South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Its not that easy unfortunately. E.g. In some cases you get taxed on a deposit...even if its paid back. Or if you are collecting money for a charity.blunomore said:
Writing a test on this BS in about a week....
The tax act says any amount "received", "accrued" or "in favour of".
Clearly it did not accrue to you and it is not in your favour...that leaves received...which you did. So according to the act, you'd have to include it.
However, case law set a precedent that you don't have to include it. In the case Geldenhuys v CIR (1947 C) it was that "received by" means "Received by the taxpayer on his own behalf for his own benefit".
So you would ignore the amount received completely and not include it anywhere on your tax return.
If you earn interest on the money held then that will be taxable. It would have been better if the agreement had been in writing....but its too late now. If you put it into writing now then that will cause more problems than an oral agreement because the agreement has to have existed when the money was received.
Its not that easy unfortunately. E.g. In some cases you get taxed on a deposit...even if its paid back. Or if you are collecting money for a charity.
Its better for her (it's a long story), but maybe I must stop that before I get into trouble. I'm not jumping tax here, so dont hope I get trouble later on. Do you guys think ABSA check the total amount deposited into my account for a year, or is it just very high deposits that get "flagged"?
Writing a test on this BS in about a week....
The tax act says any amount "received", "accrued" or "in favour of".
Clearly it did not accrue to you and it is not in your favour...that leaves received...which you did. So according to the act, you'd have to include it.
However, case law set a precedent that you don't have to include it. In the case Geldenhuys v CIR (1947 C) it was that "received by" means "Received by the taxpayer on his own behalf for his own benefit".
So you would ignore the amount received completely and not include it anywhere on your tax return.
If you earn interest on the money held then that will be taxable. It would have been better if the agreement had been in writing....but its too late now. If you put it into writing now then that will cause more problems than an oral agreement because the agreement has to have existed when the money was received.
Its not that easy unfortunately. E.g. In some cases you get taxed on a deposit...even if its paid back. Or if you are collecting money for a charity.
You can trust me - I am a woman
Writing a test on this BS in about a week....
...
If you earn interest on the money held then that will be taxable. It would have been better if the agreement had been in writing....but its too late now. If you put it into writing now then that will cause more problems than an oral agreement because the agreement has to have existed when the money was received.
...
Your conclusion was spot on. I was just pointing out that logic you used to get there isn't identical to the one the tax act uses. In 99% of the cases it won't matter in practice.
Yeah....I kinda knew its not the right word, but I couldn't think of the write one so I took a chance & hoped nobody would notice.sn3rd said:
In most cases, you can treat tax matters as 100% separate for the spouse. Often the partners fill out their own tax stuff and leave the spouse in the dark completely.jacqvt said:
