The Thistle Trust vs C. South African Revenue Service: CASE SUMMARY

Case Information

  • Court: Constitutional Court of South Africa
  • Case No: CCT 337/22
  • Applicant: The Thistle Trust
  • Defendant: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
  • Judgment Date: 2 October 2024
  • Download the FULL JUDGMENT

Judgment Summary

In the landmark case of The Thistle Trust v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, the Constitutional Court of South Africa was tasked with examining the application of the conduit principle in the taxation of trusts, particularly focusing on how capital gains are treated within a multi-tiered trust structure. The court assessed whether capital gains realized by Zenprop, a group of trusts engaged in property development, which were distributed to The Thistle Trust and then further distributed to individual beneficiaries, were taxable in the hands of Thistle or the ultimate beneficiaries.

The case revolved around sections 25B and 26A of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 and paragraph 80(2) of the Eighth Schedule. The Tax Court initially ruled in favor of Thistle, applying the conduit principle to conclude that capital gains should be taxed at the beneficiary level. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned this decision, stating that capital gains taxtax liability rested with Thistle, not the individual beneficiaries, based on the interpretation that paragraph 80(2) did not extend the conduit principle beyond the first-tier trust. SARS, having conducted an audit, argued that Thistle was liable for capital gains tax, as the distributed amounts were not passed further for tax purposes in the eyes of the law.

The Constitutional Court ultimately upheld the SCA’s decision, agreeing that paragraph 80(2) of the Eighth Schedule limited the application of the conduit principle in multi-tiered structures. This meant that Thistle, as a direct beneficiary of Zenprop, could not pass capital gains taxtax liability further to individual beneficiaries. The court also found that the understatement penalties initially imposed by SARS should be waived, as the error was bona fide and inadvertent, as conceded by SARS during the appeal process.

VIEW THE FULL CASE SUMMARY (WEB)

File Type: pdf
File Size: 193 KB
Countries: South Africa
Tags: Capital Gains Tax, Conduit Principle, International Tax, MNE Compliance, Tax Law, Tax Risk Management, Trust Taxation