Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Capital gains tax – Law and legislation – Ireland »

A great deal of debate currently surrounds stock-option-based compensation. Its many facets involve preferential tax treatment, the alternative minimum tax, and financial accounting procedures. The issue involves many; options affect an estimated 10 million people and 20–25 percent of all publicly held U.S. firms. Compensatory stock options were originally incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code in 1950 with the addition of Section 130A. At that time, the incentive effects of this form of compensation were deemed worthy of preferential tax status. In the 1950s, gains associated with tax-preferenced options were taxed at the lower, 25 percent, capital gains rate instead of the 91 percent applied to ordinary income. While stock option provisions have been revised and continue to be the topic of legislative discussion, they remain a part of tax law. This paper traces the legislative history of the special tax status of compensatory stock options and highlights the congressional intent and economic conditions surrounding the revisions made over the past 50 years.

ABSTRACT After numerous failed previous attempts to enact legislation taxing “carried interest” income attributable to services as compensation income versus capital gains, Congress enacted Section 1061 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Unlike previous proposals, which would tax carried interest income attributable to services as compensation income, Section 1061 simply reclassifies some carried interest income attributable to services as short-term capital gain. By choosing to treat carried interest income attributable to services as short-term capital gain instead of as compensation income, Section 1061 exempts such income from self-employment tax and allows taxpayers to offset such income with an unlimited amount of short-term capital losses. This paper reviews the requirements under Section 1061 and explains several ambiguities created by the new law. In addition, this paper examines whether Section 1061 follows sound tax policy. The authors find that Section 1061 does not follow the tax policy concepts of equity and fairness, economic efficiency, neutrality, simplicity, or certainty. In addition, the authors find that Section 1061 will have minimal impact, as most carried interest is held longer than the required period to qualify as long-term capital gain.

The Jobs Growth and Tax ReliefReconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), signed into law by President George W.Bush, was a significant legislation in recent tax history. As the tax rates on capital gains anddividends are reduced to a historical low of 15%, U.S. stock prices haveincreased and the cost of equity capital declined after its passage. In contrast to the dividends and capital gainsthat receive preferential tax rates under JGTRRA, yields from U.S. Treasurybill remain tax-disadvantaged as ordinary income at a top marginal rate of 35%.Using an event study approach based ontwo years of Treasury yield observations, the author examines Treasury yield reactionsto major legislative events surrounding the passage of JGTRRA. The result suggests that a tax policyintentionally favoring dividends and capital gains over ordinary income may unintentionallypush up yields in the Treasury bill market, thereby affecting the cost ofgovernment borrowing.

The taxation of bitcoins and similar cryptoassets is of immense economic importance to the individual taxpayer and to society as a whole. In recent years, they have effectuated a number of tax law issues in Denmark. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the taxation of bitcoins and similar cryptoassets is based on the general rules of tax law. This article contains a comparative analysis of the three Scandinavian countries’ tax treatment of gains and losses on them. The analysis shows that the Norwegian and Swedish rules that have been significantly changed and modernized do not at all present the same challenges as the Danish rules. In Denmark, there is need for uniformity, predictability, and clarity to be introduced into the taxation rules. Therefore, the article also provides some reflections how to change the Danish tax legislation. Bitcoins, cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets, capital gains taxation, Danish income tax, Norwegian income tax, Swedish income tax, speculation taxation

The European Merger Directive aims to take away the tax problems that are related to absorption or division of companies established in the Member States and provides for a common system of deferral for taxation of capital gains and tax-free reserves. Although Belgium adopted parts of the Merger Directive in its domestic tax legislation in 1991, some provisions were notably absent. However, new legislation to complete the implementation of the Merger Directive has been published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 12 January 2009, which opens new opportunities for cross-border reorganizations involving a Belgian company. The new legislation covers all the transactions included in the Merger Directive, that is, legal merger, legal division, partial division, transfer of assets (e.g., contribution of a branch of activities or a universality of goods) in a cross-border context as well as an exchange of shares and transfer of the registered office of an SE and an SCE. Additionally, the new legislation also aims to, for example, implement full tax neutrality for purely domestic parent-subsidiary mergers by taking away or amending certain elements that prohibited a complete tax neutral transaction.

The article describes the impact of the decision of the European Court of Justice 'National Grid Indus' on Italian rules regarding exit taxation. The former Italian legislation prescribed the immediate taxation of unrealized capital gains, except if a Permanent Establishment (PE) is maintained in Italy, without distinguishing between the establishing of the amount of taxes and their recovery. In the meantime, the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Italy with regard to the rules on exit tax. In January 2012, such rules have been modified in compliance with the principles established in National Grid Indus, allowing Member States to tax corporations on latent capital gains at the time of the transfer of the place of effective management to another Member State, but deferring the collection until the actual realization of the assets. This change carries out a series of problematic aspects concerning the scope of application of the new provision with regard to the transfer of permanent establishments of foreign enterprises in Italy, the tax basis of the assets transferred and, in particular, the interaction with the Merger Directive.

[Purpose]In this study, we examined the issues surrounding income taxation in relation to short selling and the stock lending transactions associated with it. Additionally, we proposed essential supplementary institutional measures. [Methodology]To achieve this, we scrutinized relevant precedents and interpretations in Korea, and consulted discussions and legislation in the United States and Japan. [Findings]The topics addressed in this study, along with the proposed measures for income taxation purposes, can be summarized in the following two points. [Implications]Firstly, during stock lending transactions, a formal transfer of ownership occurs. A question arises as to whether capital gains should be taxed following such a formal transfer of ownership. While administrative interpretation asserts no taxation, judicial precedent stipulates that transfer tax is imposed upon the transfer of legal ownership. In cases of qualified loan transactions where economic risks and rewards are not transferred, it is economically prudent not to tax capital gains, even if formal ownership is transferred. A similar issue existed in the United States and was resolved through legislation. Secondly, there is the matter of taxing investors on gains and losses from short selling. Under Korea’s income tax law, which adopts an enumerative method, gains and losses from short selling are not subject to taxation. Moreover, it is not included in the financial investment income tax, scheduled for implementation from 2025 following a postponement. Legislative supplementation is necessary, and given that short selling differs from spot investment in stocks and shares similar characteristics with stock derivatives, it seems fitting to categorize it under the basic deduction group of 2.5 million won. In short selling, when borrowed stocks are returned and the short selling is concluded according to the open transaction doctrine, gains and losses are confirmed, and the time for taxation arrives.

Australian legislation has recently undergone further developments which affect non- residents investing in Australian petroleum projects. The comments in this paper reflect our understanding of the law at November 1988.These legislative developments have occurred in foreign investment rules and primary tax areas such as the thin capitalisation and debt creation rules for nonresident investors, Australian capital gains tax including the new involuntary roll- over provisions, the Australian dividend imputation system, and secondary taxes such as state royalties and excises and petroleum resource rent tax.The purpose of this paper is to analyse some of the recent legislative developments from the viewpoint of a non- resident investing in Australian petroleum projects. Changes in most cases are incorporated in complex legislation, and full and proper consideration of the changes is warranted for taxpayers both to comply with the law and maximise shareholders' financial returns.

Purpose In Portugal, between 1989 and 2010, capital gains from corporate shares were exempted, while gains from other instruments, like limited liability companies (LLC) equity stakes, were taxed. Inevitably, this non-neutral tax treatment originated a notorious tax arbitrage, consisting in the transformation of the legal status of a LLC into a corporation, the subsequent share sale and tax exemption. In tax litigation, many arbitration rulings were delivered, with widely divergent decisions. The purpose of this paper, using a blend of the legal research method and case analysis, is to discuss three research questions. Should the general anti-abuse clause (GAAC) be applied to this tax planning operation? Why the divergence in arbitration rulings? Is this anomalous arbitration outcome because of the wording the GAAC and its complexity or, contrarily, does it emerge from the disconnection between the set of rules governing capital gains taxation and the legislative intent that is behind such rules? Design/methodology/approach The methodology used in this paper is based on a mix of the legal research method and case analysis. In the case of legal research, a hermeneutic approach – meaning that documents, texts and their interpretation can produce important fruits to the development of the field – is a tested and fruitful approach. Besides being a hermeneutic discipline, it is an argumentative one. By exposing arguments that confirm or deny particular solutions, legal research (e.g. in criminal, business or administrative law) can influence better legislative choices by political actors. Advantages of case analysis include lessons learned from observation. The author discusses if the application of the GAAC to an arrangement that originated a tax exemption can be validated by the usual interpretative lines that doctrine sustains should be observed when a GAAC is used to void legal schemes. The pros and cons of tax arbitration are also highlighted. Findings The conclusion of this paper is that the GAAC is not the crux of the problem. Instead, a contradictory or, at least, disconnected relation between the expressed intent of legislators and the wording of capital gains tax clauses is, in our view, the main reason for such divergent arbitration rulings on the same issue. Practical implications The author believes that the paper is a contribution to the literature, given the global use of anti-abuse clauses and the interpretative complexities they originate. Moreover, the analysis in this paper is carried out in a legal setting where a disconnection is detectable between the expressed legislative intent and the legal drafting of personal income tax rules related to the exemption of capital gains. Studying the complexity added by this feature of the Portuguese legislation serves as a reminder of the importance of careful and well-crafted wording to achieve consistent court outcomes. Originality/value The paper has value to governments, tax authorities and tax managers, given the ever-increasing use of anti-abuse clauses in many countries, and the potential use of arbitration in similar settings.

In late 1999, the German government made a surprise announcement that it would repeal the large and long-standing capital gains tax on sales of corporate crossholdings effective in 2002. The repeal has been hailed as a revolutionary step toward breaking up the extensive web of crossholdings among German companies. The lock-in effect from the large corporate capital gains tax was said to act as a barrier to efficient acquisition and divestiture of German firms and divisions. Many observers predicted that once the lock-in effect was removed, Germany would experience a flurry of acquisition and divestiture activity. Several other industrialized countries were poised to follow suit, with similar proposals pending in France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This paper provides evidence of the economic impact of the repeal by examining its effect on the market values of German firms. While event studies of tax legislation can be difficult, our study is aided by the fact that the repeal was both a surprise and was announced separately from other tax reform proposals. In addition, we provide cross-sectional evidence on the economic magnitude of the repeal, assess the likely beneficiaries from the repeal, and predict which sectors are most likely to experience a surge in acquisition and divestiture activity following the repeal. Our results suggest that the economic effects are highly concentrated. We find a positive association between firms' event period abnormal returns and the extent of their crossholdings, consistent with taxes acting as a barrier to efficient allocation of ownership. However, the reaction is limited to the six largest banks and insurers and their extensive minority holdings in industrial firms. These six large firms have a combined market capitalization equal to 22 percent of all 394 firms in this study. We also find evidence of a positive stock price response to the announcement for industrial companies held by these financial firms, consistent with shareholders in those firms benefiting from the likely reduction in investor-level tax burdens and expected increased efficiency following the tax law change.

Thesis (MAcc)--Stellenbosch University, 2002.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Capital gains tax has been introduced into the South African tax system for the first time, on all capital gains arising on or after 1 October 2001. The issue of whether a capital gains tax will be a suitable tax for South Africa has already been addressed in the form of Commission Reports. In these reports, the idea of adopting this tax system was not recommended for the South African tax system or only a limited capital gains tax was recommended. This study, however, investigates whether the legislation passed by government is in line with the basic principles of an efficient and effective tax system. Firstly, the principles of an efficient and effective tax system are set out as those originally proposed by Adam Smith as well as those that have been adapted to modern tax theory. The factors that impact on capital gains tax are identified and specific criteria are formulated against which the legislated capital gains tax is evaluated. The mechanics of the capital gains tax is discussed, classified into the factors that impact a capital gains tax and evaluated against the abovementioned criteria. lt has been held that the introduction of this new form of tax to the South African tax system addresses many inefficiencies and deficiencies in the current tax system. lt is the writer's opinion that an investigation as to the degree to which this tax system adheres to the principles of an effective and efficient tax system, was thus necessary. For the purposes of this investigation, the legislated capital gains tax was evaluated against the principles of neutrality, certainty and simplicity, administrative efficiency, flexibility, invisibility and equity (fairness, horizontal and vertical equity). lt was found that the principles of flexibility, fairness and horizontal equity are achieved. To a lesser extent, the principles of neutrality, certainty and simplicity, and administrative efficiency are achieved, and the principles of invisibility and vertical equity have not been achieved.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Kapitaalwinsbelasting is nou vir die eerste keer deel van die Suid Afrikaanse belastingstelsel. Dit affekteer alle kapitale winste wat op of na 1 Oktober 2001 realiseer. Die vraagstuk oar die geskiktheid van kapitaalwinsbelasting vir Suid-Afrika is alreeds voorheen in die vorm van Kommissieverslae aangespreek. Geen, of slegs 'n beperkte kapitaalwinsbelasting is in hierdie verslae aanbeveel vir die Suid-Afrikaanse belastingstelsel. Die studie wat volg, ondersoek die mate waarin die wetgewing ten opsigte van kapitaalwinsbelasting aan die basiese beginsels van 'n effektiewe en doeltreffende belastingstelsel voldoen. Eerstens word die beginsels van 'n doeltreffende en effektiewe belastingstelsel uiteengesit as die soos oorspronklik voorgestel deur Adam Smith, asook die wat deur moderne belastingteorie aangepas is. Tweedens word die faktore wat kapitaalwins be·invloed ge·identifiseer en laastens word spesifieke kriteria geformuleer waarteen die kapitaalwinsbelasting geevalueer sal word. Die werking van die kapitaalwinsbelasting word bespreek, geklassifiseer in faktore wat 'n kapitaalwinsbelasting be·invloed en teen die bogenoemde kriteria geevalueer. Daar is beslis dat die toevoeging van hierdie vorm van belasting tot die Suid Afrikaanse belastingstelsel die ondoeltreffendheid en ander gebreke in die huidige belastingstelsel aanspreek. Dit is die skrywer se mening dat 'n ondersoek ten opsigte van die mate waartoe hierdie belastingstelsel die beginsels van 'n effektiewe en doeltreffende belastingstelsel nakom, dus nodig was. Vir die doeleindes van hierdie ondersoek, is kapitaalwinsbelasting geevalueer teen die beginsels van neutraliteit, sekerheid en eenvoudigheid, administratiewe doeltreffendheid, aanpasbaarheid, onsigbaarheid en billikheid (regverdigheid, horisontale en vertikale billikheid). Daar word tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat daar aan die beginsels van aanpasbaarheid, regverdigheid en horisontale billikheid voldoen word. Tot 'n minder mate, word daar aan die beginsels van neutraliteit, sekerheid en eenvoudigheid, en administratiewe doeltreffendheid voldoen. Daar word nie aan die beginsels van onsigbaarheid en vertikale billikheid voldoen nie.

Thesis (MAccounting)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.
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.

Section 12N, introduction into the Income Tax Act by way of Taxation Laws Amendment Act and which became effective on 2 November 2010, provides for allowances on the leasehold improvements on government-owned land and land leased from certain tax exempt entities as stipulated in section 10 (1) (cA) and (t). As section 12N deems the lessee to be the owner of the leasehold improvement, the lessee now qualifies for capital allowances which were previously disallowed.

In his 2012 Budget Review, the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan acknowledged that the introduction of the "new" Companies Act had given rise to certain anomalies in relation to tax and subsequently announced that the South African government would undertake to review the nature of company mergers, acquisitions and other restructurings with the view of possibly amending the Income Tax Act and/or the "new" Companies Act, to bring the two legislations in line with one another. These anomalies give rise to the present research. The literature reviewed in the present research revealed and identified the inconsistencies that exist between the "new" Companies Act, 71 of 2008 and the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962, specifically the inconsistencies that exist in respect of the newly introduced amalgamation or merger provisions as set out in the "new" Companies Act. Moreover, this research was undertaken to identify the potential tax implications insofar as they relate to amalgamation transactions and, in particular, the potential tax implications where such transactions, because of the anomalies, fall outside the ambit section 44 of the Income Tax Act, which would in normal circumstances provide for tax "rollover relief". In this regard, the present research identified the possible income tax, capital gains tax, value-added tax, transfer duty tax and securities transfer tax affected by an amalgamation transaction, on the assumption that the "rollover relief" in section 44 of the Income Tax Act does not apply.

Income tax is levied upon a taxpayer’s taxable income. Various steps are taken in order to arrive at the taxpayer’s taxable income. The starting point when calculating taxable income is determining the taxpayer’s ‘gross income’. ‘Gross income’ is defined in terms of section 1 of the Act. Various terms within the gross income definition are not clearly defined, except in the case of a ‘resident’. Even in the case of the definition of a ‘resident’, the aspect of ‘ordinarily resident’ is not defined and nor is the ‘place of effective management’. The following components fall within the definition of ‘gross income’: • The total amount in cash or otherwise; • received by or accrued to, or in favour of, a person; • from anywhere, in the case of a person who is a resident; • from a South African source (or deemed source), in the case of a non-resident; • other than receipts or accruals of a capital nature. The ‘total amount’ in ‘cash or otherwise’ is the first step when determining the taxable income of a taxpayer for a particular year of assessment. Gross income only arises if an amount is received or has accrued; this amount need not be in the form of money but must have a money value. The next component, ‘received by or accrued to’, is related to time and implies that a taxpayer should include amounts that have been ‘received by’, as well as amounts that have ‘accrued to’ him during the year of assessment. ‘Resident’ and ‘non-resident’ unlike the other components, are defined in terms of section 1 of the Income Tax Act. There are two rules used to determine whether natural persons are residents, these are: • To determine whether natural persons are ‘ordinarily resident’; or • where the natural person is not an ‘ordinarily resident’, the ‘physical presence test’ will be applied. ‘Source’ means origin and not place; it is therefore the ‘originating cause of the receipt of the money’. There is no single definition for the word ‘source’ as circumstances may differ in various cases. The facts of each case must be analysed in order to determine the actual source of income for that particular case. The last component of the definition of ‘gross income’ is the exclusion of ‘receipts and accruals of a capital nature’. The Act does not define the meaning of ‘capital nature’ but does indicate that receipts or accruals of a capital nature are, with certain exceptions, not included in ‘gross income’. Receipts or accruals that are not of a capital nature is known as ‘revenue’ and subjected to tax. This study is primarily aimed at an examination of court cases related to the various components falling within the definition of ‘gross income’.

This study investigates the impact of aspects of tax design on the operating costs of the tax system. The thesis focuses on the Australian and UK regimes for taxing the capital gains of individuals. It contends that the compliance burden faced by personal taxpayers and the administrative costs incurred by revenue authorities are directly influenced by the design of the capital gains tax ('CGT') regimes in each country. The study bridges the divide between theoretical analysis of CGT and empirical studies on tax operating costs. It uses a hybrid research design to test a series of hypotheses that emerge from a review of the literature and the experience of the researcher. It combines a technical analysis of the relevant Australian and UK legislative provisions (including an analysis of the policy and other background data that underpins those provisions) with empirical research on the views and experience of practitioners who are responsible for the operation of the legislation in the two countries. The results obtained from this combined methodology indicate that the operating costs of taxing capital gains in Australia and the UK are directly affected by the design of the legislative provisions. Moreover, the study outcomes indicate that operating costs in both countries are high (on a number of comparative measures), have not reduced over time, and are both horizontally and vertically inequitable. The research indicates that the primary factors that cause the high operating costs include the complexity of the legislation and the frequency of legislative change, together with record-keeping and valuation requirements. The thesis identifies specific legislative changes that would address operational cost concerns. These include the phasing out of the 'grandfathering' exemption together with the introduction of an annual exempt amount, and the rationalisation of business concessions in Australia; and the abolition of taper relief and its possible replacement with a 50% exclusion in the UK. More importantly, it seeks a more principled approach to the taxation of capital gains in both countries, and emphasises that legislative change can and should only be enacted with a full and clear understanding of the operating cost implications of that change.

The thesis examined the current system of the taxation of wealth in South Africa with an emphasis on the taxes that apply upon the death of the taxpayer. The focus of the research was on the problems associated with estate duty, namely the issue of double taxation; the alleged cumbersome administration of the tax and the limited revenue that it brings in; it’s questionable efficacy due to extensive estate planning on the part of taxpayers while they are still alive and its lack of uniformity with other wealth taxes. An interpretative research approach was followed which involved analysing documentary data. The conclusions that were reached were that estate duty as a wealth tax in South Africa has been rendered ineffective due to the inherent problems associated with its application, namely the fact that double taxation exists, not only in the context of capital gains tax, but also in that taxpayers resent being taxed upon death after having paid income tax during their lives. The perceived unfairness that is associated with estate duty has caused the creation of a secondary industry of estate planning, with the aim of minimising estate duty, which industry has resulted in the ineffectiveness of estate duty and its limited revenue. No evidence could be found regarding the Treasury’s assertion that estate duty is a cumbersome tax to administer. The final conclusion reached was that the current estate duty regime needs to be overhauled preferably by extending the current system of capital gains tax and abolishing estate duty, with due consideration being given to the consequences associated therewith.

LL.M. (Tax Law)
Capital Gains Tax (“CGT”) was introduced with effect from 1 October 2001 by the insertion of section 26A and an Eighth Schedule into the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001. Paragraph 40(1) of the Eight Schedule provides that a deceased person must, with certain exceptions, be treated as having disposed of his assets to his estate for proceeds equal to the market value of those assets as at the date of death. Paragraph 40(1A) of the Eight Schedule provides that if an asset of a deceased person is treated as having been disposed of under paragraph 40(1) and is transferred directly to the estate of the deceased person, the estate must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes, and if the asset is transferred directly to an heir or legatee, the heir or legatee must be treated as having acquired the asset at a cost equal to its market value as at the date of death for base-cost purposes. The capital gain will be the difference between the market value of a taxable asset of the deceased on the date of his death and its base cost to him, which is included in his final income tax assessment and which will have to be settled out of the estate‟s assets. There are many arguments in favour of the discontinuance of the levying of CGT at the death of a taxpayer in South Africa, which arguments become evident when comparing the South African CGT provisions regarding the levying of CGT at death with tax jurisdictions such as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Botswana and Nigeria. Canada for example abolished their inheritance tax in 1972 which in that particular situation justifies the levying of CGT at death. If CGT will continue to be levied at the death of a taxpayer it is suggested that a carry-over approach in terms of which the heir inherits the asset at its acquisition cost and the CGT liability is deferred until the heir actually disposes of the asset should be followed. This approach is currently followed in Australia, Botswana and Nigeria. The holder of an inherited bare dominium will suffer at the hands of a CGT anomaly where the deceased created a limited interest, for example a usufruct over a fixed property bequeathed by him to the bare dominium holder. The anomaly that transpires is that the limited interest created by the deceased will result in an artificial drop in the base cost of the fixed property so bequeathed and there will be no adjustment to the base cost when the bare dominium holder succeeds to full ownership of the fixed property, for example when the usufructuary passes away, meaning that the same capital gain will be taxed twice. It is submitted that legislative amendments are required to provide for an increase in the base cost applicable to the bare dominium holder when the usufructuary eventually passes away. Alternatively the SARS‟s current practice in this respect should be altered to avoid the unbearable situation where a capital gain may be taxed at 2 separate instances. At least two anomalies exist when dealing with capital losses in the deceased‟s final period of assessment and in the winding up of the deceased‟s estate. Firstly a capital loss may not be carried forward from the deceased‟s final assessment to his deceased estate to be set off against capital gains that may be realised in the winding up of the estate. Secondly a capital loss incurred on the sale of a capital asset during the winding up of a deceased estate cannot be carried over from the deceased estate to the heirs of the deceased and will thus remain unutilised. It is suggested that the method followed in Canada in respect of capital losses that occurred in the year of a taxpayer‟s death should be followed in South Africa, ie that such capital loss may be carried back three years in order to reduce any taxable capital gains that occurred in those years or that the capital losses may be utilised to reduce other income of the taxpayer in his final return. It is further suggested that this method should also be followed in respect of unutilised capital losses that occurred in the winding up of the estate, alternatively the capital losses so realised must be carried over to the heirs of the deceased.

M.Comm. (International Taxation)
Under the South African income tax system, para 12 of the Eighth Schedule states that, when a person ceases to be a resident, he/she is deemed to have disposed of his/her worldwide assets (subject to certain exclusions) at market value the day before he/she terminates his/her residency. Such deemed disposal triggers a capital gains tax charge. Commonly referred to as the ‘exit tax’, it has been in place since the introduction of capital gains tax on 1 October 2001. A recent ruling in the Supreme Court of Appeals found that according to article 13 of a double tax agreement (hereafter “DTA”) based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Model Tax Convention, a deemed disposal is regarded as an alienation of property, and (provided the exclusions do not apply) exclusive taxing rights are given to the Resident State. This has the effect to include the deemed disposal rules relating to exit taxes under this article and potentially override the application of an exit tax under domestic legislation. The override of exit taxes based on a DTA can deprive a country of its fair share of taxes and there is no protection for a country’s tax base. It is important to understand the exit tax and the interaction with DTAs to ensure that there is fairness and equity in the South African income tax system.

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Commerce (specialising in Taxation) Johannesburg, 2016
The Davis Tax Committee released their First Interim Report on Estate Duty on 13 July 2015 which contained certain recommendations concerning the way trusts should be taxed which were to act as a deterrent against aggressive estate planning. This report also contained suggested changes to current estate duty legislation. Changes to these recommendations, yet to be published in a second report, were discussed in a webinar by Judge Dennis Davis in December 2015 and the 2016 Budget Review contained additional suggestions with regard to the taxation of trusts. This study constructs case studies to compare the effect of the various recommendations on total taxation and capital preservation in a scenario where assets are held in a South African trust over a period of time, with a scenario where such assets are kept in a South African tax resident’s personal estate. The case studies focus only on high-net-worth trusts and personal estates. The possible double taxation which may occur as a result of levying both estate duty and capital gains tax on death is also briefly considered. The case study results show the punitive effects of the proposed repeal of the s 4(q) estate duty deduction for inter-spousal bequests on the personal estate scenarios and show how several of the new proposals could result in effective capital tax rates in excess of the deemed maximum capital tax benchmark of 15%. This may result in more aggressive estate planning strategies being employed should such proposals be enacted. The report also concludes that the double taxation effect of both estate duty and capital gains tax levied on death is likely to be small on average, although individual high-net-worth estates may be subject to such double taxation in certain cases. Key words: Davis Tax Committee’s First Interim Report on Estate Duty, taxation of South African trusts, South African trusts, South African estate duty, estate planning, double taxation on death, estimate for total capital gains tax collected on death, high-net-worth individuals, inequality in South Africa, wealth tax in South Africa, total taxation in South African trusts, income-splitting in South African trusts, capital preservation in South African trusts, South African trust case study, South African estate duty case study, South African estate planning case study
MT2017