All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

South Africa: Treaty shopping in a South African context


Peter Dachs

Shifting profits and other actions that could erode countries' tax bases have been topics of debate at various international fora and the Davis Tax Committee has been tasked with addressing the issues in a South African context. Treaty shopping is one of the issues considered by the OECD in its base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) reports.

From a South African perspective, treaty shopping could apply in the context of, for example, a parent company with a South African subsidiary where the parent company has advanced interest-bearing loan funding to its subsidiary. However, because of the introduction of the new interest withholding tax, the parent company now looks to route its loan funding to its South African subsidiary through a company in an intermediate jurisdiction that has a more favourable double tax agreement with South Africa. This double tax agreement would then not allow South Africa to impose its interest withholding tax on interest paid by the South African subsidiary to the company in the intermediate jurisdiction.

South African tax law already provides several defences against treaty shopping. Important among these are the concepts of beneficial ownership and effective management as well as the use of South Africa's domestic anti-avoidance rules.

Take the example of the parent company looking to route its loan funding to its South African subsidiary through a company in an intermediate jurisdiction with a favourable double tax agreement with South Africa. If the company set up in the intermediate jurisdiction does not qualify as the beneficial owner of the interest received from the South African subsidiary then the terms of the relevant double tax agreement will simply not be applicable.

A further issue is whether the company in the intermediate jurisdiction is "effectively managed" in that jurisdiction. If it is simply a letterbox company with no substance then it is very likely that it will not be effectively managed there and South Africa can simply ignore the provisions of the relevant double tax agreement and impose its interest withholding tax on the payments made to that company.

South Africa also has anti-tax-avoidance provisions. In terms of these rules if the "sole or main purpose" of an arrangement is to obtain a tax benefit and certain abnormal features exist, the anti-tax-avoidance rules can be applied to disregard the transaction entered into by the parties.

Peter Dachs (

ENSafrica – Taxand Africa

Tel: +27 21 410 2500


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Companies in the UAE can prepare for a corporate tax regime in 2023, while the Trump Organization was found guilty of 17 counts of tax fraud.
The companies have criticised proposals for the gig economy, while the UK and EU VAT gaps have fallen in percentage terms, and ITR speaks to a European Commission adviser about its VAT reforms.
Corporations risk creating administrative obstacles if the pillar two rule is implemented too soon, sources say.
Important dates for the Women in Business Law Awards 2023
The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.