Comments for Peter Surtees

Comment on Transfer duty : habitatio and bare dominium by Peter Surtees

Peter Surtees — Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:11:26 +0000

Hi Richard’ thanks for your enquiry. For transfer duty, and income tax and estate duty purposes, the valuation process is the same: get a valuation from an estate agent whose opinion you respect or a sworn appraiser. You then determine the value of the habitatio by applying to that value the present value factor in terms of the 12% table. If the property could not reasonably generate a 12% return (what it could generate, not what it is generating now if it’s standing idle to being let at a peppercorn rental), you can use a realistic rate. Next, you determine the life expectancy of the older of the two spouses and apply the life expectancy factor for a person of that age and gender. This will be the value of the habitatio for fiscal purposes.
I hope this explanation is OK for your needs. Kind regards
Peter

Comment on Reinstating a deregistered company : SARS binding private ruling BPR 237 by Peter Surtees

Peter Surtees — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 08:34:28 +0000

In reply to Johan N Vosloo. Thanks for your enquiry. The answer is no. CIPC doesn't liaise with SARS on deregistrations. You have to inform SARS of the deregistration, otherwise SARS continues to expect returns.

Comment on Reinstating a deregistered company : SARS binding private ruling BPR 237 by Johan N Vosloo

Johan N Vosloo — Fri, 11 Oct 2019 08:22:57 +0000

If a cc (dormant )is finaly deregistered by Cipc does it mean that it is also deregistered by Sars ? If deregistered by Sars than the cc can not efile taxreturns ? Therefore the cc is released without penalties to efile returns ?

Comment on Which factors affect the value of trading stock on hand? by Peter Surtees

Peter Surtees — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:35:11 +0000

In reply to Greg Tarrant.

Dear Greg

Sorry for the late reply. I guess I must check more often.. I agree with you. Section 22(1)(a) allows for no other interpretation. I suspect the learned judge was being a bit broad brush here. Of course you have to consider the current value of every item or at least of every category.

Kind regards

Comment on Which factors affect the value of trading stock on hand? by Greg Tarrant

Greg Tarrant — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 18:41:56 +0000

Hi Peter

What is your view on paragraph 46 of the Judgement? The judge proposes that writing down inventory on an item-by-item basis is not appropriate as it takes account of the “swings”, but not the “roundabouts”. Given that a company’s inventory taken as a whole is unlikely to be lower than its cost, one ends up in the position where a diminution for purposes of section 22(1) will never (or very rarely) occur. Take for example stock which has been damaged. If one applies the logic of the judge in paragraph 46, one cannot diminish the value of this inventory for purposes of section 22(1) as it comprises but a few item / lines of inventory which, when taken as a whole, is still above cost…

Have I misunderstood his analysis? If not, one can relegate inventory write-downs for tax purposes to history.

Many thanks

Greg

Comment on Lessons from some recent trust cases by Lindsay Mitchell

Lindsay Mitchell — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:05:06 +0000

Peter Surtees please contact Lindsay Mitchell