Contact

Contributed tax capital changes put on hold for now

Back to top

Contributed tax capital changes put on hold for now

“Contributed tax capital” is defined in section 1 of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and is a key concept in differentiating between distributions that are regarded as dividends and distributions that are regarded as returns of capital for tax purposes.

24 Feb 2022 2 min read 2022 Special Edition Budget Speech Alert Article

In a very general sense, the contributed tax capital of a company (in relation to a particular class of shares) is the aggregate of all capital that has been contributed to a company by shareholders in that class, less the capital that has been returned to them.

Where a company distribution reduces the contributed tax capital, it is considered a return of capital, and where there is no reduction it is a dividend for tax purposes.

The definition of “contributed tax capital” contains a proviso to the effect that no shareholder (in relation to a particular class of shares) may receive contributed tax capital in excess of that shareholder’s proportion of shares held in the class. In other words, there is a principle of proportionality that applies.

In the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 2021, read with the National Treasury’s explanatory memorandum, it was indicated that Government intended to amend and clarify this proviso.

The purported reason was that some companies were exploiting the provision by allocating contributed tax capital to certain shareholders on the basis of a share premium contribution, which is not allocated to all shareholders.

The amendment that was ultimately captured in the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 20 of 2021 did, however, cause concern.

Specifically, a further proviso was introduced to the effect that there can be no transfer of contributed tax capital unless all shareholders in the class participate in the transfer in the same manner and are allocated an amount of contributed tax capital on a proportional basis.

Seemingly it would then not be possible to effect a transfer of contributed tax capital (and thus a return of capital) if just some shareholders participate and not all.

The amendments are supposed to come into effect on 1 January 2023.

However, in the 2022 Budget Speech, it has now been indicated that the National Treasury will further consider the impact of the proposed amendments and review the matter during the 2022 legislative cycle. It therefore appears that the proposed amendments will not necessarily come into effect on 1 January 2023 in their current form.

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 © 2023 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

11 May 2023

by Jackwell Feris, Martha Mbugua and Margo-Ann Werner

What do we need to do to make e-mobility a reality in Africa?

Investment in the automotive industry in Africa is on the rise as the world races to achieve Net Zero by 2050.

Industrials, Manufacturing & Trade

1:06:10 Hours

22 Jun 2022

by Jackwell Feris and Desmond Odhiambo

Dispute settlement under the AfCFTA

Member states of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) are cognisant of the fact that, as part of the growing pains of the AfCFTA, there will inevitably be disputes (triggered by private sector players) which will result in disagreement on the interpretation and application of, amongst others, the Protocol on Trade in Goods and the Protocol on Trade in Services and the terms set out in the respective annexes to these Protocols.

Dispute Resolution

6 min read

15 Feb 2023

by Andrew Giliam and Carmin Jansen van Vuuren

The benefits and pitfalls of constituting a voluntary audit committee

When it comes to audit committees, a private company is not required to appoint an audit committee unless it is required to do so by its memorandum of incorporation (MOI). Nevertheless, a private company that is not legally required to appoint an audit committee may still voluntarily constitute one. Deciding whether to voluntarily appoint an audit committee requires careful consideration of a number of factors, the most important being the particular business, structure and needs of the company or company group in question. Additionally, weighing up the pros and cons may provide important insights into whether or not voluntarily appointing an audit committee is advantageous to a business.

Corporate & Commercial Law

4 min read

14 Feb 2023

by Timothy Baker and Claudia Moser

Payment on demand? A consideration of on demand guarantees

It is common for a performance guarantee from a financial institution to be provided by a contractor to its employer in a construction project. It is also common for such guarantees to be formulated as an “ on demand ” guarantee. This is akin to a letter of credit and, provided the terms and requirements set out in the guarantee are complied with, the employer can call up the guarantee notwithstanding any contractual dispute that there may be in the underlying contract between the employer and the contractor (this is different to a guarantee that is not on demand where the contractor can resist payment on the basis that there is an unresolved dispute pending between the contractor and the employer).

Dispute Resolution

5 min read

21 Feb 2023

by Clarice Wambua

The Legal 500 Environment Comparative Guide | Kenya

Clarice Wambua, CDH Kenya Partner, made a contribution to The Legal 500 Environment Comparative Guide, Kenya.

Environmental Law

1 min read

29 Aug 2022

by Fiona Leppan, Biron Madisa and Keagan Hyslop

An employer who is responsible for setting the rules in the workplace, must also abide by them

That is the lesson from the Labour Court’s ruling in Mahonono v National Heritage Council and Others (J742/2022) 2022 ZALCJHB 188 (18 July 2022). In the workplace employers assume the responsibility of putting policies in place to regulate the relations between that employer and its employees. However, what happens when the employer decides not to follow the provisions of its own policies?

Employment Law

2 min read

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

Accept Decline