Analysis of the interaction between the income tax and capital gains tax provisions applicable to share dealers

Smit, Jacobus Gideon (2013-12)

Thesis (MAccounting)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The interaction between the income tax provisions contained in sections 9B, 9C, 11(a) and 22 of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 (the Act), and the capital gains tax (CGT) provisions of the Eighth Schedule of the Act, are complex and share dealers should approach the tax consequences of share dealing profits with caution. The objective of the assignment was to ensure that the share dealing profits of share dealers (who transact on revenue account) are taxed correctly, with specific reference to the interaction between the aforementioned provisions. This was achieved by considering tax cases, the interpretation notes of the South African Revenue Services (SARS) and commentary of tax writers. Examples of share disposals were incorporated to illustrate that consistency is required between the calculation of profits for income tax and CGT purposes. The guidelines laid down by case law to determine the revenue nature of share disposals were investigated. It was concluded that share dealing profits which are designedly sought for and worked for, either as part of a business operation or not, are of a revenue nature and taxable as such. The method of identification of shares sold as trading stock is important when calculating the income tax profit, since it is used in order to determine both which shares are sold as well as the cost of the shares sold. It was concluded that the method of identification applied in terms of generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP) is generally also acceptable from an income tax perspective. Section 9C of the Act provides a share dealer income tax relief when a ‘qualifying share’ is disposed of. Any amount received or accrued as a result of the disposal of a qualifying share is deemed to be of a capital nature, regardless of the revenue intention of the share dealer. Prior to 1 October 2007, section 9B of the Act provided similar relief to the disposal of an ‘affected share’. It was concluded that section 9C of the Act has a wider scope of application compared to section 9B of the Act. Because the proceeds received on the disposal of affected or qualifying shares are excluded from gross income, the acquisition costs previously incurred and deducted in respect of such shares must be included in taxable income. It was determined that the amount to be included in income is the actual cost of such shares and not the opening trading stock value determined in terms of GAAP and claimed in terms of section 22(2) of the Act. It was concluded that the first-in-first-out (FIFO) method of identification should be applied to determine which affected or qualifying shares have been disposed of. From a CGT perspective, it was illustrated that a share dealer loses the opportunity to choose which identification method to apply and is obliged to also apply the FIFO method in calculating the CGT base cost of the shares. It is concluded that the Eighth Schedule of the Act should be amended to clarify that the FIFO method should be applied for CGT purposes where sections 9B or 9C of the Act find application. Only then will the tax profits of a share dealer be in sync with his or her cash benefit.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die interaksie tussen die inkomstebelastingbepalings vervat in artikels 9B, 9C, 11(a) en 22 van die Inkomstebelastingwet No. 58 van 1962 (die Wet), en die kapitaalwinsbelastingbepalings (KWB bepalings) van die Agtste Bylae tot die Wet is kompleks en aandelehandelaars moet die belastinggevolge van aandelewinste met omsigtigheid benader. Die doelwit van die werkstuk was om te verseker dat die winste van aandelehandelaars (wat aandele verkoop op inkomsterekening) korrek belas word, met spesifieke verwysing na die interaksie tussen die voorgenoemde bepalings. Dit is bereik deur die oorweging van hofsake, uitlegnotas van die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens en kommentaar deur belastingskrywers. Voorbeelde van aandeleverkope is gebruik om te illustreer dat konsekwentheid tussen die berekening van winste vir inkomstebelasting en KWB-doeleindes ‘n vereiste is. Die riglyne wat deur regspraak daargestel is om die inkomste-aard van aandeleverkope vas te stel, is ondersoek. Daar is bevind dat aandelewinste wat opsetlik nagejaag word en voor gewerk word, ongeag of dit deel van die bedryf van 'n besigheid is al dan nie, van ‘n inkomste-aard is en aldus belasbaar is. Die metode van identifikasie van aandele wat as handelsvoorraad verkoop word is belangrik by die berekening die inkomstebelastingwins aangesien dit gebruik word om vas te stel watter aandele verkoop is en wat die koste van die verkoopte aandele is. Daar is bevind dat die metode wat ingevolge algemeen aanvaarde rekeningkundige praktyk (AARP) toegepas is, gewoonlik ook vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes toelaatbaar is. Artikel 9C van die Wet verskaf aan ‘n aandelehandelaar inkomstebelastingverligting met die verkoop van 'n 'kwalifiserende aandeel' deurdat die bedrag ontvang of toegeval geag word van 'n kapitale aard te wees, ongeag die inkomstebedoeling van die aandelehandelaar. Voor 1 Oktober 2007 het artikel 9B van die Wet soortgelyke verligting verskaf met die verkoop van n 'geaffekteerde aandeel’. Daar is vasgestel dat artikel 9C van die Wet 'n wyer toepassing het in vergelyking met artikel 9B van die Wet. Omrede die opbrengs ontvang met die verkoop van geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele uitgesluit word van bruto inkomste, moet die vorige aankoopskostes wat voorheen ten opsigte van die aandele aangegaan en afgetrek is, by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word. Daar is bepaal dat die bedrag wat by belasbare inkomste ingesluit word, die werklike koste van die aandele is en nie die AARP openingswaarde van handelsvoorraad wat ingevolge artikel 22(2) van die Wet geëis nie. Daar is bevind dat die eerste-in-eerste-uit (EIEU) metode van identifikasie gebruik moet word om te bepaal watter geaffekteerde of kwalifiserende aandele verkoop is. Vir KWB doeleindes verloor 'n aandelehandelaar ook die geleentheid om te kan kies watter identifikasiemetode toegepas moet word. Hy of sy is verplig om die EIEU metode toe te pas in die berekening van die KWB basiskoste van die aandele. Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Agtste Bylae van die Wet gewysig moet word om te bevestig dat die EIEU metode toegepas moet word vir KWB doeleindes waar artikels 9B of 9C van die Wet van toepassing is. Slegs dan is die belasbare wins van 'n aandelehandelaar in lyn is met sy of haar kontantvoordeel.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/85830
This item appears in the following collections: