Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released the 2017 Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (hereafter "Convention") which contains a Principal Purpose Test under article 29(9). The practical application of this test is explained with the use of various examples within...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Department of Commercial Law
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613297298112512 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Zebert, Bradley Arthur |
| author2 | Hattingh, Johann |
| author_browse | Hattingh, Johann Zebert, Bradley Arthur |
| author_facet | Hattingh, Johann Zebert, Bradley Arthur |
| author_sort | Zebert, Bradley Arthur |
| collection | Thesis |
| description | The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released the 2017 Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (hereafter "Convention") which contains a Principal Purpose Test under article 29(9). The practical application of this test is explained with the use of various examples within the accompanying commentary to the Convention. However, various ambiguities both in the Convention and the accompanying commentary exist. The author raises these ambiguities and contrasts them with the general anti-avoidance rule (hereafter "GAAR") found within S80A of the Income Tax Act 8 of 1962. In doing so, the author asked which areas of the Principal Purpose Test are vague and can be interpreted in light of the South African GAAR to assist with attributing a meaning to it. The key findings from this paper identified various areas of the Principal Purpose Test where the GAAR could be used to assist in the interpretation and application of the Principal Purpose Test being the phrases "the principal purpose", "benefit" and "arrangement". Other areas of ambiguity which were also interpreted with the assistance of the GAAR related to whether the Principal Purpose Test contained a business reality test as well as the further aspects of the test relating to its interpretative aspect, subjective enquiry and burden of proof. It was argued that these areas may indicate how the South African courts may apply the Principal Purpose Test in the South African context. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/36215 |
| institution | University of Cape Town (South Africa) |
| language | eng |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:33:54.099Z |
| license_str | Not specified — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateRange | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | Department of Commercial Law |
| publisherStr | Department of Commercial Law |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository |
| spelling | oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/36215 A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention Zebert, Bradley Arthur Hattingh, Johann International Taxation The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released the 2017 Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (hereafter "Convention") which contains a Principal Purpose Test under article 29(9). The practical application of this test is explained with the use of various examples within the accompanying commentary to the Convention. However, various ambiguities both in the Convention and the accompanying commentary exist. The author raises these ambiguities and contrasts them with the general anti-avoidance rule (hereafter "GAAR") found within S80A of the Income Tax Act 8 of 1962. In doing so, the author asked which areas of the Principal Purpose Test are vague and can be interpreted in light of the South African GAAR to assist with attributing a meaning to it. The key findings from this paper identified various areas of the Principal Purpose Test where the GAAR could be used to assist in the interpretation and application of the Principal Purpose Test being the phrases "the principal purpose", "benefit" and "arrangement". Other areas of ambiguity which were also interpreted with the assistance of the GAAR related to whether the Principal Purpose Test contained a business reality test as well as the further aspects of the test relating to its interpretative aspect, subjective enquiry and burden of proof. It was argued that these areas may indicate how the South African courts may apply the Principal Purpose Test in the South African context. 2022-03-29T09:49:16Z 2022-03-29T09:49:16Z 2021 2022-03-29T08:35:23Z Master Thesis Masters LLM http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36215 eng application/pdf Department of Commercial Law Faculty of Law |
| spellingShingle | International Taxation Zebert, Bradley Arthur A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| thesis_degree_str | Master's |
| title | A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| title_full | A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| title_short | A comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under South Africa's General Anti-Avoidance Rule and the Principal Purpose Test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention |
| title_sort | comparison of the substantive aspects of impermissible tax arrangements under south africa s general anti avoidance rule and the principal purpose test with specific reference to the examples found within the 2017 oecd model tax convention |
| topic | International Taxation |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36215 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zebertbradleyarthur acomparisonofthesubstantiveaspectsofimpermissibletaxarrangementsundersouthafricasgeneralantiavoidanceruleandtheprincipalpurposetestwithspecificreferencetotheexamplesfoundwithinthe2017oecdmodeltaxconvention AT zebertbradleyarthur comparisonofthesubstantiveaspectsofimpermissibletaxarrangementsundersouthafricasgeneralantiavoidanceruleandtheprincipalpurposetestwithspecificreferencetotheexamplesfoundwithinthe2017oecdmodeltaxconvention |