Print Page   |   Report Abuse
News & Press: Mining tax

Deductions of mining capital expenditure under subsections 36(7F) and 36(7E) of the Income Tax Act

19 December 2012   (0 Comments)
Posted by: SAIT Technical
Share |

By Susan Ho (ENS Tax Ensight)

Executive summary

This article examines the case of Armgold/Harmony Freegold Joint Venture (Pty) Ltd v CSARS where the company had two mines that made taxable income and one mine that made losses (St Helena mine).SARS set off the losses of the St Helena mine against the taxable income of the two taxable income-producing mines before taking into account the mining capital expenditure incurred in respect of those mines. The effect of this was to reduce the amount of capital expenditure that could be redeemed in respect of the other two mines.

Full article

Introduction

The case ofArmgold/Harmony Freegold Joint Venture (Pty) Ltd v CSARS(703/2011) [2012] ZASCA 152 dealt with the deduction of certain mining capital expenditure under subsections 36(7F) and 36(7E) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 ("the Act”) as well as the basis of calculation to be adopted where a mine of a taxpayer operates at a loss.

Facts of the case

A company with limited liability called Armgold/Harmony Freegold Joint Venture ("AHF JV”) was formed as a joint venture between companies within the Harmony group. Its income is derived from three gold mines, Freegold, Joel and St Helena.

In September 2008, SARS issued revised tax assessments for AHF JV, adjusting its income tax liability for the 2002 to 2005 tax years. Nevertheless, the only relevant years for the purpose of the appeal are 2003 and 2004.

SARS set off the losses of the St Helena mine against the taxable income of the Freegold and Joel mines before taking into account the mining capital expenditure incurred in respect of those mines. The effect of this was to reduce the amount of capital expenditure that could be redeemed in respect of the Freegold and Joel mines.

Tax law

Section 36(7E) of the Act limits the deduction of the aggregate of capital expenditure determined under section 36(7C) of the Act in a particular year of assessment in relation to any mine or mines to what is referred to as the "gross mining taxable income” derived by the taxpayer from mining.

In terms of section 36(7F) of the Act, the capital expenditure of a mine is ring fenced to that mine which means capital expenditure incurred in a mine cannot be used to reduce the taxable income of another mine.

Court’s ruling

The table below summarises the manner in which the taxpayer calculated its tax liability for the 2003 tax year:

St HelenaFreegoldJoelNon-mining
Balance of assessed loss0000
Taxable income (before capex) - A(R 51m)R 1,177mR 20mR 156m
Capex deductible in 2003 - BN/AR 1,177mR 20mN/A
Taxable income (A less B)(R 51m)00R 156m
Assessed loss (current year)(R 51m)N/AN/AN/A

The table below summarises the manner in which SARS assessed the taxpayer for the 2003 tax year:

St HelenaFreegoldJoelNon-mining
Balance of assessed loss0000
Gross taxable income before capex(R 51m)R 1,177mR 20mR 156m
Set off St Helena Loss(R 50m)(R 1m)
Net taxable income before Capex0R 1,127mR 19mN/A
Redemption of Capex0R 1,127mR 19mN/A
Taxable income000R 156m

The table below summarises the treatment adopted by the court for the taxpayer’s tax liability for the 2003 year:

St HelenaFreegoldJoelNon-mining
Balance of assessed loss0000
Taxable income before Capex(R 51m)R 1,177mR 20mR 156m
Capex deductible0R 1,127mR 19mN/A
Taxable income after Capex(R 51m)R 50mR 1mR 156m

The court held that ‘although section 36(7F) provides for a maximum (or particular cap) that may be deducted for capital expenditure in respect of each of the Freegold and Joel mines, it does not necessarily entitle SARS to deduct the full amount of each such cap’.

The court also indicated that ‘the individual capex caps of the Freegold and Joel mines was to be reduced so that their total does not exceed the general cap imposed by section 36(7E). In this way the two sub-sections will work in tandem, setting a maximum total deduction and reducing the Freegold and Joel mines maximum caps proportionally.’

Conclusion

Although the court reached the same conclusion determined by SARS, the underlying principle giving rise to the result was different.




WHY REGISTER WITH SAIT?

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.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO REGISTER

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 YourMembership  ::  Legal