Ackermans Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service, Pep Store (SA) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (441/09) [2010] ZASCA 131; 2011 (1) SA 1 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 125 (SCA); 73 SATC 1 (1 October 2010)

Ackermans Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service, Pep Store (SA) Ltd v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (441/09) [2010] ZASCA 131; 2011 (1) SA 1 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 125 (SCA); 73 SATC 1 (1 October 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Ackermans Limited did not incur expenditure as contemplated in section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 by virtue of the sale agreement. The court found that no liability was incurred by Ackermans to Pepkor in terms of the sale agreement, and the manner in which the purchase price was discharged did not result in the discharge of any obligation owed by Ackermans to Pepkor. The reduction in purchase price due to the assumption of liabilities by the purchaser did not amount to expenditure actually incurred by Ackermans. The court rejected the argument that economic consequences alone could constitute deductible expenditure, emphasizing that actual...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 131
Parties
Appellant: Ackermans Limited; Appellant: Pep Stores (SA) Limited; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2010
Case Number
441/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the South Gauteng Tax Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
NAVSA, CLOETE, CACHALIA, MHLANTLA, BOSIELO
Legal Topics
Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, Deductibility of Expenditure, Contingent Liabilities, Sale of Business, Revenue Vs Capital Expenditure
Tax Law Commercial and Corporate Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 Deductibility of Expenditure Contingent Liabilities Sale of Business Revenue Vs Capital Expenditure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ackermans Limited

Appellant

Pep Stores (SA) Limited

Appellant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the South Gauteng Tax Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ackermans Limited incurred 'expenditure' as contemplated in section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 by virtue of the sale agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the assumption of contingent liabilities by the purchaser constitutes expenditure actually incurred for tax deduction purposes.
  3. 3 Whether the reduction in purchase price due to the assumption of liabilities amounts to deductible expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Ackermans Limited did not incur expenditure as contemplated in section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 by virtue of the sale agreement. The court found that no liability was incurred by Ackermans to Pepkor in terms of the sale agreement, and the manner in which the purchase price was discharged did not result in the discharge of any obligation owed by Ackermans to Pepkor. The reduction in purchase price due to the assumption of liabilities by the purchaser did not amount to expenditure actually incurred by Ackermans. The court rejected the argument that economic consequences alone could constitute deductible expenditure, emphasizing that actual...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the appellants, including the costs of two counsel.