Print Page   |   Report Abuse
News & Press: SAFLII

In the tax court held at Johannesburg ITC case no 11329

10 August 2005   (0 Comments)
Posted by: TaxFind™
Share |
In the Tax Court Held at Johannesburg 
ITC  CASE NO 11329
Before: President: The Honourable Ms Justice K Satchwell 
Accountant Member:  Mr B Adam 
Commercial Member: Mr W Gravett 
1.This judgment requires the Court to  examine, yet again, the vexed question of what constitutes‘trade’ for purposes of   Sections 11 and 20 of the Income Tax Act.  
2.The  appellant taxpayer is A which is the holding company for the B.In the determination of its taxable income for the year under assessment ended 31 December 2001, the taxpayer had submitted its return of income together with a supporting set of financial statements. 
3.The Commissioner  has disallowed an assessed loss  in the sum of R1,282,117 which was carried forward by the taxpayer from 2000 on the grounds both that  "the company did not trade”  and had not derived any income during the year of assessment.The Commissioner has also disallowed claimed expenditure of R84, 262 for the 2001 year on the basis that such expenditure had not been incurred in the course of trade.The total sum disallowed  is R1,366,379. 2
4.The original financial statements showed that the appellant had derived no income during the 2001 year of assessment.However, after the aforesaid disallowance by the Commissioner, the taxpayer revealed that interest earned from loans  made by the taxpayer to subsidiary companies had been omitted from  these  particular  financial statements and  this income tax return.Revised financial statements  and tax return were then prepared disclosing interest income  in the amount of R 230 000 for the year of assessment.The taxpayer performed the appropriate arithmetical calculation and requested a revised assessment to reflect the assessed loss to be R1 132 237. 
5.The taxpayer has objected to the Commissioner’s assessment mainly on the basis that it has indeed traded during the year of assessment under review.On disallowance of the objection, the taxpayer lodged an appeal to the Tax Court.   
To view full decision click here


Section 240A of the Tax Administration Act, 2011 (as amended) requires that all tax practitioners register with a recognized controlling body before 1 July 2013. It is a criminal offense to not register with both a recognized controlling body and SARS.


The Act requires that a minimum academic and practical requirments be set to register with a controlling body. Click here for the minimum requirements of SAIT.

Membership Management Software Powered by®  ::  Legal