Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (13798; 13931; 14294) [2019] ZATC 5 (17 September 2019)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
13798; 13931; 14294
Judges
L R Adams, M F Van Wyk, T V L Makhakhe
The Tax Court held that a taxpayer could not claim capital losses from an employee share incentive trust because the asserted right was a personal right, not a CGT asset.
Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Massmart Holdings Limited (IT14294) [2018] ZATC 2 (11 July 2018)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
IT14294
Judge
P.A. Meyer
The Tax Court held that exception procedure can be used in tax appeals, but SARS’s exception failed because Massmart’s capital-loss case raised triable issues.
S G Taxpayer v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (IT14264) [2018] ZATC 1; 81 SATC 308 (9 May 2018)
Court
Tax Court
Case number
IT14264
Judges
J I Cloete, B R Hilliard, T Pasiwe
The court found that the taxpayer's dominant purpose in making the R48 million contribution to the Trust was to incentivise and retain key management staff, thereby enhancing the taxpayer's income-producing capacity. The scheme was structured so that employees benefited from the growth in the holding company's shares, and the contribution was not repaid to the taxpayer. The evidence established a sufficiently close causal link between the expenditure and the taxpayer's income-producing operations. The court distinguished the present case from Solaglass, as the expenditure was not for the bene…
Bosch and Another v Commissioner of South African Revenue Services (A 94/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 188; [2013] 2 All SA 41 (WCC); 2013 (5) SA 130 (WCC); 75 SATC 1 (20 November 2012)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A 94/2012
Judges
Davis, Baartman, Waglay
The Court held that the scheme agreements created unconditional sales upon exercise of the option, and that section 8A was triggered at that point, not upon delivery of shares. The various clauses in the scheme, including those relating to continued employment and the stop loss provision, did not constitute suspensive conditions that would defer the creation of the right to acquire shares. The Court found that the scheme had clear commercial purpose and was not a simulated transaction. Accordingly, paragraph 2(a) of the Seventh Schedule was excluded by the proviso, and section 8C did not appl…
