Bibliographie sélective OHADA

As a company distribution is a means by which wealth is transferred, it is a fertile ground for tax law reform to broaden the tax base and protect South Africa against base erosion and profit shifting. The South African government has identified the corporate tax structure, and many specific corporate tax rules, as areas in South African law in need of reform, and through which the policy objectives of stimulating foreign direct investment, promoting economic growth, and creating more employment opportunities can be achieved. This study involves an analysis on two levels: the corporate tax structure; and the specific tax legislation governing company distributions in South Africa. These aspects are contrasted with comparable rules in Australia and Canada. The study also evaluates the extent to which these laws conform to the normative values of equity, efficiency, certainty, and transparency, with the aim of suggesting improvements to promote South Africa’s current policy objectives. There are a variety of design models for a corporate tax structure. In the context of distributions, the ideal design should resolve whether tax should be paid on profit earned by a company, and also be levied on a second level, on distributions made to the company’s shareholders. Certain jurisdictions merge these two levels of tax to create a single taxable event which avoids the economic double taxation of income. There is, however, no dominant or universal model and several solutions can be mooted. Australia follows an imputation system which taxes corporate income at the first level of tax but grants a tax credit to shareholders on distribution, which means this income is taxed only once. Canada applies a hybrid integration system which also combines the two levels of tax and grants a tax credit to certain individual shareholders on distribution. However, the principles applied in these two models differ. The South African corporate tax structure is a hybrid, dual-rate system in terms of which different rates apply to corporate income and distributions to shareholders. All three systems offer relief for taxpayers which partially eliminates double taxation, with Australia having eliminated it fully for resident shareholders. In broad terms, a company distribution can be made by a company to its shareholders through either a return on capital or a return of capital. The policy approach adopted by the South African government is that all net accretions of wealth by the taxpayer should be taxable. Despite government’s intentions, there is a significant difference in the taxation rules applied to returns of an income nature (dividends and income), on the one hand, and returns of a capital nature (returns of capital, distribution of assets in specie) on the other. In addition, the net accretion of wealth is not always taxable on distribution to shareholders. In most instances the tax liability in respect of the return of capital is either deferred, or alternative rules are created which deviate from the principles and immediate tax liability that apply to returns on capital (dividends and income). In certain instances this deviation is justified, but in others it could lead to inequity between taxpayers and a narrowing of the tax base – both undesirable effects. A number of proposals are made to improve the law applicable to the taxation of company distributions as regards specific transactions. These are aimed, principally, at protecting the South African tax base against base erosion and profit shifting, and aligning South Africa’s tax law with international trends. The study finds that through the application of its hybrid dual-rate corporate tax system, South Africa has reduced economic double taxation to some extent, and that it is unnecessary for South Africa to integrate company- and shareholder-level tax. In addition, a variety of changes are suggested to improve the tax legislation applicable to specific company distributions, and to promote equity, certainty, and revenue collection. The South African tax legislation regulating company distributions is, in the main, fit for purpose, although there is room for improvement when it comes to simplicity, structure, and certainty.