this amount, a CGT cost of R1,413,007 arose. Due to financial problems on the side of the purchaser however, the agreement was cancelled in November 2011 and the property returned to the seller. The seller now sought to reopen its past assessments to correct the declaration of the capital gains declared that no longer could be said to have arisen for those years of assessment. SARS would not allow this, and the taxpayer unsuccessfully sought to initiate review proceedings against SARS in the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the taxpayer was again unsuccessful.

The Court confirmed that tax was an annual event. “In summary, the cancellation of the sale did not entitle the appellant to have his tax liability for the 2007 year re-assessed.” And elsewhere the Court reminded again that “… even if in certain instances it may seem ‘unfair’ for a taxpayer to pay a tax which is payable under a statutory obligation to do so, there is nothing unjust about it. Payment of tax is what the law prescribes, and tax laws are not always regarded as ‘fair’. The tax statute must be applied even if in certain circumstances a taxpayer may feel aggrieved at the outcome.”

[1] Paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962

[2] Paragraph 3 and 4 of the Eighth Schedule

[3] (310/2016) [2017] ZASCA 29 (28 March 2017)

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)

Are Retirement Annuities still useful?

Retirement annuities are often misunderstood and many people, or their parents, have had bad experiences with tem in the past. This sentiment often relates to the investment performance and possibly also the charges related with these products. Some facts need to be considered before you discard this very useful investment vehicle for yourself.

When talking about financial planning and investments it is not uncommon that people say and hold opinions such as “I don’t like retirement annuities, they are terrible investments!” Usually it has to do with the performance and people can’t understand how after 10 years of contributing to a retirement annuity (RA), it is worth less than the amount they have put in.

This sentiment leads to a variety of discussion points, ranging from the fact that an RA is an investment vehicle or product wrapper, not an investment strategy or fund itself, to the fact that returns achieved are as a result of the underlying asset classes invested into, and will thus vary from one RA to the next.

What is meant by an investment vehicle or product wrapper?

Simply put often an investment vehicle, or product wrapper, has been created by legislation and usually tax legislation. Well at least that is the case for RA’s.

The government has for a long time been concerned that people do not save enough money for retirement, and ultimately people that are unable to work due to old age become a burden on the state. The state therefore has to address this and has therefore created specific tax treatments for RA’s in order to encourage people to use them to save for retirement specifically.

The idea is not to get too technical here, as the purpose of this information is not to go deeply into the tax benefits of RA’s save to say that the product wrapper known as an RA is merely one that carries these tax benefits. Briefly however, the contributions that are paid towards an RA are deductible from your gross income, the growth within the product is tax free, and on retirement there are certain tax free portions and thereafter different (more beneficial) tax rates for the lump sum benefits which do get paid out. You should get more information on this from your financial advisor.

What is meant by a fund?

If one understands that the RA is merely the product wrapper used and that this has nothing to do with the investment funds chosen for the actual money that is invested in this wrapper then we can start talking about investment performance. It should now be clear that the two are separate matters. Although it did not necessarily work this way in the past, but most modern RA’s now have a choice of funds the same, or at least very similar, to the funds used to make any other investment. One can even get an RA with a managed stock portfolio as an underlying investment.

The choice of funds is now up to you, with guidance from your financial advisor. The underlying assets of the fund must be matched to the objectives you are trying to achieve and your risk profile as an investor. As the objective of RA’s – retirement, is something that will usually only happen many years down the line you have the time available to use a lot of equity in your portfolio. Equity will give you the best returns over a longer period of time.

So by choosing the write underlying investment portfolio for your product wrapper, in this instance the RA, you would find that the investment performance of your RA should be no different had you invested in the fund directly and not used an RA, except that you have added tax benefits, which can actually boost your returns. You now have the tax benefits of the RA product wrapper and the performance of the fund you chose to invest in. Now your only hurdle is choosing the right underlying investment.

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)

UFS Sport day

Thank you to the Newtons staff for assisting at the annual UFS Sport day. Four hundred students participated in this fun event. The idea behind this is to give companies exclusive time with the students and the opportunity to present to the students a little of the culture of the companies.

IMG_3299
IMG_3300
IMG_3302
IMG_3304
IMG_3324

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)

Apportionment of VAT input claims

Generally speaking, the VAT portion of expenditure incurred by a VAT vendor in carrying on its enterprise may be claimed back from SARS when the VAT vendor submits is VAT returns on a periodical basis. Typically, these input tax claims are set off against the output tax liability that the VAT vendor may have. However, it is also often the case that the total input tax claims for a certain period may exceed the total output tax amount payable, resulting in a net refund amount due to the vendor for that particular period.

Section 17 of the VAT Act, 89 of 1991, governs the circumstances and the extent to which a registered VAT vendor may claim input tax to be set off against the output tax due to SARS. It specifically addresses those circumstances when goods or services are acquired partly for use as part of the VAT vendor’s enterprise, and partly for purposes of making VAT exempt or personal supplies. In such instances section 17(1) limits the amount of input tax to be claimed to “… an amount which bears to the full amount of such tax or amount, as the case may be, the same ratio (as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with a ruling …) as the intended use of such goods or services in the course of making taxable supplies bears to the total intended use of such goods or services”.

The ruling referred to in section 17(1) (Binding General Ruling 16, Issue 2) sets out the formula as:

y = a / (a + b + c) x 100

Where:
“y” =      the apportionment ratio/percentage;
“a” =    the value of all taxable supplies (including deemed taxable supplies) made during
the period;
“b” =      the value of all exempt supplies made during the period; and
“c” =    the sum of any other amounts not included in “a” or “b” in the formula, which were received or which accrued during the period (whether in respect of a supply or not).

In other words, the calculation referred to aims to limit the input tax deduction to the extent that the expenditure item in question is incurred in the furtherance of the VAT enterprise only.

The calculation assumes that expenditure would be incurred by the VAT vendor generally proportionate to the total taxable supplies made by the enterprise vis-à-vis non-taxable supplies. It may very well be that that this assumption is inapplicable based on the facts of the VAT vendor. For example, where a company extends interest bearing loans to customers (thus exempt supplies) while also providing consulting services (a standard rate taxable supply), the above formula may very well be applicable to apportion the portion of input tax claimable on e.g. rent paid on offices and used both to earn interest and consulting income. However, where expenditure is incurred e.g. towards training for employees linked directly to the consulting business only, said expenditure would not be partly incurred for making taxable supplies and partly not, but wholly for the furtherance of the VAT enterprise and thus rank wholly as a claim for input tax.

BGR16 itself provides for an alternative basis of apportionment to be applied if a more appropriate basis exists. It should be borne in mind that section 17(1) also only comes into play if there is an apportionment to be made whatsoever.

We have noted that SARS is applying BGR16 strictly as part of VAT audits in recent months and even if it may be inappropriate to do so where it is to the disadvantage of taxpayers. Such instances should be monitored and pointed out to your tax advisors when applicable to take up with the SARS auditors timeously.

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)