Background: Sections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) require, inter alia, disclosure of the remuneration received by each director in a company’s annual financial statements. Section 30(6) defines the term ‘remuneration’, which includes, inter alia, in Section 30(6)(e) the ‘value’ of any option or right granted to a director, as contemplated in Section 42, which deals with options for the allotment or subscription of securities or shares of a company. It is uncertain what the intended meaning of the term ‘value’ is in this context and it is interpreted differently by different companies in practice. Aim: The objective of this study was to understand the meaning of the term ‘value’ in Section 30(6)(e) of the Act (including the date of measurement thereof), as intended by the legislature. Setting: This article examined existing literature in a South African corporate and legislative environment. Method: A non-empirical study of existing literature was conducted by performing a historical analysis within a South African context. A doctrinal research approach was followed. Results: Possible interpretations of the term ‘value’ include the grant date fair value of the rights, the fair value at reporting date, the fair value on vesting date, the expense calculated in terms of the International Financial Reporting Standard on share-based payments, the gain on exercise of the rights and the intrinsic value on reporting date. It is submitted that the most likely meaning is the grant date fair value. Conclusion: It was found that the meaning of the term ‘value’, for purposes of Section 30(6)(e) of the Act, is unclear and interpreted differently by different companies. It is, therefore, recommended that the wording of Section 30(6)(e) is amended to reflect the meaning intended by the legislature.

Background: South Africa is faced with a significant challenge of securing the supply of electricity as well as reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. The implementation of energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) measures by energy consumers, especially businesses, is becoming increasingly important and a number of tax incentives have been introduced to promote EE and RE. Objective: The objective of this preliminary study was to determine the role that the available tax incentives play in the decision making of South African businesses regarding investment in RE or EE projects. Aim: To determine this role, the largest South African businesses were selected from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange Top 40 Index. Method: The study contained both empirical and non-empirical elements. A literature review was conducted to determine the role of tax incentives globally, while questionnaires were distributed to determine the role in South Africa. Results: Findings highlighted that, while tax incentives do play a role in decision making, various other non-tax factors drive South African businesses’ decisions to invest in EE and/or RE projects. These businesses do not perceive the available tax incentives as effective, nor do they regard them as sufficiently motivating for businesses to change their environmental behaviour. They also feel that the government should reduce the burden of complying with the requirements of Section 12L (the EE allowance). Conclusion: Improving the available RE and EE tax incentives in South Africa might result in more businesses considering the implementation of RE or EE projects. It is therefore recommended that the available tax incentives are expanded and/or the qualifying criteria simplified.

The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), the Companies Act of 2008 (the Act) and the third King Report on Corporate Governance (King III) require disclosure on the share-based remuneration of directors of listed South African companies on a per-director basis. Research purpose:The first objective was to determine the disclosure practices of JSE-listed companies relating to share-based remuneration on a per-director basis, to examine whether the disclosure practices comply with regulatory requirements and whether share-based remuneration was disclosed consistently. Comparisons were made between companies in the three largest industries on the JSE (financial, industrial and basic materials industries) as well as between small, medium and large companies. The second objective was to develop a bestpractice disclosure example that complies with the JSE listing requirements, the Act and the latest King Report (King IV).Motivation for the study: Previous research has hinted that share-based remuneration is poorly disclosed in South African annual reports, but it has not specifically been studied.Research approach, design and method: Data on disclosure practices were collected from annual reports. The collected data were analysed against the regulatory requirements to evaluate compliance and compared between companies to evaluate consistency.Main findings: Some companies failed to comply with regulatory requirements (did not disclose the value of share-based remuneration and the number of instruments employed). Large companies were more likely than small companies to comply with regulatory requirements. Between-company inconsistency was noted when comparing the value of sharebased remuneration disclosed by companies in the sample.Practical/managerial implications: Non-compliance with regulatory requirements regarding the disclosure of per-director share-based remuneration was noted in the sample, which could lead to stakeholders having insufficient information for decision-making purposes. Inconsistent disclosure practices, leading to incomparability between similar companies, could hamper effective investment decisions. Contribution/value-add: A best-practice disclosure example was developed to assist companies seeking to comply with disclosure requirements and enhance comparability between JSE-listed companies in future.

Background: Section 7 of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the Act) was introduced as an anti-avoidance measure to prevent tax avoidance by means of a donation, settlement or other disposition in various types of schemes. In terms of this section, in certain circumstances, ‘income’ is deemed to be income received by or accrued to a taxpayer. Despite the fact that the term ‘income’ has been used in Section 7 from the time that it was first introduced into the Act and the fact that it is defined in section 1 of the Act, there still remains uncertainty regarding the intention of the legislature and the actual meaning of the term in terms of Section 7.Aim: The objective of the study is to understand whether the term ‘income’, as used in Sections 7(2) to 7(8) of the Act, is used in its defined sense or if it should be ascribed a different meaning.Setting: This article examines existing literature in a South African income tax environment.Method: A non-empirical study of existing literature was conducted by performing a historical analysis within a South African context. A doctrinal research approach was followed.Results: Possible interpretations determined include ‘income’ as defined in section 1 of the Act, namely ‘gross income’ (also defined) less exempt income, ‘gross income’, profits and gains or ‘taxable income’ (i.e. ‘income’ less allowable expenditure, deductions and losses) and ‘gross income’ less related deductible expenses and losses.Conclusion: It was found that the meaning of ‘income’, for purposes of Sections 7(2) to 7(8), remains an uncertainty, and it is recommended that the wording of Section 7 be amended to reflect the intended meaning thereof.

The objective of the study was to determine the primary focus of selected developing countries (four BRICS countries; namely, Brazil, China, India and South Africa) in applying tax instruments to reduce their emissions from electricity generation. The focus of tax instruments could be on supply or demand; incentives or disincentives; direct or indirect taxes; and renewable energy, energy efficiency or research and development in these fields. It was found that the tax instruments in SouthAfrica and India focus almost equally on the supply and demand of electricity, while the tax instruments in China focus on the demand side and those in Brazil place slightly more emphasis on the supply side. The primary focus in all the countries studied appears to be the application of incentives, rather than disincentives and the focus of their tax incentives appears to fall equally on the application of direct and indirect taxes, with the exception of South Africa where hardly any indirect tax incentives are applied. Furthermore, there seems to be an almost equal focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency and research and development in the countries studied, with the exception of China where the number of tax instruments specifically aimed at energy efficiency significantly exceeds the number of instruments specifically aimed at renewable energy and research and development. Based on the findings, Brazil does not apply tax instruments to target energy efficiency.

The objective of the study was to compare the tax instruments (both incentives and disincentives) applied in selected developing countries (four BRICS countries, namely South Africa, China, Brazil and India) to reduce their emissions from electricity generation, in an attempt to identify areas for possible improvement or expansion in South Africa. Increased renewable energy, energy efficiency and research and development relating to these fields can contribute to the reduction of emissions resulting from electricity generation. A number of similar tax incentives were identified in the countries, the majority of which appear to be more beneficial in the comparative countries than in South Africa. It could be worth considering improving some of the existing incentives in South Africa to be more beneficial to taxpayers. In addition, a number of tax instruments that are applied in some of the comparative countries, were identified and suggested for consideration by the South African government.