Search results

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service has wide discretionary powers. In this article, the meaning, purpose, types, extent and exercise of these powers are examined. Do these powers promote uncertainty and/or unfairness and inconsistency, and if so, which of these powers do so? The extent of the powers given by some of the discretions not specifically subject to objection and appeal is questioned: no discretionary powers involving liability for tax should be allowed, especially not without the right to objection and appeal. Because of the general administrative relationship between the Commissioner and the taxpayer and because exercising a discretionary power constitutes an administrative action, the constitutionality of this power was examined in terms of taxpayers’ right to just administrative action. Only discretionary powers not specifically made subject to objection and appeal are open for constitutional attack.

The danger attending the use of the insufficiently purified waters derived from the Thames and Lea should, we think, be constantly pressed upon the attention of the Legislature and of the public. We regard it as a duty to endeavour to prevent the continued neglect of the warnings which have been put forward from time to time by those who have made a careful and unbiassed study of the subject, and which have recently been again uttered and emphasised by SIR A. BINNIE, the late Engineer of the London County Council. In the public interest it is greatly to be regretted that the system of analytical control, which was maintained by certain London Borough Councils with regard to the water supplied within the areas under their jurisdiction, has been discontinued. The local checks referred to were of the greatest value to the inhabitants of the districts concerned by affording timely warning when water of dangerous character was being supplied, thus enabling some protective measures to be taken. They also served the useful purposes of keeping public attention fixed upon the matter.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenges faced by Indonesian tax auditors in auditing multinational transfer prices of intangible assets. This study then explores the suitability of mechanisms currently used by Indonesian tax auditors to ensure appropriate tax audit adjustments.

The authors use a qualitative research method involving semi-structured and open-ended interviews with the tax auditors in Indonesia. The authors also include some Indonesia court decisions pertinent to the research question above.

Findings indicate that Indonesian tax auditors face a number of difficulties during the audit of transfer pricing cases derived from intangible property, including a lack of transparency in taxpayers’ bookkeeping; limited taxpayer cooperation in providing data and documents; transfer pricing regulations; and problems related to organization and human resources. The study also finds that Indonesian tax auditors and tax officials handle transfer pricing cases by using a legal basis as reference and by performing a number of activities, including among others, comparable analysis.

The findings of this study should assist policy makers to improve the quality of transfer pricing audit. Also, tax auditors and account representatives who do not have enough experience in auditing transfer pricing cases derived from intangible property rights might use the outcomes of this study as a guide for dealing with those cases.

This paper's aim is to examine how long established ad valorem taxation systems can be adapted so they remain relevant and equitable in the more complex contemporary property environment.

The research methodology involves a review of national and international literature and structured interviews with key informants from the public and private sectors, particularly Queensland, Australia, but also with the Valuer Generals and others of all mainland states and New Zealand.

Ad valorem taxation systems continue to provide an important and sound base for the raising of government revenue. While it is essential that the long‐standing fundamental techniques of mass appraisal be protected, a number of relatively simple modifications in policy and operational areas can enhance the effectiveness and robustness of the valuation systems.

Despite its importance in the form of taxation in practically all countries, existing research is quite limited and largely descriptive rather than analytical. Limitations also exist because of the very significant variations in law across jurisdictions in Australia and internationally.

The findings can be readily applied in valuation systems particularly as regards the consideration of national markets for certain complex properties, proposals for the better sharing of information and the introduction of improved mediation processes in the case of objections. All of these can lead to more efficient and effective application.

Difficulties have been experienced in a number of jurisdictions where relatively simple valuation provisions are applied to highly complex property types. This paper provides some innovative ideas as to how, even within existing legislation, these problems can be addressed while protecting the well‐established, mass appraisal practices.

In 1994, after the 1993 Constitution had been adopted, the Katz Commission questioned the constitutionality of some provisions of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of this article is, firstly, to follow up on the progress made in amending the provisions concerned and, secondly, to establish reasons for the lack of success achieved by taxpayers who attack the constitutionality of certain provisions. Some progress has been made, but in this article, the author argues that SARS should amend section 104(2) of the Act. The establishment of a specialist ombudsman’s office is also proposed. Such an office that could assist taxpayers to enforce their constitutional rights against the Commissioner is the essential missing element.

Many taxpayers rely on their advisors to look after their tax affairs. In spite of this reliance, taxpayers still find themselves in default for the purposes of section 76(1) of the Income Tax Act and additional tax (referred to as a “penalty” by the judiciary) is imposed. This article examines whether the reliance by a taxpayer on his advisor, be it his accountant, bookkeeper or even a member of staff, can constitute a complete or partial defence to the imposition of additional tax in terms of section 76(1) or be regarded as an “extenuating circumstance” for the purposes of remission of additional tax in terms of section 76(2)(a).

The Minister of Social Security, in conjunction with the Treasury and in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of and Schedule 3 to the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1968 and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf, in consequence of the passing of that Act hereby makes the following regulations :—

Annual real estate taxes are one of the largest and fastest‐growing occupancy costs for corporations owning or leasing real estate in the United States. An active programme of management, control and reduction of annual real estate tax assessments can be successful, if a corporation is proactive and follows certain steps on a timely basis.

This is the first report on estimates of tax compliance costs of Malaysian companies. Compliance cost is an unavoidable cost of doing business and arises from activities associated with the reporting of income for tax purpose. The average compliance cost per company was estimated to be RM68,836, which is RM0.26 per RM 1,000 sales turnover. Sixty‐one percent of compliance cost was incurred in computation‐related activities and 39 percent in tax planning activities. Measured relative to revenue, the compliance cost is higher for smaller companies than for larger companies, which suggests that compliance cost is regressive, a finding similar to those reported in other countries.

The additional tax (referred to as a “penalty” by the judiciary), which may be imposed in terms of section 76(1) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) when a taxpayer is in default, can be very harsh (Up to 200% of the tax correctly chargeable). The Commissioner may remit any penalty imposed as he sees fit. However, when there was intent on the part of the taxpayer to evade the payment of tax, the Commissioner may not remit the 200% penalty, unless he is of the opinion that there are “extenuating circumstances”. This article examines the general meaning, as interpreted by the courts, of the “extenuating circumstances” that may be taken into account for the purposes of remission of penalties in terms of section 76(2)(a) of the Act.