Contact

In alignment: Proposed amendments pertaining to amalgamation transactions

Back to top

In alignment: Proposed amendments pertaining to amalgamation transactions

The Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (IT Act) provides for corporate roll-over relief in respect of the transfer of assets between companies that form part of the same economic unit, as well as those transfers made to shareholders who are natural persons. In order to avoid the abuse of these provisions, the legislature has incorporated numerous requirements and anti-avoidance provisions into the IT Act that must be adhered to in order for taxpayers to qualify for the relief.

1 Aug 2019 2 min read Tax & Exchange Control Alert Article

However, an incongruency exists between the provisions of the Act and the operation of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) in respect of specific types of transactions, as a result of which an amendment to the IT Act has been proposed in the 2019 Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (Draft TLAB).

The incongruency

Section 44 of the IT Act, dealing with amalgamation transactions, and s47, dealing with transactions relating to the liquidation, deregistration or winding up of a company, both require that a company entering into a s44 or s47 transaction, whose existence is intended to cease must, within 36 months after the date of the transaction, take any of the steps contained in s41(4) of the IT Act to liquidate, wind-up or deregister the company. The failure to do so would prohibit the parties to the transactions from benefiting from the roll-over relief provided for in s44 and s47.

However, the provisions of s41 outlining the steps to be taken by such a company do not have regard to the provisions of s116(5)(b) of the Companies Act. This section in the Companies Act provides for the deregistration of a company by operation of law once a notice of amalgamation or merger has been furnished to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC).

As s41 does not provide for the deregistration of a company in terms of s116(5)(b) of the Companies Act, it has resulted in certain amalgamation transactions being excluded from the tax relief provided for in the IT Act.

The proposed amendment and reason for change

The Draft TLAB proposes an amendment to s41(4)(b) of the IT Act, which describes the steps that may be taken by a company in order for the company to be regarded as having taken steps to deregister. Specifically, it has been proposed that the scope of the steps to be taken to deregister a company be broadened to include the deregistration of a company by operation of law in terms of s116 of the Companies Act. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft TLAB explains that the change is necessary in order to ensure that statutory amalgamations and mergers are not unfairly excluded from benefitting from the tax neutral transfer of assets in terms of the IT Act.

Comment

While the proposed amendment to s41(4) has not yet been made final, the change will be welcomed by many taxpayers who are party to statutory amalgamation or merger transactions. It is also preferred that South African statutes work in conjunction with each other.

We remind our readers that the public now has the opportunity to submit comments regarding this proposed amendment to National Treasury and the South African Revenue Service before 23 August 2019.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2025 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.

You might also be interested in

12 Feb 2025

by Shameegh Allen and Muzammil Ahmed

Ratchets: The most important anti-dilution tool in your investment toolbox

Venture capital and private equity investors’ strategy is to find companies, invest early and grow their investments as the investee company grows. However, this investment strategy is risky, because new, untested companies often struggle as they venture into the unknown. This frequently results in these companies raising additional funding down the line. One way for investors to protect their investment is through “ anti-dilution ” provisions, which aim to prevent investors from excessive dilution in future funding rounds and particularly in instances where fresh shares are issued at a lower price than the subscription price paid by existing investors, commonly known as a ‘down round’.

Corporate & Commercial Law

4 min read

22 Jan 2025

by Vivien Chaplin and Gaby Wesson

Transnet’s final Network Statement published – Privatisation of the rail network will soon be a reality

The finalisation of Transnet’s Network Statement (Network Statement) marks a pivotal moment in the reform of South Africa’s rail sector, signalling that access to the rail network by private train operator companies (TOCs) will soon be areality. 

Corporate & Commercial Law

7 min read

8 Oct 2024

by Neha Dhana and Raaheel Bux

Does a partial acceptance of an offer constitute a counter-offer?

A valid agreement comes into existence when an offer has been accepted. As straightforward as this principle may seem, courts are often required to determine whether an offer has indeed been accepted. A party alleging that a valid agreement has been concluded must prove that the acceptance of the offer is unambiguous and corresponds with the terms of the offer. This is not always an easy task.

Dispute Resolution

3 min read

26 Mar 2025

by Lebohang Mabidikane and Duran Naidoo

The DOJ and KKR: Know what to disclose and disclose it!

In January 2025, the US’ Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR), alleging systematic violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act). The HSR Act requires parties to transactions that satisfy monetary thresholds, to provide premerger filings to the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. These filings enable the authorities to evaluate potential anticompetitive effects prior to the implementation of certain mergers

Competition Law

3 min read

15 Apr 2025

by Lydia Owuor, Henry Omukubi and Michelle Kibui

Extend your lease before it is too late: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Harcharan Singh Sehmi and Another v Tarabana Company Limited and Five Others (Petition E033 of 2023)

In our experience, the most prudent approach is to apply for a lease extension at least five years before expiry. This rule of thumb exists for good reasons. In Kenya, there is a legal distinction between a lease extension and a lease renewal. An extension, if applied for before the lease expires, preserves the leaseholder’s legal interest and ensures continuity of title. Renewal, on the other hand, occurs after expiry, by which time the land has already escheated to the Government, the lessee’s rights have lapsed, and any new grant is subject to reallocation risks and fresh terms. When you factor in persistent delays at the land registry and the complications that can arise when life happens (such as the death of a co-tenant activating a procedural burden in the form of succession proceedings before any land dealings can occur), it becomes clear that waiting too long transforms a manageable administrative process into a precarious legal one.

Real Estate Law

6 min read

15 Jan 2025

by Nastascha Harduth

Implications for creditors in light of Van Zyl v Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd revisited: Understanding sections 154(1) and 154(2) of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008

The South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) provides a framework for business rescue proceedings, aimed at rehabilitating financially distressed companies. Sections 154(1) and 154(2) of the act are particularly significant as they address the consequences of a business rescue plan for creditors’ claims. The case of Van Zyl v Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd (ZASCA 67) offers valuable insights into the interpretation and application of these provisions, especially concerning the liability of sureties.

Corporate Debt, Turnaround & Restructuring

4 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline