Die impak van die skrapping van artikel 11(bA) op die aftrekbaarheid van voorproduksie lenings kommissie aangegaan in die uitbreiding van 'n bestaande bedryf

Barkhuizen, Gerhard Thomas (2014-12)

Thesis (MAcc) --Stellenbosch University, 2014.

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The study explores the question as to whether income taxpayers are in a more disadvantaged position due to the deletion of section 11(bA) and the replacement thereof with section 11A of the Income Tax Act No.58 of 1962 specifically regarding pre-production raising fees incurred during the expansion of an existing industry. It was found in CSARS v South African Custodial Services (Pty) Ltd that raising fees can be read in under the phrase interest and related finance cost as found in section 11 (bA) and therefore deductible under this provision. Section 11 (bA) was however recently deleted from the South African Income Tax Act and replaced with section 11A. In terms of judicial precedent, stare decisis, it was proved that raising fees will also be deductible in terms of section 24J (section 24J regulates and determines the amount of pre-production raising fees that may be deducted for income tax purposes in terms of section 11A). It was found that pre-production raising fees incurred will be ring-fenced in terms of section 11A until such a time that sufficient taxable income is generated from that specific industry that is being expanded. Section 11 (bA) contains no such ring-fencing restrictions and thus an assessed loss may be created and used against other taxable income of the taxpayer. It was also found that the income tax position of raising fees incurred by the taxpayer is determined by the exact time that the entity starts with the carrying on of a trade in terms of section 11 (bA) and section 11A. To answer the question satisfactorily, four scenarios were examined all with different stages where pre-production raising fees will be deductible in terms of section 11 (bA) and section 11A. The present value of the pre-production raising fees deduction calculated in terms of section 11(bA) and section 11A are compared against each other to ascertain whether or not the income taxpayer is in a more disadvantaged position due to the deletion of section 11(bA) and the replacement thereof with section 11A. It was found that the deletion of section 11 (bA) and the replacement thereof with section 11A is in most cases more detrimental to the taxpayer.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die doel van die studie is om die vraagstuk te ondersoek of belastingpligtiges in ʼn meer nadelige posisie is as gevolg van die skrapping van artikel 11(bA) en vervanging daarvan met artikel 11A van die Inkomstebelastingwet No.58 van 1962 spesifiek in verband met voorproduksie-leningskommissie aangegaan tydens die uitbreiding van ʼn bestaande bedryf. Daar word in CSARS v South African Custodial Services (Pty) Ltd bevind dat leningskommissie ingelees kan word onder die frase rente en verwante finansieringskoste soos gevind in artikel 11(bA) en dus aftrekbaar is in terme van hierdie bepaling. Artikel 11(bA) is egter onlangs uit die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstebelastingwetgewing geskrap en met artikel 11A vervang. In terme van regspresedent, stare decisis, is daar bewys dat leningskommissie ook aftrekbaar is in terme van artikel 24J (wat die aftrekkingsbedrag in terme van artikel 11A reguleer en dus ook aftrekbaar in terme van artikel 11A is). Daar is bevind dat voorproduksie-leningskommissie aangegaan omhein sal word in terme van artikel 11A tot en met die tydstip dat daar genoegsame belasbare inkomste is uit die spesifieke bedryf wat uitgebrei word waarteen hierdie uitgawes afgespeel kan word. Artikel 11(bA) bevat egter geen omheiningsbeperking nie en dus kan ʼn aangeslane verlies geskep en aangewend word teen die belasbare inkomste van die bedrywe wat deur die belastingpligtige verdien word. Daar is verder ook bevind dat die inkomstebelastingposisie van die leningskommissie deur die belastingpligtige aangegaan, bepaal word deur die tydstip waarop die bedryf in aanvang geneem word in terme van artikel 11(bA) en artikel 11A. Ten einde die vraagstuk bevredigend te beantwoord, word vier scenario’s ondersoek wat die aftrekking van voorproduksie-leningskommissie vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes op verskillende tye ondersoek en vergelyk in terme van artikel 11(bA) en artikel 11A. Die huidige waarde van die voorproduksie-leningskommissie-aftrekking in terme van bogenoemde artikels word met mekaar vergelyk om tot ʼn slotsom te kom rakende of die belastingpligtige in ʼn meer nadelige posisie is as gevolg van die skrapping van artikel 11(bA) en vervanging daarvan met artikel 11A. Daar word bevind dat die skrapping van artikel 11(bA) en vervanging daarvan met artikel 11A in meeste gevalle meer nadelig vir die belastingpligtige is.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/95877
This item appears in the following collections: