Where did this decision come?
The appeal involved the taxpayer (restaurant chain) against additional assessments raised by SARS for its 2011 to 2014 years of assessment. They arose from SARS’ refusal of deductions claimed by the taxpayer as allowances in respect of future expenditure in terms of section 24C of the Income Tax Act.
The crux of the dispute lies in whether or not the income received by the taxpayer from sales of meals to its customers can properly be regarded as arising directly from – or put differently, accruing in terms of – the franchise agreement itself. The taxpayer maintains that it can whereas SARS maintains it cannot.
However, as far as franchisees are concerned, it is clear that where a franchise agreement sets out an obligation to incur future expenditure, such expenditure may very well fall within the beneficial parameters of section 24C of the Act.
The Court’s decision
The Tax Court held that there need not be one physical contract document to give rise to section 24C’s benefit. Furthermore, while different parties were involved (the franchisor and the restaurant’s customers), the franchisee’s agreements with each were “inextricably linked” and “not legally independent and separate”.
The income deducted was, therefore, regarded as earned under the same contract as the taxpayer’s future expenditure, fulfilling the requirements of section 24C.
- B v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (IT14240)  ZATC 3 (3 November 2017)
Income derived from the letting of rental properties is subject to income tax in the case of South African resident taxpayers. In March of 2021, SARS sent a stern warning to South...
SARS delivered on its Budget 2021 promise to create the High Wealth Individuals (HWI) unit to specifically target income tax compliance of so-called “High Net Worth Individuals”. The...
The 2022 Budget speech included a very important update on government’s stance on cryptocurrency. Although recent income tax developments in the crypto space have largely focused on...