Proudly sponsored by

Supreme Court slaps down Spur over tax deduction claims

Citing ‘misrepresentations and non-disclosures’, and reversing an earlier high court nod of approval.
Sars initially allowed Spur to claim the deductions but reversed this decision following an audit. Image: Supplied

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) last week overturned a Western High Court ruling that a R48 million contribution to a Spur employee share trust was an expense in the production of income, and was therefore deductible.

In 2004, Spur launched a share incentive scheme for employees, with Spur Holding Company (HoldCo) being the sole capital and income beneficiary. In December that year, an amount of R48.4 million was paid into the trust by Spur. The trust deed was amended in 2010 to allow participants to benefit from dividends received by the trust, though Spur HoldCo remained the sole capital beneficiary.

“The purpose of the scheme was to promote the continued growth and profitability of Spur,” according to the SCA judgment.

Participants in the scheme were given ordinary shares in an entity (NewCo) and were prevented from dealing freely in these shares for a period of seven years.

Shortly thereafter, NewCo’s share capital was altered to create NewCo preference shares. The trust acquired 1 000 preference shares in NewCo, with an agreement that dividends would be paid at 75% a year of the prime interest rate, to be redeemed five years later – in December 2009.

When 2009 came around, the preference shares were redeemed at the rate of R48.4 million as previously agreed, while dividends amounting to R22.5 million were to be distributed to the trust.


The redemption of the preference shares and the payment of the dividends were settled by way of NewCo distributing to the trust a total of 6.7 million Spur HoldCo ordinary shares.

In December 2009, NewCo declared a dividend of R286.27 per ordinary share totalling R28.6 million to the ordinary shareholders of NewCo.

The share incentive scheme was terminated and NewCo deregistered on December 10, 2012, though the trust continues to hold Spur HoldCo shares that were distributed to it by NewCo.

Deductions claimed

A dispute arose with the South African Revenue Service (Sars) when Spur claimed the contribution of R48.4 million it made to the trust as a deduction against its income in terms of Section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act, with the claimed deductions spread over the period 2005 to 2012.

Spur claimed deductions of R3.46 million in 2005; R6.92 million for the years 2006 to 2011; and R3.46 million for 2012.

According to the SCA ruling, Sars initially allowed the claimed deductions but reversed this decision following an audit. The basis of the disallowance was that the R48.4 million contribution was not incurred in the production of Spur’s income over the period.

Sars reasoned that Spur HoldCo was the only party to benefit from the contribution to the trust.

The participants to the contribution were not beneficiaries, and this was confirmed by a Spur witness who confirmed that the R48 million in the form of Spur Corporation shares is still sitting in the trust, which means the participants have not benefitted directly from the contribution.

‘Misrepresentations and non-disclosures’

“Clearly, there must be a sufficiently close connection or link between the expenditure and the income earning operations of a taxpayer. The determination of whether the necessary link exists will require an examination of all the facts of a particular case,” reads the judgment.

“In light of what I have stated above, I therefore find that the misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Spur caused the Commissioner [of Sars] not to assess Spur correctly within the three-year period after the original statements.”

Though Section 99(1) of the Tax Administration Act does not allow Sars to make an assessment three years after the original assessment, this limited period does not apply where fraud, misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts is involved.

Sars’s appeal against the earlier Western Cape High Court ruling in Spur’s favour was upheld by the SCA, and Spur was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Spur issued a Sens announcement on Monday morning in response to the SCA ruling, saying it is considering its legal rights, which could include challenging the SCA ruling in the Constitutional Court.

In light of the judgment, the financial statements for the previous year will be adjusted.

“As a result of the SCA ruling, the R22.034 million tax receivable, recognised as an asset on Spur Corporations consolidated statement of financial position as at 30 June 2021, will be charged to profit or loss as an additional income tax and interest expense,” says the Sens announcement.

Spur’s share price traded half a percent lower on Monday morning at R20.08.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


And this was signed off by the big 4 auditor! The auditors really let the client slide on this one.

This is why the Auditor-General leads the way. Since the AG works for government and not the client, there is no threat to its independence.

No, I don’t think the Auditor Genl. had anything to do with the decision made by the SCA.

I do in this case agree with SCA, because this thing smelled like fraud from the onset.

With HoldCo being the sole beneficiary and the deduction not being done for an expense incurred in the production of Spur’s income.

This is enough reason to believe that it was rather capital expenses.

What is SA tax position nowadays?

If an SA company awarded shares to staff with a R100 strike price when market value was R140 and it later vests when value at R200:
1. Does company get a R40 salary expense for tax purpose in SA? I know in the US yes.
2. Is employee taxed that R40 as salary income and later the R60 gain as capital gain?

There used to be a Black & Scholes share option value exercise but I can’t remember whether that option value was deductible in company tax calc??

It is difficult to understand how the same case was heard by the Income Tax Court and then full bench of WC high court and both found in favour of Spur.
Either the matter is incredibly complex / open to interpretation or the judges in these courts have no idea what they are doing…

…smelt like burnt “cheddamelt”

Clearly, what Spur tried to do, was too far removed from “expenditure incurred in the production of income”.

Spur’s production of income is in the food/hospitality business. Spur’s normal line of business has little to do with running share incentive schemes, passed though trusts, in which the participants are not beneficiaries. Too far removed.

On a side note, won’t surprise me if the SARS legal team takes their lunch breaks at the nearest Spur 😉

This so much hypocrisy. Laws for some, and laws for other. The Anc has deducted UIF, Paye, provident fund and medical aid contributions from their staff, yet has not paid it over to the relevant parties…not to mention not paying their staff salaries for 3 months. This is blatant theft and fraud. They get away with it ..and I must take this article seriously? Total Circus.

Nice try Spur, but no Malva Pudding and Irish coffee for you! Off to the naughty corner!

Imagine the amount of false claims to SARS.

End of comments.



Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Moneyweb newsletters

Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: