The nature of the purpose requirement of an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement
| dc.contributor.author | Van Schalkwyk, L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Geldenhuys, B. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-03T13:02:47Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-06-03T13:02:47Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: The nature of an inquiry into the purpose requirement of an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement can either be objective or subjective. In essence, an objective inquiry has regard to the ‘effect’ of an arrangement, as opposed to a subjective inquiry which has regard to the taxpayer’s ipse dixit. Although the purpose requirement under section 103(1) was a subjective inquiry, case law decided under section 103(1) revealed that a taxpayer’s ipse dixit was weighed and tested against the surrounding facts and circumstances. This introduced an element of objectivity into the interpretation of the purpose requirement. Tax scholars have various opinions regarding the nature of the test in the new purpose requirement in sections 80A and 80G. It seems that the amendments to the purpose requirement merely confirm the approach which was applied by our courts under the repealed section 103(1). The nature of the purpose requirement, therefore, in essence, seems to have stayed unaltered. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Die aard van ’n ondersoek na die oogmerk vereiste van ’n ontoelaatbare belasting-vermydingsreëling kan òf objektief òf subjektief wees. In wese hou ’n objektiewe ondersoek verband met die “gevolg” van ’n reëling, in teenstelling met ’n subjektiewe ondersoek wat verband hou met die belastingpligtige se ipse dixit. Alhoewel die oogmerk vereiste ingevolge artikel 103(1) ’n subjektiewe ondersoek was, bring hofspraak wat ingevolge artikel 103(1) beslis is aan die lig dat ’n belastingpligtige se ipse dixit teen die omringende feite en omstandighede geweeg en getoets is. Dit het ’n element van objektiwiteit by die interpretasie van die oogmerk vereiste ingebring. Belastingskrywers het verskillende menings oor die aard van die toets in die nuwe oogmerk vereiste in artikels 80A and 80G. Dit blyk dat die wysigings aan die oogmerk vereiste bloot die benadering wat ons howe by die toepassing van artikel 103(1) gevolg het, bevestig. Die aard van die oogmerk vereiste blyk dus, in wese, onveranderd te gebly het. | af |
| dc.description.version | Publisher's version | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Van Schalkwyk, L., & Geldenhuys, B. (2010). The nature of the purpose requirement of an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement. Journal for Juridical Science, 35(1), 71-92. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0258-252X (print) | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2415-0517 (online) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/2686 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | Faculty of Law, University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Tax avoidance | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 | en_ZA |
| dc.title | The nature of the purpose requirement of an impermissible tax avoidance arrangement | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Article | en_ZA |