I have harboured doubts about the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the manner in which it goes about its business ever since it was first established. Nor have I hidden my disquiet. On the contrary, I have written critically about its activities on any number of occasions.
India's march to super economic giant status is attracting increasing attention. Some years ago, when it was still making profits and flying high, SwissAir shifted its accounting centre out of Zurich in favour of Bombay (Mumbai). India's reputation as a favoured Information Technology centre is beyond dispute – Accenture has shifted its largest centre out of the USA to the subcontinent.
I would have been happy to accept your comment on 'women and stress' and to resist engaging in a debate on the subject. However, Deneys Reitz's strangely offensive response cannot go unanswered. I absolutely reject the accusation that my article was “deliberately offensive to readers of without prejudice." I do, of course, sincerely regret any offence it has inadvertently caused.
These days only a very small proportion of correspondence arrives by courtesy of the Post Office – most of the important mail arrives electronically. But I imagine that, of everything conveyed by the snail mail, one of the least happy mail-opening experiences of a financial director is when a letter arrives from the SARS. And it gets even worse when the opened envelope reveals a ten-page list of queries.
The recent judgement handed down by the Appeal Court in the matter of BP (Southern Africa) (Pty) Ltd v C:SARS ( SCA 7 (RSA)) will come as welcome relief to tax advisers and businessmen alike. The judgement overturned the earlier decision of the Cape Tax Court in the same matter, which had held that an annual royalty paid by BP SA to its UK parent company for the use of the parent's trademarks and marketing get-up, was of a capital nature and therefore not tax deductible.
Is the Appeal Court judgement in the BP case the last word on the nature of royalty payments? In my opinion, it is not. The judgement merely applies long-standing principles of capital/revenue expenditure to the facts of that case, facts previously misconstrued by the lower Tax Court.
Amended provisions concerning the taxation of share schemes have been introduced, completely replacing the previous regime concerning the tax implications of share schemes for employees and directors.This amended legislation is applicable in respect of any share options or shares acquired after October 26 2004, and contains substantial differences regarding the manner, amount and timing of the tax implications of the above mentioned gains. It will therefore have a significant effect on current employee share schemes, as well as any future share option grants or share awards.
Few members of the public, and particularly Springbok rugby fans, will have forgotten the Kamp Staaldraad scandal that gripped the nation in 2003.
Proponents of the 'rule of law' were crowing at a recent Constitutional Court victory which, in the words of Asset Forfeiture Unit head Willie Hofmeyr, “will create a fair amount of uncertainty about the definition of organised crime." To paraphrase an esteemed silk, there might also be several letters of retrenchment floating around the office of the AFU in a few weeks.
s38 of the Companies Act prohibits a company from providing financial assistance to any person to enable that person to acquire shares in that company subject to certain limited exceptions. A subsidiary is also prevented from providing financial assistance to any person for the purpose of acquiring shares in that subsidiary's holding company.
State owned entities (SOEs) have become an increasingly common feature on the SA corporate landscape, with hundreds of entities listed under the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (PFMA) ranging from bodies as diverse as gambling boards and provincial farming enterprises, to powerhouses such as Transnet, Eskom and Telkom.
If creditors don't commit themselves to providing funding to a liquidator to enable him to prosecute recoveries for the benefit of an insolvent estate, generally the liquidator's hands are tied.
s49D of the Competition Act (89 of 1998) came under intense scrutiny during a recent Competition Tribunal. The hearing related to a Competition Commission application to have the settlement agreement reached between itself and South African Airways (SAA) confirmed as a consent order.