FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES
Category Tax
SUB CATEGORIES Tax | 

SARS creates tax loopholes

18 July 2018 Jean du Toit, Tax Consulting SA
Jean du Toit, Attorney at Tax Consulting SA.

Jean du Toit, Attorney at Tax Consulting SA.

When is a SARS Tax Court case win a loss for the fiscus? After the recent SARS court case, dealing with the taxable income of foreigners working in South Africa, it is hard to argue that no-one is working harder than SARS to create tax loopholes for expatriate employees. If SARS disagrees, it may consider appealing their own win to reset the well-established principles and balance of international and South African tax law applicable to foreigners working in South Africa.

On 9 March 2018, the Tax Court, Western Cape Division, delivered judgment in the matter of Mr X v the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service. This dispute turned on the source of Mr X’s employment income, which he contended was where he physically rendered his employment services. SARS argued that it was located where Mr X had concluded his employment agreement and sought to tax him on his entire employment income on this basis.

In a bewildering judgment, the court went against the well-established legal principle embodied by Mr X’s argument and ruled that the source of employment income is where the employment agreement is implemented. Therefore, Mr X’s entire employment income was regarded as being fully taxable. This decision, however, has a delightful upshot for inbound expatriates with foreign employers, which is that they will be fully exempt from tax on income earned from services rendered in South Africa.

Of great concern, however, is the fact that SARS presented an argument in court that defies a principle that SARS has accepted and confirmed by to be correct in its Guide on the Taxation of Foreigners Working in South Africa.

This raises some pressing questions:

1. Why would SARS present an argument in court which is in direct contradiction with what is generally accepted as trite law and even spelled out in its own Guide?

2. Assuming SARS disagrees with the validity of the first question, i.e. they maintain they have applied the law correctly, have they quantified the loss to our fiscus of this policy decision?

3. Is SARS going to appeal this incorrect decision, or are they opening the door for foreign expatriates to now claim complete exemption from taxes based on a foreign employment agreement?

Considering that Tax Court judgments are of persuasive value only, and do not constitute precedent, expatriates are advised to proceed with caution until SARS clarifies its position. For full analysis of the case, read the extended article here (http://www.taxconsulting.co.za/sars-creates-tax-loopholes).

Quick Polls

QUESTION

In terms of vicarious liability, damages should not be borne by companies in all conditions, but only in those circumstances which it is reasonable for them to do so. Do you agree?

ANSWER

Yes, damages should only be borne by companies in those circumstances which it is reasonable for them to do so.
No. If there is a sufficiently close link between the employee’s acts and the purposes and business of the employer, the employer should be held liable for delicts committed by their employees.
As long as the employee is acting within the course and scope of his or her duty… the employer will be held liable.
A E fanews magazine
FAnews October 2019 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

Non-disclosure - a question of fairness
Level of insurance regulation notably tightened
The cost of treating cancer
Employee Benefits… an untapped opportunity
Bound to NHI… whether you like it or not
A stormier world for marine insurers
Examining the application of reinstatement clauses
Subscribe now