CATEGORIES
- (1) Negotiating Tax Debt and Payment Arrangements with SARS
- (14)Accounting
- (2)Accounting for Income Tax
- (7)Administration of Estates
- (1)Application of tax rates, s6(2) rebates
- (1)Assessed losses
- (4)Audit, Reviews & Other Services
- (9)Blogs
- (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
- (117)Corporate Tax
- (9)Customs and Excise
- (2)Deceased Estate
- (1)Deductions Pre-trade and prepaid expenses
- (1)Deferred tax assets and deferred tax on equity
- (1)Deregistration
- (2)Employer and Employee (PAYE and UIF Specific)
- (1)Estate Duty
- (5)Faculty News
- (2)Farming
- (141)Individuals Tax
- (1)Input - Customs Duty
- (3)Interest
- (13)International Tax
- (17)Legislation
- (1)Low interest rate loans and loan subsidies
- (1)Nature of the rights of beneficiaries
- (1)Notional input tax
- (8)Payroll
- (2)Practical Payroll
- (2)Provisional tax (Link with other Taxes)
- (1)SARS Dispute Resolution
- (4)SARS Issues
- (1)Salaried Employees
- (126)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
- (2)Tax Update
- (2)Tax implications of loans to trusts
- (1)Tax residence
- (1)Tax returns and payments
- (1)Transfer-Pricing
- (1)Trust Income / Gain Allocations
- (1)Trust types and income allocations
- (5)Trusts
- (66)VAT
- (3)VAT periods
- (1)Wear and tear allowances
- (1)Zero Rated
- Show All
Jumping fences: Section 20A of the Income Tax Act and ring-fenced losses
- 19 December 2019
- Individuals Tax
- Louis Botha and Louise Kotze
Monday, 19 February 2018
Important:
This article is based on tax law for the tax year ending 28 February 2018.
Authors: Louis Botha and Louise Kotze (CDH)
In South Africa’s current challenging economic climate, the risk of suffering losses in business is higher than normal. From a tax perspective, persons are generally allowed to set off losses incurred in respect of one trade against the income derived from another trade, to reduce their tax liability. However, the extent to which taxpayers can do this is limited and in this regard taxpayers, specifically natural persons, should be aware of the provisions of s20A of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act). In terms of s20A, losses incurred by natural persons in respect of certain trades will be ring-fenced under certain circumstances, meaning that such losses cannot be offset against income derived from other trades carried on by such natural persons.
Rationale behind s20A
In terms of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2003 (Memorandum), s20A was introduced to curb the practice where natural persons pursued ventures that, for the most part, consisted of hobbies disguised as trades, referred to in the Memorandum as suspect trades. The Memorandum states that private consumption can be disguised as trade so that individuals, especially wealthier individuals, can set-off the expenditures from this trade against other income such as salaried or professional income. Section 20A addresses this by stating that losses incurred in respect of a trade will be ring-fenced under certain circumstances.
When a loss is ring-fenced, that loss may not be set off against the other income of the natural person in order to reduce his tax liability. The loss may only be set off against the future income derived from the trade to which the loss relates. It follows that any balance of assessed loss pursuant to conducting that trade may, in future, also only be set off against the income derived from that trade.
When will section 20A apply to a loss?
Section 20A(2) sets out the requirements that, if met, will result in the relevant loss being ring fenced.
Please click here to view full article.
This article first appeared on cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com.