| Popis: |
The Supreme Court of Appeal has revisited the issue that has attracted the most litigation in South African tax law: whether gains from the disposal of an asset are of a capital or of a revenue nature. In CSARS V Founders Hill (509/10) [2011] ZASCA 66, 73 SATC 183 the court held that „intention‟ is not conclusive in the enquiry and cannot be the litmus test in determining the nature of proceeds from the sale of an asset. This judgement relegates intention to only one of the factors to be considered as it was held that it should be considered objectively whether the taxpayer is actually trading or not. The court also indicated that a „realisation company‟ would only act on capital account if it is formed for the purpose of facilitating the realisation of property which could not otherwise be dealt with satisfactorily. This treatise was primarily aimed at an analysis of the court cases which dealt with the „realisation company‟ concept in South African income tax law. In analysing the „realisation company‟ concept through case law culminating in Founders Hill, it was found that in every instance where „realisation company‟ x had won the argument, there had been compelling reasons why the owners of the assets had found it necessary to realise the asset through an interposed company established for that purpose. These reasons include: to facilitate the sale of property previously held by different people and to consolidate and conveniently administer the interests of beneficiaries under different wills. Furthermore, this treatise criticised „intention‟ as the primary test in determining the nature of proceeds from the sale of a capital asset and examined the objective approach to the inquiry as advocated in CSARS v Founders Hill. A discussion on the advantages of this approach indicated that it will certainly obviate a number of difficulties that arise from invoking „intention‟ as the litmus test. |
