Binding Class Ruling: BCR 59 | Calculation Of VAT For Table Games Of Chance
Issue This ruling provides direction relating to the way casinos must account for VAT in respect of table games of chance.
This author has not written his bio yet.
But we are proud to say that Tax Consulting South Africa contributed 801 entries already.
Issue This ruling provides direction relating to the way casinos must account for VAT in respect of table games of chance.
Like that found in Yin and Yang, all things must be balanced in life, which rings true even for a competent revenue authority, as the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has demonstrated over the last fiscal period, with Commissioner Kieswetter stating that “we strive to balance the trade-off between taxpayer service and risk management”.
Effective 1 March 2021, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) removed themselves from the process of Financial Emigration. The move was gladly welcomed by Authorised Dealers (banks), as this took away the burdensome process banks had to follow guided by Exchange Control Rulings.
Commissioner for the SARS v SAV South Africa (Pty) Ltd (SARSTC-IT-25117) (18 November 2021) Issue The issue in this matter was whether the step followed by the taxpayer in launching a default judgment application constituted an irregular step in terms of rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court (“the Rules”).
With various countries closing their borders since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Netherlands has emerged as one of the new frontrunners as a destination for emigrating South African to further their careers.
Numerous South African taxpayers are unaware of their tax status in South Africa and what steps need to be taken to remain compliant with the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”). To add to this, there exist confusion and misconceptions surrounding expat tax where taxpayers are advised that they are compliant, but this is in most […]
Factual Background Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated (“BLI”), a firm of attorneys, filed returns (and therefore self-assessments) in respect of its tax liability for VAT and employees’ tax. BLI regarded the tax liability amounts set out in these self-assessments as correct and therefore contended that it had subsequently made payment of this tax liability to SARS.
The proverb still rings true – you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. In this case, despite the South African Revenue Service’s (“SARS”) referral of criminal taxpayers to the National Prosecution Authority (“NPA”) as well as the Zondo Commission’s damning findings levied against various high-profile persons, it appears that […]
In what is increasingly being considered a watershed year for the evolution of cryptocurrency regulation in South Africa, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) is quietly but meticulously accreting the details of South Africans invested in crypto assets with a view to dropping the hammer on tax non-compliance.
There is developing trend where tax practitioners and taxpayers alike cry “fear-mongering” where media releases caution against non-compliance, despite numerous statements by the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) noting a zero-tolerance approach to any form of, wilful or negligent, non-compliance.
Controlled Foreign Companies –
South African Tax Considerations
Controlled Foreign Companies – South African Tax Considerations
South Africa’s tax system includes a Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) regime designed to address the taxation of income earned by foreign companies owned by South African tax residents.
Where a South African tax resident holds or controls a foreign company, they may be subject to income tax in South Africa on the CFC’s foreign income, even if that income has not yet been distributed. This is an anti-avoidance measure to prevent South African tax residents from utilising foreign companies in the avoidance of South African tax.
What is a Controlled Foreign Company?
A CFC is broadly defined in section 9D of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962, as any foreign company where more than 50% of the total participation rights or voting rights are directly or indirectly held or exercisable by one or more South African tax residents.
Where this threshold is met, and unless a specific exemption applies, the net income of the CFC must be included in the income of the South African resident(s) in proportion to their participation rights, and taxed accordingly.
Taxpayers who fail to accurately account for a CFC’s income risk audit or reassessment by SARS, especially in light of increased global transparency and data sharing through mechanisms such as the Common Reporting Standard.
Key Features of the CFC Regime
Place of Effective Management and Corporate Tax Residency in South Africa
South Africa follows a residence-based system of taxation, meaning that resident companies are subject to tax on their worldwide income.
In terms of section 1 of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962 (the Act), a company is regarded as a South African tax resident if it is either:
unless a double tax agreement (DTA) provides otherwise.
The concept of POEM is central to determining a company’s tax residency, particularly where cross-border structures are involved. It affects both foreign companies with South African involvement and South African-incorporated entities that may be managed from abroad.
What is Place of Effective Management?
Although not defined in the Act, POEM has been interpreted through South African case law, SARS guidance, and international commentary, particularly the OECD Model Tax Convention and Commentary thereto.
Broadly, POEM refers to the location where key management and commercial decisions necessary for the conduct of the entity’s overall business are made, in substance and not merely in form.
The determination of POEM is a factual enquiry, and is not limited to formalities such as the registered office, place of incorporation, or location of board meetings. Instead, it focuses on:
Application in Cross-Border Contexts
POEM plays a critical role in determining corporate tax residency in both inbound and outbound scenarios:
Both scenarios must be carefully evaluated in light of South African domestic law and any applicable DTA.
Interaction with Double Tax Agreements
Where a company is regarded as resident in both South Africa and another jurisdiction, the relevant DTA will typically contain a tie-breaker clause to resolve the conflict.
Most of South Africa’s DTAs allocate tax residency to the country where the company’s POEM is located. However, some newer treaties apply a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), requiring the tax authorities of both states to determine residence based on additional factors.
Correct DTA application is essential to avoid dual residency exposure and to obtain treaty relief on dividends, interest, royalties, and other income.
Practical Implications for Companies
Incorrect or dual tax residency status can expose a company to:
Permanent Establishment – Tax Exposure in Cross-Border Contexts
As businesses expand across borders, one of the key tax risks they face is the inadvertent creation of a permanent establishment (PE) in a foreign jurisdiction. A PE may trigger foreign income tax exposure for a company even in the absence of incorporation or tax residency in that jurisdiction.
South African companies with offshore activities, or foreign companies with South African operations, must be aware of the PE concept, how it arises, and how it interacts with applicable Double Tax Agreements (DTAs).
What Is a Permanent Establishment?
A PE is generally defined in a DTA as a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. Common examples include:
South Africa’s DTAs typically follow the OECD Model Tax Convention, and many incorporate updated provisions from the Multilateral Instrument (MLI), which narrows common avoidance strategies and expands the scope of PE risk.
Inbound vs Outbound Permanent Establishment Risk
Even short-term or project-based activities can give rise to PE risks if not carefully managed and monitored.
Consequences of a Permanent Establishment Finding
If a PE is found to exist:
Non-compliance can result in penalties, double taxation, and reputational harm.
In a connected world, even limited physical or digital presence in a foreign country can create tax exposure. Managing PE risk is essential for international tax compliance and operational efficiency.
Controlled Foreign Companies –
South African Tax Considerations
South Africa’s tax system includes a Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) regime designed to address the taxation of income earned by foreign companies owned by South African tax residents.
Where a South African tax resident holds or controls a foreign company, they may be subject to income tax in South Africa on the CFC’s foreign income, even if that income has not yet been distributed. This is an anti-avoidance measure to prevent South African tax residents from utilising foreign companies in the avoidance of South African tax.
What is a Controlled Foreign Company?
A CFC is broadly defined in section 9D of the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962, as any foreign company where more than 50% of the total participation rights or voting rights are directly or indirectly held or exercisable by one or more South African tax residents.
Where this threshold is met, and unless a specific exemption applies, the net income of the CFC must be included in the income of the South African resident(s) in proportion to their participation rights, and taxed accordingly.
Taxpayers who fail to accurately account for a CFC’s income risk audit or reassessment by SARS, especially in light of increased global transparency and data sharing through mechanisms such as the Common Reporting Standard.
Key Features of the CFC Regime