South African dividend stripping rules: Impact on liquidations and cross-border share buybacks

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

South African dividend stripping rules: Impact on liquidations and cross-border share buybacks

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-ww.png
AdobeStock_35054468_Shares

Changes made last year to South Africa's dividend stripping rules have effectively eliminated the ability of group companies to make use of the rollover relief provisions that historically have allowed qualifying liquidations or deregistration of group companies (both local and foreign) to be done on a tax-neutral basis.

As things stand, certain otherwise-exempt dividends declared to qualifying shareholders will be classified as 'extraordinary dividends' and recharacterised as proceeds for capital gains tax purposes upon the disposal of the shares. An extraordinary dividend is a dividend exceeding 15% of the market value of the distributing company's shares either 18 months prior to the disposal/liquidation or as at the date of disposal/liquidation, whichever is the higher.

Following lobbying by taxpayers, the National Treasury has indicated that changes will be made to narrow the range of situations in which the dividend stripping rules will override the group rollover relief rules to "cases where the corporate re-organisation rules are abused by taxpayers". Certainty on what exactly is meant by this, and what the new rules will look like, will only be available towards the end of the year.

Where South African companies or controlled foreign companies (CFCs) in relation to South African companies have recently declared large dividends, taxpayers hoping to benefit from group relief provisions should therefore not dispose of the distributing companies until they are confident that group relief is in fact applicable. Planned eliminations of group companies are consequently on hold pending resolution of this problem.

The dividend stripping rules also have interesting consequences in circumstances where a South African company (SACo) holds shares in a foreign company (ForeignCo) and divests itself of its shareholding in ForeignCo by way of a buyback of its shares by ForeignCo.

If a South African company (or a CFC in relation to a South African company) sells shares in a foreign company, any gain made on the sale may be exempt if the seller has held a certain number of shares for a qualifying period and the buyer is an unrelated party which is tax resident outside South Africa. The purchase price must be market related. If any of these criteria are not met, capital gains tax (CGT) will apply.

A route which in the absence of the dividend stripping rules could have been followed to avoid CGT in all circumstances is the share buyback route. This involves a prospective purchaser first subscribing for an interest in ForeignCo, with ForeignCo then applying the proceeds of the subscription to buyback SACo's shares in ForeignCo. The prospective purchaser would then own 100% of the shares in ForeignCo. Ignoring the dividend stripping rules, any portion of the buyback consideration which was treated under the tax law in the foreign company's jurisdiction as a dividend would in these circumstances generally also be classified as a tax exempt foreign dividend in the hands of SACo. As a result of the dividend stripping rules referred to above, however, if SACo holds a so-called 'qualifying interest' in ForeignCo, 85% of the portion of the buyback consideration, which constitutes an exempt dividend in the hands of SACo, is likely to be taken into account for CGT purposes in the hands of SACo. Depending on the circumstances, however (and clearly subject to the application of substance-over-form and other general anti-avoidance rules), this could still be more beneficial than a direct sale in which the full proceeds would be taken into account for CGT purposes.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
Gift this article