+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Revenue Laws Amendment B ill, 2003

Revenue Laws Amendment B ill, 2003

Date post: 19-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: irisa
View: 25 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Revenue Laws Amendment B ill, 2003. Representations and comments to the Portfolio Committee on Finance Thursday, 23 October 200 3. PricewaterhouseCoopers representations. Key sections covered ; Corporate Rules; Foreign and STC aspects; Increases in Commissioner’s powers; - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
22
Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2003 Representations and comments to the Portfolio Committee on Finance Thursday, 23 October 2003
Transcript
Page 1: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2003 Representations and comments to the Portfolio Committee on

Finance

Thursday, 23 October 2003

Page 2: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers2

PricewaterhouseCoopers representations

Key sections covered;

• Corporate Rules;

• Foreign and STC aspects;

• Increases in Commissioner’s powers;

• Reportable transactions; and

• VAT.

Page 3: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers3

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”)

• Existence of the actual cost test fundamentally flawed;

– Applied on transaction date so what is relevance of a mixed batch of historic figures?

– Market value is fundamental and accepted principal locally (below) and internationally (DTAs)

– No equivalent cost test applied elsewhere in legislation; transfer pricing, deemed dividends, donations tax, capital gains tax, estate duty, alienation of trading stock all by reference to market value not actual cost

Page 4: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers4

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”)

• Existence of the actual cost test fundamentally flawed; (continued)

– Hard to understand why special treatment for this one piece of legislation

– Renders corporate reliefs and participation exemption useless for many companies

Page 5: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers5

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”) – cont.

• Existence of the actual cost test fundamentally flawed (continued);

Creates anomalies and discrimination as regards

– Companies developing vs acquiring intellectual property

– Companies leasing vs buying assets

– Companies actively managing debtors

Page 6: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers6

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”) – cont.

• Existence of the actual cost test fundamentally flawed (continued);

– Treatment of cash as a bad asset is contrary to the stated concern of “loss trafficking” – cash has same accounting and tax basis

• Intent of reorganisation rules is to provide relief therefore removal of problems caused by “actual cost” remains a technical correction.

Page 7: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers7

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”) – cont.

• Regulated companies

– Extend to cover assets of foreign CISs

• Disregarded assets;

– Shares in group companies

– Loans to group companies

Page 8: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers8

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”) – cont.

• Application in a group context is inappropriate

– Global trend is for relaxation of anti-avoidance and increased consideration of the group as a unit

Page 9: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers9

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Definition of financial instrument holding company (“FIHC”) – cont.

• Impact on tier structures of CFCs SA

CFC 3

CFC 1

CFC 2

100%

100%

60%

– Sale of CFC 3 is covered by p.exempt– Sale of CFC 2 is not

– CFC3 is an operating company– CFC 2 is a group investment company

Page 10: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers10

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsCorporate rules

Application of current rules discourages foreign investment

• No tax basis for SA acquirer in key group transactions involving the issue of shares where counter-party is non-resident

– contrast to position where counter party is resident

– group position is to be taxed on subsequent disposal on full proceeds (negative BEE implications)

– no incentive for offshore groups to invest in SA through these mechanisms

– reliefs otherwise still desirable as avoid transfer taxes cost

Page 11: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers11

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsForeign and STC aspects

• Loss of designated country exemption

– Massive increase in compliance burden

– Significant adverse impact on costs (global valuations)

• Application of s8E anti-avoidance

– Currently too wide, covers also listed companies

– Can cause double taxation

Page 12: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers12

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsForeign and STC aspects

CFC business establishment exemption

• CFC with passive income but net loss

– Imputation of passive income even if overall net loss

– Contrast to position of SA resident company

• Trading passive income

– Can still exempt rent, insurance, banking activities

– No scope for licensing

Page 13: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers13

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsForeign and STC aspects

Security lending arrangements

• STC credits removed on lending transactions

– Specific provisions inserted this year to facilitate increased use of security lending

– Credits disappear into ether – no one has access to them

– Results in double taxation

Page 14: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers14

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsIncreases in Commissioner’s powers

Support for

• Extension of s103 equivalent anti-avoidance measures to TD and MST, but why no similar provisions for SD and UST?

Cannot support in current form

• Restrictions on making objections (s81)

• Suspension of interest on tax refunds (s89quat)

• Commissioner effectively put above courts (s13A TD)

• Transference of tax liability (para. 6A of 4th, s7 UIF)

Page 15: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers15

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsReportable transactions

• No comprehensive consultation process

• Importation of US concept (controversial there also)

• Not in existence anywhere else in world

• Anything vaguely similar runs in conjunction with advance ruling process (voluntary)

• Scope is breathtaking, extends to employment contracts, endowment policies, standard lease agreements etc

• Unnecessary as powers already exist to require information with tax return

Page 16: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers16

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsReportable transactions

• Has SARS the resources to deal with this? (sought advice from US IRS as to their dedicated resources?)

• Detrimental to economy

– Best way to grow tax base and collection is growth of economy as a whole

– Healthy structured finance sector is barometer of growing economy

– Over regulation limits economic growth

Page 17: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers17

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsReportable transactions

• Detrimental to economy (continued)

– Coming in same year as loss of ‘designated country’ results in massive increase in compliance burden

– Risk of erosion of tax base through migration of capital flows due to overregulation of structured finance industry when benchmarking globally

Page 18: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers18

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT: Government grants

Current position

• Zero-rating of “transfer payments” specifically introduced in 1991

– Recipient pays no VAT, but may deduct VAT paid on expenses as input tax where used to subsidise taxable supplies

– VAT neutral effect

– No need to increase grants / subsidies

– Problem: disputes as to whether grant is a “transfer payment” or payment for goods or services supplied

Page 19: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers19

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT

Proposals in Draft Bill

• Zero-rating of “transfer payments” to be abolished

• Certain public bodies & public private partnerships – Must pay VAT to SARS on grants received – May deduct VAT paid on expenses funded by grants as input

tax

• Local authorities, educational institutions and other recipients of grants– Will NOT pay VAT to SARS on grants received, but– May NOT deduct VAT paid on expenses funded by grants as

input tax

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT: Government grants

Page 20: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers20

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT

Effect of proposals in Draft Bill

• Public bodies & public private partnerships

• Increased VAT cost for other recipients of grants– Amount of grant will effectively be reduced, due to denial of

input tax

• Definition of “grant” does not clearly distinguish between true grants, and payments made for goods or services

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT: Government grants

Page 21: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers21

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT

• Exported services

• Independent branch of SA vendor, which is outside SA, should enjoy same zero-ratings as other non-SA vendors/ residents

• VAT now chargeable where use is in SA but non-resident may have qualified for a s11(2)(l) zero rate

Page 22: Revenue Laws Amendment  B ill, 2003

PricewaterhouseCoopers22

PricewaterhouseCoopers representationsVAT: Invoices

Recipient’s VAT number required on invoices, credit and debit notes

• Will create considerable practical difficulties

• Will necessitate costly system changes

• Recipient’s details now also required where – an abbreviated tax invoice was issued, and – recipient’s (full) details were not included in original tax

invoice


Recommended