The effectiveness of the South African double taxation relief provisions for South African companies investing in other African estates

Abstract

South Africa has expressed its desire to be the gateway for investment into Africa. With its residence-based tax system which taxes the worldwide income of its tax residents, South African companies will be open to double taxation where the investee country claims jurisdiction to tax income generated from within its borders. In addition, other provisions in the South African tax legislation increase the possibility of double taxation by including the income of foreign subsidiaries. Two such examples are the definition of a tax resident, which includes foreign subsidiaries that are effectively managed by their holding companies in South Africa, and the anti-avoidance measures, such as the controlled foreign company provisions, which impute the income of a foreign subsidiary to the South African investment company. Many South African companies have chosen to route their investments in African countries through foreign subsidiaries. Besides having a more investor-friendly tax regime, these countries offer more favourable relief from double taxation, both unilaterally and by means of their network of tax treaties. South Africa has identified some of its shortcomings. It has introduced concessionary tax provisions for locally based headquarter companies that invest abroad. It recognises the high cost of doing business in Africa due to the fact that many African countries impose withholding taxes on several types of income even though they may not be from a local source. Therefore, South Africa is granting tax rebates for foreign withholding taxes paid on service fees charged to foreign entities despite the income being derived from a South African source. Both these measures reduce double taxation but, are they sufficient to encourage direct investment from South Africa into other African countries? This study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the South African double taxation relief provisions by using a case study of a South African company that has investments in several African countries. It compares the application of the double taxation relief provisions of South Africa, another African country and a non-African country to the case study. It analyses the outcomes and assesses the effectiveness of South Africa’s current legislation for unilateral tax relief and its tax treaties in minimising double taxation. Finally, it makes some recommendations on possible improvements to the legislation in order to achieve the stated goal of being the financial hub for investment into Africa AFRIKAANS : Suid Afrika het aangedui dat dit die poort vir belegging na Afrika wil wees. Die heffing van belasting op die wêreldwye inkomste van belastingpligtige inwoners stel Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappye egter bloot aan dubbelbelasting indien die land waarin beleggings gemaak word ook aanspraak maak op die reg om inkomste wat in daardie land verdien is, te belas. Sekere bepalings in die Suid-Afrikaanse belastingwetgewing stel belastingbetalers verder bloot aan dubbelbelasting indien die inkomste van buitelandse filiale ook by die inkomste van inwoners ingesluit moet word. Twee sulke voorbeelde sluit die definisie van belastingpligtige inwoner ingevolge waarvan buitelandse filiale wat effektiewelik deur hulle houermaatskappy in Suid-Afrika bestuur word en sekere teenvermydingsmaatstawwe, soos byvoorbeeld die beheerde buitelandse maatskappy bepalings ingevolge waarvan die inkomste van ʼn buitelandse filiaal aan ʼn Suid-Afrikaanse beleggingsmaatskappy toegeskryf word, in. Daar is heelwat Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappye wat verkies om hulle beleggings in Afrika deur middel van filiale wat in ander lande geregistreer is, te hou. Hierdie gekose lande het nie net gunstige belasting instellings bewinde nie maar bied ook meer voordelige verligting van dubbelbelasting, beide eensydig en deur middel van hulle netwerk van belastingooreenkomste, aan. Suid-Afrika het sy tekortkominge geidentifiseer. Voordelige belastingbepalings is geskep vir plaaslike hoofkantoor maatskappye wat beleggings in die buiteland hou. Erkenning is gegee aan die hoë koste om besigheid in Afrika te doen as gevolg van die feit dat menige Afrika-lande belasting op verskeie tipe inkomste weerhou selfs as die oorsprong van die inkomste nie vanuit daardie lande kom nie. Suid-Afrika is gewillig om belastingkortings vir die buitelandse belasting so weerhou toe te staan ten spyte daarvan dat die oorsprong van die inkomste in Suid-Afrika is. Beide die maatstawwe is gemik op tot die vermindering van dubbelbelasting, maar is dit voldoende om direkte beleggings vanaf Suid-Afrika in ander Afrika-lande aan te moedig? Die doelwit van hierdie studie is om te bepaal hoe effektief die Suid-Afrikaanse bepalings wat gemik is om dubbelbelasting te verhoed deur middel van ‘n gevallestudie van ʼn Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappy wat meervoudige beleggings in verskeie Afrika-lande het. Die studie vergelyk die toepassing van die vermindering van dubbelbelastingbepalings van Suid-Afrika, ʼn ander Afrika-land en ʼn nie-Afrika-land. Die resultate word geanaliseer en die effektiwiteit van die huidige wetgewing vir eensydige verligting van dubbelbelasting en die huidige belastingooreenkomste om dubbelbelasting te verminder, word beraam. Ten slotte, die studie beoog ook om aanbevelings wat dalk die wetgewing kan verbeter ten einde die gewensde doelwit om Suid Afrika die finansiële poort vir beleggings in Afrika te bereik, te maak.