Tag Archive for: Tax

Andrew Stegmann
,

Warning Over Government’s Plans to Change South Africa’s Emigration Finance Rules

A number of tax and financial groups have issued warnings over a new draft bill which will introduce changes for South Africans looking to take their retirement funds out of the country.

Under the current system, members of preservation funds and retirement annuity funds may withdraw from such funds if they formally emigrate from South Africa for exchange control purposes and their emigration is approved by the South African Reserve Bank

However, changes in the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (TLAB) will effectively phase out the concept of emigration for exchange control purposes.

The amendment will mean that South Africans emigrating from the country will only be able to make a withdrawal when a retirement fund member has ceased to be an tax resident and has remained so for a consecutive period of at least three years.

The change has come under fire as the TLAB was the subject of public hearings in parliament on Wednesday (7 October).

Impractical and draconian

“The proposed requirement that an individual be non-resident for a period of three years prior to being entitled to access retirement funds is impractical, draconian and will present administrative difficulties for both SARS and taxpayers,” said professional services firm PwC in its submission.

The firm said that where an individual permanently departs from South Africa, the proposed rules could – depending on the particular circumstances of that individual – result in considerable financial hardship for an extended period of time before retirement funds are available.

“Under the current rules, a person who emigrates is entitled to withdraw their retirement funds immediately. Under the proposed rules, they would now need to wait for at least three years before being able to do so,” the firm said.

“Retirement funds are frequently required by emigrants to make emigration financially viable and the proposed rules will severely impact this.”

As an alternative, PwC recommended that the proposed three-year residence rule should be replaced with another ‘more practical rule’.

“For example, it could be linked to a person ceasing to be ordinarily resident in South Africa – as opposed to necessarily not tax resident,” it said.

The opposite of modern

In its submission,  Tax Consulting SA said that the amendment is at ‘cross purposes’ to its intended goal of a more ‘modern’ exchange control system.

It highlighted that under the new system , retirement benefits will effectively be locked in and will be inaccessible to the individual in question for a minimum period of three years, even after they have left South Africa permanently.

This restriction will only be lifted once the taxpayer in question is able to prove they have been non-resident for an uninterrupted period of at least three years.

“By any measure, this new test is the opposite of modernisation and a step back towards locking in retirement funds after becoming non-resident for tax and exchange control purposes,” it said.

“Furthermore, if the test is to be based on residency, it is not clear why withdrawal is subject to a period of three full years. If the taxpayer has ceased residency, why impose a punitive lock-in of this extent?,” the firm asked.

Tax Consulting SA that the proposed amendment will do away with a well-established process that allows emigrants to freely expatriate their retirement benefits with one that is far more restrictive and less transparent.

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, Remuneration, and Expat Tax needs, email info@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: [1], [2]. Image sources: [1], [2].

Andrew Stegmann

South Africa Holds Tax Equalization Payments Taxable

This information is  courtesy of Pete Scott, via WERC

In a case decided 6 September 2019, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa held that payments by an employer for consulting services to expatriate employees were taxable fringe benefits. The case is BMW South Africa v. Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service.

As is frequently done by companies with employees on expatriate assignments, BMW followed a tax equalization process designed to ensure that the employees are not tax disadvantaged from the assignment. In doing so, BMW hired big 4 consulting firms to assist the employees with tax matters, including registration as taxpayers, preparation and submission of income tax returns, review of annual income tax assessments, preparation and submission of provisional tax returns, and resolution of disputes with the tax authorities.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) took the position that the payments made to the consultants were taxable fringe benefits to the employees. BMW argued that the services were in fact for its own benefit in order to ensure that South African taxes were neither overpaid nor underpaid and that employees did not run afoul of the tax authorities. It also argued that the employees did not receive a benefit because they had no choice but to accept the services, and that the employees were placed in a financially neutral position with respect to their taxes.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that ancillary benefit to the employer was not enough to remove a payment from treatment as a fringe benefit when the employees received services for which they would have had to pay significant amounts had BMW not provided them. Accordingly, the entire amount paid was taxable to the employees.

This position is similar to that taken by the United States Internal Revenue Service.

Employers with expatriate employees in South Africa must begin including in their incomes the value of tax equalization services provided to the employees, with consequent tax gross-up issues.

To view information about the case, click here.

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, Remuneration, and Expat Tax needs, email info@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: [1], [2]. Image sources: Ben Bezuidenhout [1], [2].

Andrew Stegmann

China Starts Collecting Environment Tax

China has begun to collect an environment tax, aimed at better protecting the environment and cut pollutant discharge, as the country’s Environmental Protection Tax Law took effect on January 1, 2018.

The introduction of the tax called an end to the ‘pollutant discharge fee’ which China had been collecting for nearly 40 years.

This is China’s first tax clearly designed for environmental protection, which will help establish a “green” financial and taxation system and promote pollution control and treatment of pollutants, said Wang Jinnan, head of the Chinese Academy For Environmental Planning under the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

China had collected a ‘pollutant discharge fee’ since 1979, however, some local governments exploited loopholes and exempted enterprises that were otherwise big contributors to fiscal revenue. For years, regulators had suggested replacing the fee system with a law.

Under the Environmental Protection Tax Law, which targets enterprises and public institutions that discharge listed pollutants directly into the environment, companies will pay taxes for producing noise, air and water pollutants as well as solid waste.

Tackling pollution has been listed as one of the “three tough battles” that China aims to win in the next three years. The areas of focus were discussed at the recent Central Economic Work Conference, an annual meeting held in China, convened by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council, which sets the national agenda for the Economy of China and its financial and banking sectors.

China’s parliamentary elections are currently underway, having begun in October 2017, and will conclude in March 2018.

 

Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Image source: [1].