The consequences of land expropriations in terms of the South African Vat Act

Abstract

The VAT consequences of land expropriations appear to be a grey area with no definitive answer as to which expropriations are zero rated or vatable at 14%. While it is generally understood that the government performs expropriations, there are many departments within the government that have authority to perform these expropriations independently. Based on section 11(1)(s) and (t) of the VAT Act, depending on which department performs the expropriation and under which Act the expropriations are made it will be determined whether the expropriation will attract VAT at 14% or 0%. However, the detail contained in section 11(1)(s) and (t) does not lend itself to a clear cut explanation as to the motive behind why some expropriations are zero rated and others that are fundamentally similar are vatable at 14%. This study performs a comparison of expropriations under the Housing Act, Restitution of Land Rights Act and the Provision of Land and Assistance Act and their VAT consequences. The purpose of this study is to try and find the driving factor that determines the VAT consequences of the different expropriations and to determine whether there is a commonality. The study performs an analysis of the expropriating authorities of the different Acts mentioned above and determines whether their VAT vendor status has an influence as to whether VAT is levied at 0% or 14% or whether the entire transaction is an exempt supply. The conclusion reached is that the most appropriate course of action would be to apply a blanket rule of zero rating the supply. This would reduce confusion and uncertainty relating to the VAT consequences and would also assist all parties concerned to have the same expectation. It is important that the South African Revenue Service provides some guidelines to assist in understanding the VAT consequences of expropriations in South Africa, as they will be required to enforce the legislation. AFRIKAANS : Die BTW-gevolge van grondonteienings blyk ‘n grys gebied te wees met geen duidelike antwoorde wanneer dit kom by watter van hierdie onteienings onderhewig is aan nulkoers en watter onteienings belasbaar is teen 14% nie. Alhoewel die algemene gevoel is dat die regering onteienings uitvoer, is daar wel departemente binne die regering wat die volmag het om hierdie onteienings onafhanklik toe te pas. Op grond van artikel 11(1)(e) en (t) van die BTW-wet, sal vasgestel word watter onteienings aan 14% of nulkoers BTW onderhewig is deur te kyk na watter departement die onteienings uitvoer en onder watter wet die onteienings gemaak is. Die detail wat in artikel 11(1)(e) en (t) vervat word is nie heeltemal duidelik oor hoekom sekere onteienings aan nulkoers onderhewig is en ander, wat fundamenteel dieselfde is, belasbaar is teen 14% nie. ʼn Vergelyking van onteienings wat onder die Wet op Behuising, Wet op Herstel van Grondregte en die Wet op die Beskikbaarstelling van Grond en Bystand plaasvind, asook die BTW-gevolge van elke wet, word deur middel van hierdie studie gemaak. Die doel van hierdie studie is om te bepaal watter faktore die BTW-gevolge van die verskillende onteienings bepaal, en of die faktore iets in gemeen het. Die studie analiseer die onteieningsgesag wat by die verskillende wette soos hierbo genoem ter sprake is en bepaal of die BTW-ondernemer-status ‘n invloed het op of 1) BTW teen nulkoers of 14% toegedien word en of 2) die hele transaksie ‘n nie-belasbare lewering is. Die gevolgtrekking wat bereik word is dat die mees geskikte plan van aksie sal wees om alle lewerings onderhewig te maak aan ‘n nulkoers. Dit sal verwarring en onsekerheid met betrekking tot die BTW-gevolge verminder en verseker dat alle betrokke partye dieselfde verwagting sal hê. Dit is belangrik dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens riglyne sal verskaf wat kan help om die BTW-gevolge van onteienings in Suid-Afrika verstaanbaar te maak, aangesien daar in elk geval van die regering vereis word om wetgewing af te dwing.