The “specific” doubtful debts allowance
The “specific” doubtful debts allowance category has been created by SARS for the purpose of replacing a taxpayer’s bad debt deduction (claimed under section 11(i) or (a) of the Act) where SARS has taken the view that the pool of debtors in respect of which a taxpayer claimed such a bad debt deduction is not in fact bad, but merely doubtful. Regardless of effort expended by any taxpayer in the collection process prior to the writing-off of a debt as bad and the claiming of a section 11(i) or (a) deduction in respect thereof, if any recovery processes take place post write-off, SARS has expressed the view that as a matter of principle, the entire pool of debtors is tainted and as such merely doubtful. The percentage of the specific doubtful debts allowance granted by SARS in these circumstances is generally based on the inverse of the bad debt recovery rate. For example, if a taxpayer’s bad debt recovery rate is 25%, then SARS would grant a specific doubtful debts allowance of 75% in lieu of the bad debt deduction.
Arguably, the SARS approach is contrary to the correct interpretation of section 11(i) which provides (with our emphasis) as follows:
"11. For the purpose of determining the taxable income derived by any person from carrying on any trade, there shall be allowed as deductions from the income of such person so derived -
(i) the amount of any debt due to the taxpayer which has during the year of assessment become bad, provided such amount is included in the current year of assessment or was included in previous years of assessment in the taxpayer's income..."
The words "bad' or "become” are not defined in the Act. They have also not been authoritatively interpreted by the South African courts, although the courts have held that the question of whether a debt is bad or not must be decided at the time when the bad debt is claimed and according to the then-existing circumstances of the debtor. It has been pointed out further by our courts that subsequent circumstances (which we would submit include a future recovery of all or part of the debt, or of some other debt which was written off at the same time) cannot influence the determination made for that year of assessment. The foreign jurisprudence tends towards taking an objective and commercial approach in determining whether a debt is bad and aligns such a decision to that of a reasonable and prudent businessman.
- Biased Tax Collection on ‘Streaming’
- Texas Supreme Court Holds: No Cause of Action for Interference With Inheritance Rights
- Nexus in a Post-Wayfair World
- What The Supreme Court's Wayfair Ruling Means for Businesses
- ENSafrica appoints new banking and finance director
- ENSafrica launches ENSafrica intelligENS
- ENSafrica newsflash
WSG Member: Please login to add your comment.