Sanral clarifies VAT charge for e-tolls

E-toll is not a tax, but a user charge
Click to expand...

Semantics, Vusi. It is an involuntary, compulsory charge, making it a tax by the very definition of a tax. There is no willing buyer in your user charge...

Sanral is a non-profit based organisation
Click to expand...

Then why are your partners in the project incentivised on profit? Ah yes, that's why you split them into separate legal entities, to cover your arse so that you can claim to maintain a zero-profit model while the actual profit is funnelled elsewhere. Makes sense now.

an agency of the Department of Transport.
Click to expand...

I also note that Vusi conveniently uses semantics to make his case. When it suits him, Sanral is a separate legal entity. On other occasions when it suits him, Sanral is an agency of the government...

Mona noted that the toll revenue is mainly applied to pay for road infrastructure upgrades and expansions which were completed in 2010/11
Click to expand...

Mainly? What's the rest for? Ah yes, profit for Kapsch and TMT, of course.

And bullschit on the second point. "Upgrades" were completed in 2013, not 2010/2011, you compulsive liar...

as well as the repayment of the debt which was incurred to fund this enormous project.
Click to expand...

Actually that is where the bulk of the charge comes from. Your debt. Stop bullschitting people...

Toll infrastructure is an insignificant cost in relation to the road expenditure incurred
Click to expand...

It's also an insignificant cost in relation to putting a man on Mars. That doesn't make it an insignificant cost. I consider billions spent on E-Toll infrastructure to be pretty bloody significant, you dishonest bullschitter...

which is to the benefit of all its users
Click to expand...

Bullschit. The upgrades were intended to be to the benefit of all road users. E-Tolling was not, and is not. It's simply an additional cost incurred to recover money and siphon profits elsewhere while maintaining the illusion of being a zero-profit model. Stop conflating upgrades with E-Tolling. They are separate issues, you dishonest prick...

The spokesperson said that during an evaluation process on the e-toll financial model by two independent auditing firms, “it was found that the e-toll financial model is a zero profit model”.
Click to expand...

Only because you separated the legal entities which was not necessary. The only reason to do this is to allow the model to maintain the illusion of being zero-profit to Sanral only. Kapsch and TMT are recipients of massive profit from this model. Kapsch alone are making close on a billion Rand. TMT hundreds of millions. Stop being dishonest, Vusi...

According to reports, however, government is paying as much R25 million a month to Electronic Tolling Collection (ETC) company, for “costs incurred” – including rent, rates and taxes.
Click to expand...

This figure will also increase rapidly as more users adopt E-Tolling, as the profit is already built into the pricing. It's not only costs that are being incurred. ETC/Kapsch/TMT are not non-profit organisations. They are profit-motivated companies. It was never necessary for Sanral to include them in the deal other than to siphon profits. They could have remained just a service provider. Instead, they effectively run the entire tolling operation. This was necessary, otherwise the profit would have been made by Sanral, which is a big no-no. It's clear that the only reason they have become integral partners is to siphon off the profits generated as Sanral is not allowed to do this.

I also love how Vusi makes no mention of them in his statement. He also omits the fact that VPC/ETC are in fact a division of Sanral, or at least that's how he refers to them when it suits him to discuss how the Sanral Act covers VPC as well. Discuss profits though, and they magically become a completely separate entity.

This is one big piece of dishonest lip-service as usual.

Up yours, Vusi, and up yours, Sanral and government...
 
Last edited:
Messugga said:
One can argue that going on the highway makes you a willing buyer, which is what SANRAL is bound to do.
Click to expand...

A willing buyer of what, exactly? The right to use the road? A toll is the very definition of a tax. It's even used as an example of a tax in many definitions and explanations.

One cannot purchase a right. They can try to argue their case, but they'll eventually hit the block where they will be forced to concede that either Sanral is a private entity separate from government, or they are a department of government.

Either roads have been privatised, or I am effectively buying a right to freedom of movement. I'd love to see them try to justify this point...
 
So what I'm hearing is that my electricity, water and sewage should all be tax free via this logic applied to e-tolls?
 
creeper said:
And here we go: Gazette 2001

"‘‘user charge’’ means an identifiable payment charged for a specific marketable
good or service provided to a willing buyer and for which a direct benefit accrues,
in exchange for the payment of such fee, to the person making the payment;"

...spot the problem.

Hint: willing buyer
Click to expand...

If you buy an eTag you become a 'willing' buyer according to SANRAL logic

edit: added according to SANRAL logic
 
Last edited:
Garyvdh said:
No viable Public Transport or Alternative Routes.... that can be disputed.
Click to expand...

Look, I completely agree with you, but is there some sort of definition as to what qualifies as "viable"? The so-called alternative routes SANRAL has suggested simply won't do - I doubt I'd be able to arrive anytime before lunch if I were to drive from Pretoria to Sandton using the R101 (Old Jhb Road), if I left any time after 7 (especially if everyone else were using that same road).
 
2012 said:
So what I'm hearing is that my electricity, water and sewage should all be tax free via this logic applied to e-tolls?
Click to expand...

No, those are all services provided. A toll is not a service rendered. It's a form of taxation in and of itself...
 
DJ... said:
A willing buyer of what, exactly? The right to use the road? A toll is the very definition of a tax. It's even used as an example of a tax in many definitions and explanations.

One cannot purchase a right. They can try to argue their case, but they'll eventually hit the block where they will be forced to concede that either Sanral is a private entity separate from government, or they are a department of government.

Either roads have been privatised, or I am effectively buying a right to freedom of movement. I'd love to see them try to justify this point...
Click to expand...

You're buying usage of their infrastructure, much like you pay to use the department of water's piping. From your comment "either roads have been privatised" I take it that they're not? I was under the impression that they were. Wiki agrees (link, but I can't say that the writer of that article doesn't have a chip on his shoulder :p

I'm not arguing the point, I'm not qualified to discuss taxes on any technical level, I'm trying to understand this from a layman's perspective.
 
DJ... said:
No, those are all services provided. A toll is not a service rendered. It's a form of taxation in and of itself...
Click to expand...

Very well, then the next question that must be asked: are other tolls (such as the N3 tolls) taxed or not?
 
Messugga said:
You're buying usage of their infrastructure, much like you pay to use the department of water's piping. From your comment "either roads have been privatised" I take it that they're not? I was under the impression that they were. Wiki agrees (link, but I can't say that the writer of that article doesn't have a chip on his shoulder :p

I'm not arguing the point, I'm not qualified to discuss taxes on any technical level, I'm trying to understand this from a layman's perspective.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't been privatised. Sanral is admittedly a division of the dept of transport.

On that basis they have taken a freedom of movement and added a price to it, on the basis of them not being able to afford to maintain them because they squandered our money. So we must start to purchase our own constitutional rights now because they squandered our tax contributions.

The issue here is whether tolls are a tax or not. I argue that a toll is a tax, as do most definitions I've ever seen. On a public road, tolls are a tax. On a private road, they are not.

So Sanral would have to argue that they have in fact privatised our roads. In which case I would like to know what price we sold our roads to a private company for, and how we will be using these hundred of billions of Rands...
 
Seems Sanral are going around in ever diminishing circles - eventually to be swallowed up by their own ringpiece.
 
Last edited:
2012 said:
Very well, then the next question that must be asked: are other tolls (such as the N3 tolls) taxed or not?
Click to expand...

They are. I argue that they shouldn't be. In Ireland for example, the minister of transport argued in 2012 that VAT should not be levied on toll roads. He unfortunately lost. BUT VAT on tolls has been argued in the European Justice Court. Eventually it was ruled that VAT must be levied, but the reasoning here is important. The reason was that the tolls were partially operated by private companies, and therefore VAT must be levied on the service.

So looking at international precedent, VAT must be imposed here, because in order for Sanral to siphon off profits to private companies who did not have to be partners in the deal, they have partnered with Kapsch and TMT, making the project a partial private venture.

Oh well. Sanral have, and will continue to screw us over...

http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp00/aff/cp0056en.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X