South Africa: Treaty shopping in a South African context

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 Africa: Treaty shopping in a South African context

dachs.jpg

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 (pdachs@ensafrica.com)

ENSafrica – Taxand Africa

Tel: +27 21 410 2500

Website: www.ensafrica.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It should be easy for advisers to be transparent about costs, Brown Rudnick partner Matthew Sharp said in response to exclusive ITR in-house data
The sprawling legislation phases out Joe Biden-era green tax incentives for businesses; in other news, the UK will reportedly maintain its DST despite US pressure
New French legislation should create a more consistent legal environment for taxing gains from management packages, say Bruno Knadjian and Sylvain Piémont of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
The South Africa vs SC ruling may embolden the tax authority to take a more aggressive approach to TP assessments, an adviser tells ITR
Indirect tax professionals now rate compliance as a bigger obstacle than technology and automation; in other news, Italy approved a VAT cut on art sales
AI-powered tax agents are likely to be the next big development in tax technology, says Russell Gammon of Tax Systems
FTI Consulting’s EMEA head of employment tax and reward tells ITR about celebrating diversity in the profession, his love of musicals, and what makes tax cool
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump have agreed that the countries will look to conclude a deal by July 21, 2025
The firm’s lack of transparency regarding its tax leaks scandal should see the ban extended beyond June 30, senators Deborah O’Neill and Barbara Pocock tell ITR
Despite posing significant administrative hurdles, digital services taxes remain ‘the best way forward’ for emerging economies, says Neil Kelley, COO of Ascoria
Gift this article