CATEGORIES
- (1)AI & Technology
- (50)Accounting & Financial Reporting
- (1)Accounting for Income Tax
- (1)Assessed losses
- (32)Blogs
- (4)Business Advisory
- (8)Capital Gains Tax
- (1)Capital Gains Tax - Individuals Tax
- (1)Capital Gains Tax Implications of Trusts
- (2)Case study: Home office expense
- (1)Case study: Travel allowances
- (1)Company Formations
- (1)Compliance
- (136)Corporate Tax
- (14)Customs and Excise
- (2)Deceased Estate
- (1)Deductions Pre-trade and prepaid expenses
- (1)Deregistration
- (2)Employer and Employee (PAYE and UIF Specific)
- (1)Estate Duty
- (1)Events / Webinars
- (11)Faculty News
- (2)Farming
- (168)Individuals Tax
- (1)Input - Customs Duty
- (3)Interest
- (18)International Tax
- (1)Nature of the rights of beneficiaries
- (1)Notional input tax
- (9)Payroll
- (2)Practical Payroll
- (1)Professional Ethics
- (2)Provisional tax (Link with other Taxes)
- (4)SARS Issues
- (163)Tax Administration
- (2)Tax Administration Part 2B: Resolving Problems with SARS using the Tax Ombud
- (1)Tax Administration Part 3B Dispute Resolution - Objection and appeal
- (3)Tax Dispute Resolution
- (1)Tax Opinions
- (3)Tax Update
- (1)Tax implications of loans to trusts
- (1)Tax residence
- (1)Tax returns and payments
- (3)Transfer-Pricing
- (1)Trust Income / Gain Allocations
- (1)Trust types and income allocations
- (11)Trusts
- (86)VAT
- (3)VAT periods
- (1)Wear and tear allowances
- (14)Wills, Estates & Succession
- (1)Zero Rated
- (2)eFiling
- Show All
CIPC accepted it. That does not make it correct.
- 24 July 2026
- Compliance
- Bernice Houy
Beneficial ownership filing has been with us since 2023, and by now most practices have found a rhythm for it. The work gets done, the annual returns go through, and the client stops asking about it. On volume, we are in a much better place than we were three years ago.
The filings that worry me are not the ones that got rejected. Those come back to you, and you fix them. The ones that worry me are the ones that went through first time.
The portal is not checking what you think it is checking
When CIPC accepts a beneficial ownership submission, it is confirming that the required fields are populated, the supporting documents are attached, the identity documents are certified in the right form, and the OTP was validated. That is a completeness check. It is not a verification that the people you have named are in fact the beneficial owners of that company.
Nobody at CIPC is reading the trust deed. Nobody is working out whether the person who signed the mandate is the same person who actually controls the entity. That judgement sits entirely with you, and the acceptance email gives no indication either way.
Where it goes wrong, almost every time
The pattern I see most often is straightforward. A private company’s sole shareholder is a family trust. The practice completes the beneficial ownership declaration, enters the trust as the owner of the shares, attaches the securities register showing exactly that, and submits. CIPC accepts it. A certificate is issued. Everybody moves on.
The register is wrong, and it was wrong the moment it was filed.
The Companies Act is specific on this point. A beneficial owner is a natural person who, directly or indirectly, ultimately owns the company or exercises effective control over it. A trust is not a natural person. Neither is a holding company, a partnership or a close corporation. You keep tracing until you reach a human being, and if you cannot reach one, you have not finished the work.
The definition is also wider than most practitioners assume. Effective control is not only about shareholding. It captures the right to exercise or control voting rights, the right to appoint or remove directors, control exercised through a chain of ownership, control arising from an agreement or arrangement, and the ability to materially influence how the company is managed. Somebody with no shares at all can be a beneficial owner.
The trust layer is a judgement call, and it needs to be defensible
This is the part that takes real time, and it is why the trust layer is where filings quietly fail. Working out who ultimately owns or controls a company held through a trust means reading the trust deed properly. Who are the trustees, and do they in fact act independently. Is the founder still involved in decisions. Are there beneficiaries with vested rights, or is everything discretionary. Does one person effectively direct the trust regardless of what the deed says on paper.
There is no formula that resolves this. It is a judgement, applied against a 5% threshold that runs on ultimate ownership and control rather than on the shareholding sitting immediately in front of you. What matters is that the judgement is reasoned and recorded, so that if it is questioned in two years’ time, somebody in the practice can explain how you arrived at it.
And then there is the second register, and the third
If the trust in that structure is one your practice also administers, the company filing is only part of the obligation. Section 11A of the Trust Property Control Act requires trustees to lodge a separate beneficial ownership register with the Master of the High Court, and that regime does not work the same way at all. The definition is wider, taking in the founder, every trustee and every beneficiary named in the trust instrument. There is no percentage threshold to filter anybody out.
SARS then asks for a third view of the same facts. An organogram depicting the beneficial ownership of the trust is a required supporting document with the ITR12T, alongside the trust instrument, the financial statements, the Letters of Authority and the trustee resolutions.
Three registers, three sets of requirements, one underlying structure. They should tell the same story. SARS is one of the authorities that can access the Master’s register, so a discrepancy between what you lodged there and what you attached to the return is not a private inconsistency. It is visible.
Why this is worth attention now
South Africa came off the FATF grey list in October 2025. It would be reasonable to read that as the pressure easing, and I understand the instinct, but the enforcement position has not moved. CIPC still blocks annual returns where beneficial ownership is outstanding. Its non-compliance list runs into the millions of entities. Compliance notices are being issued, and the administrative penalty under section 175 of the Companies Act is the greater of 10% of turnover or R1 million. On the trust side the exposure is heavier still, at up to R10 million, five years’ imprisonment, or both.
SARS began raising administrative penalties on outstanding trust returns in May 2026, covering periods from 2024 onwards. And the next FATF review round starts in the second half of this year. Part of what got us delisted was demonstrating that supervisors apply real consequences for non-compliance, so nobody should expect that to soften.
Something practical to do this week
Do not try to audit your whole client book. That project never gets finished. Do this instead.
- Pull every entity whose CIPC anniversary date falls in the next 90 days. Anniversary date, not financial year end, and not December.
- For each one, ask a single question: does the securities register show any shareholder that is not a natural person?
- Every entity where the answer is yes goes on a review list. That list is where your risk actually is.
It is a short exercise and it usually surprises people. Most practices find the list is longer than they expected, and that several entries on it were filed and accepted years ago.
Want to know more about this topic? Click here to register for the webinar.