'n Kritiese evaluasie van die toedeling van insetbelasting in Artikel 17(1) van die Wet op Belasting op Toegevoegde Waarde no. 89 van 1991
Date
2005-12
Authors
Combrink, Thomas
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch
Abstract
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Insetbelasting soos omskryf in artikel 1 van die Wet op Belasting op
Toegevoegde Waarde No. 89 van 1991 (“die Wet”) kan teruggeëis word waar
die goedere of dienste, ten opsigte waarvan die insetbelasting geëis word, vir
die maak van belasbare lewerings verkry is.
Waar goedere of dienste verkry word, gedeeltelik vir die maak van belasbare
lewerings en gedeeltelik vir die maak van vrygestelde lewerings, moet ʼn
toedeling van die insetbelasting ooreenkomstig die bepalings van Artikel 17(1)
van die Wet gemaak word.
Artikel 17(1) bepaal dat die omset-gebaseerde toedelingsmetode gebruik
moet word vir die toedeling van toedeelbare insetbelasting. Hierdie metode
wat voorgeskryf word gee aanleiding tot die volgende twee probleemstellings,
naamlik :
· Onduidelikheid in die Wet rakende die hantering van verskillende tipes
lewerings binne die toedelingsformule, en
· Onduidelikheid oor welke bedrae of gevalle by die toedelingsformule inof
uitgesluit moet word.
Artikel 17(1) bepaal ook dat, indien die omset-gebaseerde toedelings-metode
nie toepaslik vir ʼn ondernemer is nie, ʼn alternatiewe metode gebruik kan word
mits die alternatiewe metode ʼn redelike en regverdige alternatief daarstel.
Hierdie uitsondering gee aanleiding tot ʼn derde probleemstelling, naamlik:
· Wat kan as ʼn redelike en regverdige alternatief beskou word?
Laastens maak Artikel 17(1) voorsiening vir ʼn voorbehoudsbepaling wat
bekend staan as die de minimis-reël. Hiervolgens hoef ʼn ondernemer nie te
voldoen aan Artikel 17(1) indien die ondernemer se totale belasbare lewerings
minstens 95% van sy totale lewerings beloop nie. Die voorbehoudsbepaling
maak egter nie voorsiening vir die hantering van abnormale omstandighede
wat die implementering van die voorbehoudbepaling kan beïnvloed nie. Dit
gee aanleiding tot die vierde probleemstelling, naamlik :
· Watter maatreëls bestaan daar om te verseker dat die de minimis-reël
nie deur abnormale omstandighede beïnvloed word nie?
In hierdie studie word Artikel 17(1) krities ontleed ten einde te poog om
oplossings vir bostaande probleemstellings te vind. Relevante wetgewing en
publikasies van lande soos die Verenigde Koninkryk, Kanada, Australië en
Ierland is ook bestudeer en na aanleiding hiervan kan die volgende afleidings
gemaak word, naamlik:
· dat ʼn lewering uit meer as een tipe lewering kan bestaan, hetsy
belasbaar of vrygestel. Sodanige lewerings kan geklassifiseer word as
toevallige-, saamgestelde- of gemengde lewerings wat, afhangend van
die tipe lewering, die insetbelasting wat teruggeëis mag word,
verskillend kan beïnvloed. Uitsluitsel oor die klassifikasies van
lewerings moet verkry word alvorens dit in die toedelingsformule
ingesluit word;
· dat die in- of uitsluiting van spesifieke bedrae en gevalle in die
toedelingsformule eerstens aan die hand van die ekonomiese
aktiwiteitstoets gemeet moet word. Die resultate van ʼn ekonomiese
aktiwiteitstoets sal aandui watter invloed ʼn spesifieke bedrag of geval
op die toedelingsformule kan hê. Die spesifieke eienskappe van elke
bedrag of geval moet daarna ontleed word om te bepaal of sodanige
bedrag of geval by die toedelingsformule in- of uitgesluit moet word om
die manipulasie van die toedelingsformule te voorkom;
· dat riglyne bepaal moet word of die toepassing van ʼn alternatiewe
toedelingsmetode redelik en regverdig is ten einde enige onsekerhede
uit die weg te ruim. Dit behoort op ‘n soortgelyke wyse geïmplementeer
te word as die bestaande riglyne in die wetgewing van lande soos
Kanada, Ierland en die Verenigde Koninkryk;
· dat die de minimis-reël uitgebrei moet word deur nie net na ʼn vaste
persentasie te verwys nie, maar ook die gebruik van historiese syfers,
randwaardes en maandelikse ontledings in te sluit, soos wat dit tans
die gebruik in Kanada en die Verenigde Koninkryk is.
Daar bestaan dus reeds in ander lande wetgewing wat die probleemareas,
soos in die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing geïdentifiseer, aanspreek. Dit is dus
nodig om aan die hand hiervan die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing uit te brei ten
einde enige onduidelikhede en areas vir moontlike manipulasie uit te skakel
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Input tax as defined in Section 1 of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 (“the Act”) can be deducted where goods or services are acquired by the vendor for the purpose of consumption, use or supply in the course of making taxable supplies. Where the goods or services are acquired by the vendor partially for the purpose of making taxable supplies and partially for the purpose of making exempt supplies, an apportionment of the input tax that can be deducted, has to be done in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 17(1) determines that the turnover-based apportionment method should be used for apportionment of the input tax. This prescribed method gives rise to the following problem statements: · The Act is not clear as to how different types of supplies should be treated in the apportionment formula, and · The Act is not clear as to which specific amounts or cases should be included or excluded from the apportionment formula. Section 17(1) further determines that, if a vendor finds the turnover-based method of apportionment inappropriate, the vendor can use an alternative method as long as the method is a fair and reasonable alternative. This exemption to the rule gives rise to a third problem statement, namely: · What should be seen as fair and reasonable alternative method? Finally, a proviso is found in Section 17(1), better known as the de minimisrule. According to the rule no apportionment is necessary in terms of Section 17(1) if the total taxable supplies constitute at least 95% of total supplies. The proviso does not take abnormal circumstances into account that can affect the implementation of the proviso. This gives rise to the fourth problem statement: · What controls exist to ensure that the de minimis-rule is not influenced by abnormal circumstances? In this study Section 17(1) is critically analyzed to find solutions for the above problem statements. Relevant acts and publications of countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Ireland were examined. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study: · A supply can consist out of more than one type of supply, either taxable or exempt. These supplies can be classified as coincidental supplies, combined supplies or mixed supplies. Each one of these supplies can have a material influence on the apportionment formula and should be considered carefully before they are included in the formula. · The inclusion or exclusion of any specific amount or case as part of the apportionment formula should first be measured against the economic activity test. The results of the economic activity test will indicate which effect the specific amount or case will have on the apportionment formula. Thereafter the distinctive characteristics of the amount or case should be analysed to ensure correct treatment of the specific amount or case in the apportionment formula to prevent the manipulation of the apportionment formula. · Guidelines should be identified to determine whether an alternative method of apportionment is fair and reasonable, in conjunction with the specific guidelines identified by the legislation of countries such as Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. · The de minimis-rule should be broadened not to only include the use of a fixed percentage, but also the use of historical figures, rand values and monthly analysis as is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. As can be seen from the above there already exist legislation in other countries that addresses the problem areas as identified in South African legislation. It is therefore necessary to broaden the South African legislation to eliminate any uncertainties and areas for possible manipulation.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Input tax as defined in Section 1 of the Value Added Tax Act No. 89 of 1991 (“the Act”) can be deducted where goods or services are acquired by the vendor for the purpose of consumption, use or supply in the course of making taxable supplies. Where the goods or services are acquired by the vendor partially for the purpose of making taxable supplies and partially for the purpose of making exempt supplies, an apportionment of the input tax that can be deducted, has to be done in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 17(1) determines that the turnover-based apportionment method should be used for apportionment of the input tax. This prescribed method gives rise to the following problem statements: · The Act is not clear as to how different types of supplies should be treated in the apportionment formula, and · The Act is not clear as to which specific amounts or cases should be included or excluded from the apportionment formula. Section 17(1) further determines that, if a vendor finds the turnover-based method of apportionment inappropriate, the vendor can use an alternative method as long as the method is a fair and reasonable alternative. This exemption to the rule gives rise to a third problem statement, namely: · What should be seen as fair and reasonable alternative method? Finally, a proviso is found in Section 17(1), better known as the de minimisrule. According to the rule no apportionment is necessary in terms of Section 17(1) if the total taxable supplies constitute at least 95% of total supplies. The proviso does not take abnormal circumstances into account that can affect the implementation of the proviso. This gives rise to the fourth problem statement: · What controls exist to ensure that the de minimis-rule is not influenced by abnormal circumstances? In this study Section 17(1) is critically analyzed to find solutions for the above problem statements. Relevant acts and publications of countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Ireland were examined. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study: · A supply can consist out of more than one type of supply, either taxable or exempt. These supplies can be classified as coincidental supplies, combined supplies or mixed supplies. Each one of these supplies can have a material influence on the apportionment formula and should be considered carefully before they are included in the formula. · The inclusion or exclusion of any specific amount or case as part of the apportionment formula should first be measured against the economic activity test. The results of the economic activity test will indicate which effect the specific amount or case will have on the apportionment formula. Thereafter the distinctive characteristics of the amount or case should be analysed to ensure correct treatment of the specific amount or case in the apportionment formula to prevent the manipulation of the apportionment formula. · Guidelines should be identified to determine whether an alternative method of apportionment is fair and reasonable, in conjunction with the specific guidelines identified by the legislation of countries such as Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom. · The de minimis-rule should be broadened not to only include the use of a fixed percentage, but also the use of historical figures, rand values and monthly analysis as is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. As can be seen from the above there already exist legislation in other countries that addresses the problem areas as identified in South African legislation. It is therefore necessary to broaden the South African legislation to eliminate any uncertainties and areas for possible manipulation.
Description
Thesis (MComm)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005.
Keywords
Theses -- Accountancy, Dissertations -- Accountancy, Value-added tax -- South Africa, Input tax -- South Africa