Print Page   |   Report Abuse
News & Press: Opinion

Third Party Returns – Attorneys and Estate Agents, Are You Aware of Future Reporting Obligations?

03 July 2013   (11 Comments)
Posted by: Author: Bruce Russell
Share |

 

Author: Christel de Preez (Grant Thornton)

The issue whether a bonus provision raised at yearend may be deducted for tax purposes, or treated as a temporary difference and therefore added back in the calculation of taxable income, has always been a contentious one.

Position before 1 March 2013

In terms of the general deduction formula, an employer has always been entitled to deduct salaries and wages incurred in the production of income as a tax deduction.

Variable remuneration, such as commission, overtime and bonuses were deductible by employers, but only if the employer could argue that it had an unconditional legal obligation to pay the variable remuneration, regardless of it actually being paid out to the employee. Leave pay was the exception as it was limited as a deduction until such time when the leave pay was paid by the employer, thereby linking the employer’s tax deduction with the employee’s PAYE liability on the income received.

With bonus provisions there have always been some difficulty in proving that the company had an actual, unconditional liability at yearend.

In Nationale Pers BPK v KBI (1986 (3) SA 549 (A)), the taxpayer attempted to deduct a bonus provision for staff bonuses. The bonuses were only payable to employees after yearend and on condition that they were still in the employment of the company at the time of the bonus payments. The court held that the payment of the bonuses were contingent on a future event and were therefore not deductible and did not constitute expenditure actually incurred at yearend.

However, certain companies have in the past been able to argue that bonus provisions raised at yearend constituted expenses actually incurred, not subject to contingent conditions and were therefore tax deductible. This was typically the case where the bonus would have been paid out regardless of an employee resigning before the bonus payment. These companies would have claimed the bonus provisions raised at yearend as a tax deduction and would have only withheld PAYE from employees on the date the actual bonus was paid to the employee, resulting in a mismatch between the timing of the tax deduction for the employer and the taxability of the income for the employee.

Position after 1 March 2013

In order to address this mismatch between the tax deduction and withholding of PAYE on variable remuneration, section 7B was introduced into the Income Tax Act from 1 March 2013. It is applicable to amounts accrued and expenditure incurred on or after this date.

In terms of section 7B, an employer will now only be allowed a deduction for variable remuneration when it actually pays the remuneration to the employee, thereby aligning the timing of the employer’s tax deduction with PAYE withholding.

Note

Employers should take note that although a deduction may have been allowed in the past where it could have been argued that the bonus provision was an unconditional legal obligation at year end; it will no longer be allowed as a tax deduction until such time as the bonuses are actually paid out to employees.

This could have a significant impact on the companies’ calculation of taxable income, as the bonus provision will now for the first time have to be added back in the tax computation as a temporary difference , which could result in a significant higher taxable income for the year and provisional taxes which have to be paid.

Earn 15 minutes Verifiable Output Tax CPD – click here

Comments...

Andreas Tyrakis says...
Posted 28 September 2013
wrong quiz loaded
Raffiek Habib (Raffiek) says...
Posted 23 September 2013
cpd questionaire is wrong according to this topic
Martin H. van Rensburg says...
Posted 16 July 2013
This article raise a question on the tax treatment of a profit share paid to senior managers. The quantum of such profit share can only be determined after year-end and paid in a subsequent period. Any comments ?
Dennis S. Dibakwane says...
Posted 10 July 2013
Please attach correct article
Elma Schoombie says...
Posted 10 July 2013
It does not seem if anyone at SAIT is looking at the comments, as the article is still not attached
Gareth Lombard says...
Posted 09 July 2013
https://sait.site-ym.com/news/news.asp?id=131026&hhSearchTerms=Third+Party+Returns+%E2%80%93+Attorneys+and+Estate+Agents%2c
Mark O'Hara says...
Posted 09 July 2013
This article has nothing to do with the headline.
Stephen John S. Lindsay says...
Posted 09 July 2013
would like to read this article..if it could be attached
Maria D. Coetzer (Heath) says...
Posted 09 July 2013
Please attach correct article.
Malgorzata M. Bartmanski says...
Posted 09 July 2013
wrong article was attached to the title
Franscois van Gijsen says...
Posted 09 July 2013
This is clearly the wrong article (Bonus Provisions) as the content does not match the heading.

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.com®  ::  Legal