Services Supplied to Non-Residents
In line with the destination based principles of the VAT Act, services which are rendered to non-residents may qualify for VAT at the rate of zero per cent in terms of section 11(2) (â„“) of the VAT Act. The rate of zero per cent may, however, not be applied if the non-resident or any other person to whom the services are supplied is present in South Africa when the services are rendered. The zero rate may also not be applied if the services are rendered in respect of movable property which is located in South Africa hen the services are supplied, unless the movable property is exported from South Africa.
In the recent case of Master Currency v CSARS (155/2012) [2013] ZASCA 17 the SCA ruled that the exchange of currency for a non-resident at the airside of customs at an international airport does not qualify for VAT at the zero rate because the non-resident is physically present in the "Republic” as defined in the VAT Act when the service is rendered. The SCA also did not accept the argument of the vendor that the service is rendered in respect of movable property (banknotes) which is exported from South Africa by the non-resident. The SCA ruled that the movable property must be exported by the supplier of the service for the zero rate to apply.
Master Currency argued in the alternative that its services qualified for the zero rate in terms of section 11(2)(g)(i) of the VAT Act, which provides for the zero rating of services supplied directly in connection with movable property situated in an export country. Master Currency contended that banknotes embody personal rights of payment of the face value to the bearer which rights are situated at their place of issue, i.e. in the foreign country. The banknotes therefore evidence movable property situated in the country where they were issued. The SCA held that banknotes cannot be regarded as promissory notes embodying an incorporeal right against the foreign issuing bank, and dismissed the arguments of the vendor. The High Court of Australia came to a different conclusion on a similar issue in Travelex Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 33.