Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Tax Alert: South Africa’s employment tax incentive

Tax Alert: South Africa’s employment tax incentive

Tax Alert: South Africa’s employment tax incentive
20 May 2019
The high levels of unemployment in South Africa, in particular unemployment in the youth, led to the introduction of the employment tax incentive (“ETI”) scheme created under the Employment Tax Incentive Act, No 26 of 2013 (“ETI Act”). The purpose of the ETI is to encourage employers to employ young job seekers. The incentive and tax benefit for the employer to hire these young and often inexperienced job seekers, lies in the fact that the employees’ tax, also referred to as Pay-As-You-Earn (“PAYE”), owed by the employer to the South African Revenue Services (“SARS”), is significantly reduced by the ETI amount claimed by the employer. This reduction in employees’ tax has the effect of reducing the cost of hiring such young job seekers, who are often less skilled and lack experience, without such reduction impacting the employee’s wages.
However, as is often the case with these types of schemes, it is necessary and crucial for the employer to understand not only the criteria set out under the ETI Act pertaining to the qualifying employee and employer, but also to understand the accounting and income tax aspects.
The ETI Act originally came into operation on 1 January 2014 and was legislated to end on 28 February 2019, after which date no further ETI credits would be capable of being claimed by qualifying employers. Given the success of the ETI scheme, Finance Minister Tito Mboweni, announce the extension of the ETI by ten years along with an increase of the income eligibility thresholds apropos the ETI.
There is no obligation to claim ETI. Therefore, one can choose to simply ignore ETI. If, however, ETI is claimed, it will constitute tax-free income for the qualifying employer claiming it, however, employers are cautioned as to the slightly heavier compliance burden placed upon them. It is accordingly imperative for the employer to understand the criteria set out in the ETI Act pertaining to qualifying employees and employers and the treatment of the ETI for accounting and income tax purposes.
In order to participate in the scheme, both the employer and the employee are required to qualify under the ETI Act.

Qualification criteria relating to the employer-

  • The employer must be a private entity and registered with SARS for PAYE;
  • The employer must not be involved in the national, provincial or local spheres of government; and
  • The employer must not be disqualified from receiving the incentive by the Minister of Finance in terms of any labour relations dispute.

Qualification criteria relating to the employee –

  • The employee must have a valid South African Identity Document, Asylum Seeker permit or an Identity Document issued in terms of the Refugee Act No. 130 of 1998;
  • The employee must be between the ages of eighteen and thirty. This age restriction does not apply if the employee is employed in a Special Economic Zone, provided that the employer has a fixed place of business within one of the six designated SEZs and the employee renders services to that employer mainly within a SEZ. Furthermore, the age validation must take the month of birth into consideration, e.g. if the employee’s month of birth is April then the employer may only claim ETI from April going forward in the year in which the employee turns eighteen and up to March in the year in which the employee turns thirty).
  • The employee must have been employed by the employer or an associated person of the employer, on or after 1 October 2013;
  • The employee must be paid the minimum wage applicable to that employer or if a minimum wage is not applicable, must be paid a wage of at least R2,000 and not more than R6,500;
  • The employee must not be a domestic worker; and
  • The employee must not be a connected person to the employer.
The ETI Act contains various formulae for the determination of the ETI amount by which an employer may reduce its PAYE liability. Effective 1 March 2019, employers will be entitled to claim up to a maximum rate of R1,000 per month where the qualifying employee earns up to R4,500 per month. From an accounting perspective, the ETI amount must be reflected as income in the journal entries of the employer, which income is exempt from income tax in terms of an amendment to section 10(1)(s) of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962.
Section 9 of the ETI Act makes provision for the carrying forward of the ETI amount (or a portion thereof), whereby such amount may be rolled over to the immediately succeeding month under the following circumstances-
  • where the ETI amount exceeds the PAYE payable by the employer in the preceding month;
  • if the employer failed to claim the ETI in the preceding month; and/or
  • if the employer failed to submit any tax return or has any outstanding tax debts owing to SARS and which are not subject to an agreement or suspension arrangement entered into with SARS.
In the above circumstances, the employer can defer the ETI amount to the immediately succeeding month which would create a deferred tax asset on the balance sheet of the employer. Furthermore, section 10 of the ETI Act provides for a reimbursement from SARS of the excess ETI amount so carried forward at the end of each employees’ tax reconciliation period. Such reimbursement would result in the correction of the overstated tax expense in the income statement of the employer and as a current asset on its balance sheet.
Employers are cautioned that in circumstances where employers have claimed the ETI in respect of an employee who did not meet the criteria under the ETI Act, SARS is entitled to impose a penalty equivalent to the full amount (100%) of the employment incentive received by the employer in respect of that employee.
In conclusion, those employers who have taken advantage of the employees’ incentive tax relief should ensure that they have met the criteria for claiming the relevant ETI and have treated it correctly for tax and accounting purposes.
[1] Special Economic Zones (“SEZs”) are geographically designated areas within South Africa set aside for specifically targeted economic activities to promote national economic growth and export. This is achieved through support measures to attract foreign and domestic investments and technology. The six SEZs comprise, Coega, Dube Trade Port, East London, Maluti-A-Phofung, Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay.
[2] The term “associated person” in relation to an employer is defined in Section 1 of the ETI Act to include, where the (a)employer is a company, any other company which is associated with that employer by reason of the fact that both companies are managed or controlled directly or indirectly by the same persons; (b)where the employer is not a company, any company which is managed or controlled directly or indirectly by the employer or by any partnership of which the employer is a member or (c) where the employer is a natural person, any relative of that employer.
[3] As defined in section 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 read together with SARS Interpretation Note 67 (issue 3)
See also:

Flying high at work

Flying high at work

Flying high at work
15 May 2019
In September 2018 the Constitutional Court ruled that the private cultivation, possession and consumption of cannabis is legal. This ruling lead to great uncertainty from the South African public, especially regarding what is defined as ‘private’ and ‘personal’ use, which has now been answered by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”).
In the recent CCMA case Mthembu and Others v NCT Durban Wood Chips [2019] 4 BALR 369 the arbitrator had to decide whether the dismissal of four employees who tested positive for cannabis at work was fair. The employer’s business involves the use of dangerous machinery and vehicles, and the transport of large logs. After the employer conducted drug tests on all its employees, urine samples confirmed that four of the employees had tested positive for the use of cannabis, and the employer subsequently charged them with being under the influence of intoxicating substances whilst on duty.
Although the employees admitted to having smoked cannabis in their spare time at home the arbitrator advised that this does not give employees license to attend at work under the influence of cannabis. The employees were aware of the employer’s zero-tolerance stance on substance abuse which was contained in its substance abuse policy and the possibility of dismissal if they tested positive.
In light of the above-mentioned facts the arbitrator found that due to the dangerous nature of the employer’s workplace and the knowledge of the employer’s zero-tolerance policy on substance abuse, the dismissal was the appropriate sanction.
This case perfectly illustrates the need for legal development in relation to the private use of cannabis and highlights the fact that employers can still discipline and dismiss employees who report for duty under the influence of cannabis.
See also:

Demystifying “non-refundable deposits”, “rouwkoop” and “penalty clauses” in sale of property agreements

Demystifying “non-refundable deposits”, “rouwkoop” and “penalty clauses” in sale of property agreements

Demystifying “non-refundable deposits”, “rouwkoop” and “penalty clauses” in sale of property agreements
16 May 2019
The sale or purchase of a property is for many people one of the most important transactions that they will enter into in their lifetime. The parties to a Sale of Land Agreement will inevitably enter into a contractual relationship which will have legal consequences for both the purchaser and the seller. It is often the case that contracts are cancelled and this is when an understanding of certain clauses and their meanings becomes very important.
Non-refundable or forfeiture clause
Sellers are sometimes sold on the idea of including a non-refundable deposit clause in the Contract of Sale. More often than not, sellers are under the impression that they will be entitled to all of the non-refundable deposit or monies already paid to the conveyancer on account of the purchase price if the purchaser breaches a Deed of Sale and such breach results in the cancellation thereof.
The seller will, however, then find out that after cancellation of the contract due to breach, that not all amounts may be retained as liquidated damages or as a non-refundable deposit.
In terms of our case law, Matthews v Pretorius (1984) (3) (SA547W) and the Conventional Penalties Act 15 of 1962 (“the Act”), any penalty or liquidated damages contained in a contractual obligation shall be subject to the provisions of the Act which affords the Court the discretion to, on hearing a claim for a penalty or a non-refundable deposit, find that it might be out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the creditor and the Court may reduce the penalty to such extent as it may consider equitable under the circumstances, taking in due consideration the interests of all concerned.
This means that any forfeiture stipulation resulting from the cancellation of an agreement, including non-refundable deposits, as well as the retention of certain monies already paid by a purchaser as liquidated damages, will be subject to the measurement as described in the Conventional Penalties Act.
Estate agents should be very careful not to create an expectation with the seller that he or she will be entitled to all of the non-refundable deposit or monies already paid to the conveyancer on account of the purchase price if a purchaser breaches a Deed of Sale of immovable property and such breach results in the cancellation thereof.
The role of conveyancers is important to understand as well. It is not expected from conveyancers to act as a Judge and Jury when dealing with monies in their trust account when a dispute arises about who should be the rightful recipient of such monies once the Deed of Sale is cancelled. Unless and until such time as an agreement has been reached between the parties or a competent Court has made an order, it cannot be expected of conveyancers to pay the monies to either party.

Breach of contract

The relationship between a purchaser and seller is governed by the Contract of Sale. The breach of contract occurs generally when a party to a contract without lawful excuse fails to honour his or her obligations under the contract.
When a contract is cancelled in terms of the breach clause of the said contract, the aggrieved party would normally have the right to claim damages from the guilty party. When claiming damages, the aggrieved party must note that the Conventional Penalties Act will also be applicable to the amount of damages that may be claimed.
In the instance of the seller, the seller’s damages will often only be liquidated once the property is resold and the seller’s claim will only be for the deficit between the amount of resale and the original contract sum of the cancelled agreement.

Rouwkoop

A rouwkoop clause in its pure form comes from our common law. It is derived from the Dutch words meaning “regret and purchase”. Such a clause entitles a party to a contract to pay a sum of money in order to be allowed to withdraw from the contract. It essentially sets a purchase price for freedom from the contract payable by the purchaser. If the purchaser then withdraws from the contract and pays the agreed rouwkoop amount, he will be acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement and his withdrawal will not constitute a breach of contract. (It is not regarded as a penalty.) This is clearly very distinguishable from a penalty clause which would come into operation only where there was a breach of contract.
Unfortunately, many sale agreements confuse the position in law whereby the forfeiture clause is merged with a rouwkoop clause, which provides that if the purchaser breaches the agreement and the seller cancels the agreement as a result thereof, the purchaser will forfeit his or her deposit as rouwkoop.
In a decision of Royal Anthem Investments 129 (Pty) Ltd v Yuen Fan Lau and Shun Cheng Liang (941/2012) (2014) (ZASCA 19) (26 March 2014), the Court had to interpret a rouwkoop clause in a Deed of Sale which read as follows: “Will have the right to cancel the agreement and to keep other amounts payable as rouwkoop, or by means of any pending decision by a Court of the real damages suffered”.
The Court in this instance found that the deposit was not an amount as envisaged by the rouwkoop clause in the true intention of the rouwkoop clause history. A penalty clause will only come into operation when there was a breach of the contract.

Conclusion

From the said case law and the provisions of the Act above, it is clear that:
  • Non-refundable deposits are a myth and together with forfeiture clauses, subject to scrutiny by the Courts. Unless the parties to the agreement can come to an agreement regarding the penalty, the Court must be sought to quantify the amount payable as a penalty.
  • A rouwkoop clause in a Deed of Sale must be clearly distinguished from the penalty clauses above as it is not subject to the provisions of the Conventional Penalties Act.
So, be sure to demystify the myth before you enter into one of the most important transactions of your life. Consult with an attorney.
See also:

Tax Alert: South Africa’s employment tax incentive

Tax Alert: South Africa’s employment tax incentive Provided By  Eversheds Sutherland Eversheds Sutherland Represents The Coming To...