| Summary: | Tax avoidance has been the subject of intense scrutiny lately by both the South African Revenue Service ("the SARS") and the media. This attention stems largely from the recent withdrawal of section 103(1) together with the introduction of section 80A to 80L of the South African Income Tax Act. However, this attention is not limited to South Africa. Revenue authorities worldwide have focused on the task of challenging tax avoidance. The approach of the SARS to tackling tax avoidance has been multi-faceted. In the Discussion Paper on Tax Avoidance and Section 103 (1) of the South African Income Tax Act they begin with a review of the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning. Following a call for comment the SARS issued an Interim Response followed by the Revised Proposals which culminated in the withdrawal of the longstanding general anti-avoidance rules housed in section 103(1) and the introduction of new and more comprehensive anti-avoidance rules. In addition, the SARS has adopted an ongoing media campaign stressing the importance of paying tax in a country with a large development agenda like that of South Africa, the need for taxpayers to adopt a responsible attitude to the management of tax and the inclusion of responsible tax management as the greatest measure of a taxpayer's corporate and social investment. In tandem with this message the SARS have sought to vilify those taxpayers who engage in tax avoidance. The message is clear: tax avoidance carries reputational risks; those who engage in tax avoidance are unpatriotic or immoral and their actions simply result in an unfair shifting of the tax burden. The SARS is not alone in the above approach. Around the world tax authorities have been echoing the same message. The message appears to be working. Accounting firms speak of a "creeping conservatism" that has pervaded company boardrooms. What is not clear, however, is whether taxpayers, in becoming more conservative, are simply more fully aware of tax risks and are making informed decisions or whether they are simply responding to external events, such as the worldwide focus by revenue authorities and the media on tax avoidance. Whatever the reason, it is now critical, particularly in the case of corporate taxpayers, that their policies for tax and its attendant risks need to be as sophisticated, coherent and transparent as its policies in all other areas involving multiple stakeholders, such as suppliers, customers, staff and investors. How does a company begin to set its tax philosophy and strategic direction or to determine its appetite for risk? A starting point, it is submitted would be a review of the distinction between tax evasion, avoidance and planning with a heightened sensitivity to the unfamiliar ethical, moral and social risks. The goal of this thesis was to clearly define the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning from a legal interpretive, ethical and historical perspective in order to develop a rudimentary framework for the responsible management of strategic tax decisions, in the light of the new South African general anti-avoidance legislation. The research methodology entails a qualitative research orientation consisting of a critical conceptual analysis of tax evasion and tax avoidance, with a view to establishing a basic framework to be used by taxpayers to make informed decisions on tax matters. The analysis of the distinction in this work culminated in a diagrammatic representation of the distinction between tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax planning emphasising the different types of tax avoidance from least aggressive to the most abusive and from the least objectionable to most objectionable. It is anticipated that a visual representation of the distinction, however flawed, would result in a far more pragmatic tool to taxpayers than a lengthy document. From a glance taxpayers can determine the following: That tax avoidance is legal; that different forms of tax avoidance exist, some forms being more aggressive than others; that aggressive forms of tax avoidance carry reputational risks; and that in certain circumstances aggressive tax avoidance schemes may border on tax evasion. This, it is envisaged, may prompt taxpayers to ask the right questions when faced with an external or in-house tax avoidance arrangement rather than simply blindly accepting or rejecting the arrangement.
|
|---|
