The approach by our courts of the apportionment of expenditure in terms of section 11(a) read with section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act no. 58 of 1962.
Ngubane, Dumisani Richard.
MetadataShow full item record
The primary aim of a dissertation is to try to discover information that could assist in solving a particular problem at hand. The object of this dissertation is to determine the approach by our courts to apportionment of expenditure in terms of section 11(a) read with section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962. A single expenditure incurred for more than one purpose poses a problem when deduction of such an expenditure, is sought by a taxpayer. The problem that ttie courts have always encountered when dealing with the deductibility of expenditure incurred for a dual purpose, is that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act that directs what to do when faced with such a problem. The courts have always chosen apportionment of expenditure as a solution to the deductibility of expenditure incurred for more than one purpose, one such purpose being for tax purposes and the other being for non tax purposes. Apportionment of expenditure is used as a device to allocate part of the expenditure, which was incurred to produce income, as taxable expenditure, and another part of that expenditure which was incurred to produce non-taxable income, as non-deductible expenditure. This dissertation seeks to find out whether courts do take into consideration the provisions of the Income Tax Act applicable to the deduction of expenditure when called upon to make a decision on a particular case. The South African Revenue Services use apportionment of expenditure where it deems appropriate and the courts have never opposed it. The Legislature, which is responsible for the enactment of the act, seems to be happy to lie low, and allow the courts to dominate in handling the disputes that arise as a result of expenditure incurred with a dual purpose. It has been suggested that whilst the Income Tax Act does not provide any direction in situations where the deductibility of dual purposes expenditure is in dispute, apportionment is implied in the terms of section 11(a) read with section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act no 58 of 1962. The main aim of this research is to establish whether the path taken by the courts is the correct one in terms of section 11(a) and section 23(g) of the Income Tax Act no 58 of 1962. It is hoped that this work will be of assistance to both The South African Revenue Services and the taxpayers at large in terms of understanding that the courts are within the bounds of the Act.