South Africa: Base erosion and profit shifting – Debt:equity

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: Base erosion and profit shifting – Debt:equity

dachs.jpg

Peter Dachs

The concept of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) has been much discussed at various international fora. From a South African perspective, the Davis Tax Committee has been set up, inter alia, to address the issue of BEPS in a South African context.

In South Africa the general rule is that interest is deductible for tax purposes while dividends are not. This applies even in circumstances where the dividends are in the form of interest-type payments on redeemable preference shares, which themselves essentially replicate debt.

The issue of debt versus equity and the tax deductibility of interest versus dividends has consumed much of the legislature's time in recent years. The concern is that high levels of debt, particularly in a cross-border context, may lead to an erosion of the South African tax base.

Thin capitalisation refers to the situation in which a company is financed through a relatively high level of debt compared to equity. Domestic rules typically allow a deduction for interest. The higher the level of debt in a company and consequently the greater amount of interest it pays, the lower will be its taxable profits. In regards to finance, debt can therefore be seen as more tax efficient than equity.

With the introduction of the new transfer pricing rules, the issue of thin capitalisation has become part of the transfer pricing mandate. Accordingly, the old thin capitalisation rules have been deleted. With the deletion of these rules, the previous 3:1 debt-to-equity ratio safe harbour also no longer applies.

When the much anticipated transfer pricing practice note is released it will likely contain amendments to some of the approaches set out in the Draft Interpretation Note. It is hoped that advance pricing agreements (APAs) as well as a safe harbour in respect of thin capitalisation issues will help to provide certainty on acceptable levels of debt which may be provided, inter alia, by a foreign parent to its South African subsidiary.

Many derivative amounts exist which do not fall into the definition of interest and will therefore not be subject to the interest withholding tax when introduced. An example is "manufactured interest" payments in respect of share lending agreements.

In addition provisions are expected for amounts payable on forward exchange contracts and cross currency swap contracts where there are no initial exchanges. This economically represents interest, but does not fall into the definition thereof.

South Africa has a general anti-avoidance provision which is contained in sections 80A-L of the Income Tax Act. These anti-avoidance provisions may be used in the appropriate circumstances.

If a non-resident enters into a derivative arrangement instead of advancing a loan to a South African resident then this has the effect of sidestepping an anticipated tax liability in respect of interest withholding tax for the non-resident entity. A 'tax benefit' will therefore arise for the non-resident. To avoid the application of the anti-avoidance provisions, such non-resident then bears the onus of proving that its "sole or main purpose" was not to achieve such tax benefit.

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

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article