• Law Reports
  • Rand Mines (Mining & Services) Ltd v Commissioner …

Rand Mines (Mining & Services) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (51/95) [1996] ZASCA 118; 1997 (1) SA 427 (SCA); [1997] 1 All SA 279 (A); (27 September 1996)

82 Reportability
Tax Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Income Tax — Deductibility of expenditure — Appellant, a mine management company, incurred R30-million to acquire management rights from GD for Lefko mine — Commissioner for Inland Revenue disallowed deduction, asserting expenditure was of a capital nature — Appellant contended expenditure was incurred in the production of income and thus deductible under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 — Special Court found expenditure to be capital in nature and not deductible — Appeal against this finding.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment


Introduction


The proceedings were an income tax appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (then the Appellate Division) from a decision of the Cape Income Tax Special Court. The dispute concerned the deductibility for normal tax purposes of a substantial amount paid by the taxpayer, and turned on whether the expenditure was of a capital nature or revenue nature for purposes of the general deduction formula.


The parties were Rand Mines (Mining & Services) Ltd (the taxpayer, as appellant) and the Commissioner for Inland Revenue (as respondent). The Commissioner had disallowed a deduction of R30 million claimed by the appellant in the 1988 year of assessment (year ended 30 September 1988) as expenditure for “management and services rights”. The appellant objected, the objection was overruled, and the appellant then appealed to the Special Court, which upheld the Commissioner’s stance. The present appeal challenged that conclusion.


Procedurally, a preliminary jurisdictional issue arose because the Special Court, after granting leave to amend the objection by adding an alternative ground, had postponed the further hearing on the new ground sine die, while dismissing the appeal on the original ground. Shortly before the SCA hearing, the SCA questioned whether an appeal lay against what appeared to be a partial decision. That issue became moot after the appellant abandoned the additional ground of objection, with the result that the Special Court’s postponement order became inoperative and the Special Court’s dismissal was treated as a dismissal of the appeal as a whole.


The general subject-matter was the capital/revenue distinction in South African income tax law, applied to an intangible contractual right obtained by paying to terminate a third party’s mine-management agreement so that the appellant could enter into a replacement long-term management agreement.


Material Facts


The appellant was a mine management company within a larger group of mining companies. Its business consisted of providing administration, technical supervision, and professional services (legal, accounting and related support) to mine-owning companies, typically within the same group, under standard-form management agreements. Those agreements generated income for the appellant through a bundle of percentage-based fees (administration fee based on working capital and other service-related fees).


The court proceeded from facts that were common cause and central to the tax characterisation. It was common cause that the disputed R30 million was incurred in the Republic, during the relevant year of assessment, and in the production of income. The only live question was whether the expenditure was capital in nature, which would exclude it from deduction under section 11(a), or revenue, which would permit deduction.


A critical undisputed feature of the appellant’s business model was that it ordinarily concluded management contracts without paying any consideration to acquire them. Historically, the group required the appellant to manage the group’s mines, and the appellant’s management role was a practical precondition for group investments in mines. Although management contracts for mines came and went as the group acquired or disposed of mining interests, the appellant had not previously “bought” a management contract in the sense of paying money to secure the contractual rights to manage a mine.


The R30 million payment arose from a specific acquisition transaction. A non-group company, Lefko, had been incorporated to establish a platinum mine near Brits and had entered into a long-term management agreement (15 years with a renewal option) with another company, GD. Lefko experienced financial difficulty. A group company (B Investments) negotiated to acquire a controlling interest in Lefko at a time when platinum prices were comparatively high. The acquisition was made conditional upon cancellation of GD’s management agreement and its replacement with a management agreement in favour of the appellant.


On 23 September 1988, three agreements were concluded. First, the “main agreement” by which B Investments acquired control of Lefko was conditional upon cancellation of GD’s management agreement and the conclusion of a new management agreement between Lefko and the appellant. Second, a management termination agreement cancelled GD’s management agreement, and the appellant paid GD R30 million as consideration for that cancellation. Third, the appellant and Lefko concluded a new management agreement in the appellant’s standard form, but structured to run for a minimum of 20 years (15 years during which notice could not be given, and thereafter a five-year notice period).


Subsequent events included the group later relinquishing its controlling interest in certain platinum mines, including Lefko, after the platinum price dropped. The appellant then terminated its management of those mines and, in August 1991, ceded and delegated its rights and obligations under the Lefko management agreement (and two other agreements) for R5 million. By that time, the appellant had received approximately R30 million in fees under the Lefko management agreement. The record also reflected later occasions where amounts were paid or received in connection with management agreements, but the judgment treated the Lefko payment as notably unusual because it represented the first occasion (and only one other later occasion) where the appellant had paid money to acquire such a contract.


The court noted as an additional factual feature that the new management agreement contained a clause restricting transfer of rights or delegation of obligations without Lefko’s consent, save for transfer to another subsidiary of the appellant’s parent company. This was treated as illustrating the appellant’s lack of autonomy in the acquisition and disposal of management contracts, which in practice coincided with the group’s acquisition and disposal of interests in mines.


Legal Issues


The central legal question was whether the appellant’s payment of R30 million to GD, made to procure the cancellation of GD’s management contract with Lefko so that the appellant could obtain a new long-term management agreement, constituted “expenditure ... not of a capital nature” and was therefore deductible under section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962.


The dispute was not primarily about what occurred factually (the main features were not contested), but about the application of legal standards to facts, requiring a value judgment in the classic capital-versus-revenue classification. The court had to characterise the expenditure by reference to established indicia (such as “enduring benefit”, “income-earning structure”, and “source of profit”), while recognising that no universally applicable single test exists and that the inquiry is fact-sensitive.


A secondary procedural issue briefly arose concerning whether an appeal was competent in circumstances where the Special Court had postponed an alternative ground of objection sine die. That issue ceased to require determination once the appellant abandoned the alternative ground, leaving the Special Court decision effectively final for appeal purposes.


Court’s Reasoning


The court approached the matter as a conventional capital/revenue classification exercise under section 11(a), emphasising that while the conceptual distinction is clear, its application depends on a contextual appraisal of the specific facts. It reiterated (by reference to authority including Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd) that commonly used expressions like “enduring benefit” and “capital structure” are descriptive rather than definitive, and that none of the recognised indicia is individually decisive.


The judgment identified several features pointing away from a revenue character. It reasoned, first, that the appellant was not a dealer in management contracts and did not acquire them as circulating capital for resale. The appellant’s “stock-in-trade” was the management services it rendered; the management contract was the legal mechanism that gave the appellant the opportunity to render those services for reward. Accordingly, the R30 million was not analogous to the cost of acquiring stock-in-trade, but rather to expenditure incurred to obtain the right or opportunity to perform income-producing operations in this particular instance.


Second, the court regarded the expenditure as having been undertaken in circumstances showing it was not an ordinary incident of the appellant’s independent trading operations. The payment was made at the behest of the group’s acquisition strategy and was part of a set of interdependent transactions: without compensating GD, the existing contract would not be cancelled; without cancellation, the group would not acquire control of Lefko; and without group control, the appellant would not be appointed as manager. Although the court resisted treating the group context as automatically determinative, it treated the dual purpose and structural linkage to the group’s capital acquisition as relevant context for characterisation.


Third, the court treated contractual restrictions on cession and delegation (except within the group) as illustrating the control exercised by the parent company and the extent to which the appellant’s management contracts were tied to the group’s broader mining interests. This supported the inference that these contracts were not merely incidental operating arrangements, but were integral elements of how the business was structured in relation to the group’s mining assets.


Fourth, the court placed weight on the enduring quality of what was obtained. The new management agreement had a minimum duration of 20 years, which was treated as pointing to an enduring benefit rather than an expense consumed in the day-to-day earning process. This was reinforced by the magnitude of the payment (R30 million) and its relative uniqueness in the appellant’s history, which, taken cumulatively, gave the outlay the “colour” of capital.


Fifth, and most centrally, the court evaluated whether the payment was more closely related to adding to or enhancing the income-earning structure of the appellant’s business, as opposed to being part of the cost of performing income-earning operations. It concluded that management contracts were part of the appellant’s income-earning structure because, without them, the appellant would have no right to provide its services to the mine owner and therefore no opportunity to earn the fees. The contracts themselves did not generate income directly, but were the source of profit in the sense that they created the income-earning opportunity. In this framing, the R30 million was incurred to acquire that source, not to operate it. The court connected this to the formulation in CIR v George Forest Timber Co Ltd 1924 AD 516 distinguishing expenditure incurred in creating or acquiring a source of profit (capital) from expenditure incurred in working it (revenue), and also to CIR v African Oxygen Ltd 1963 (1) SA 681 (A) regarding acquisition of a “source of profit”.


In considering the appellant’s arguments, the court addressed the contention that management contracts were routinely acquired and disposed of, and that the appellant’s organisational structure remained stable regardless of changes in contracts. The court reasoned that any volatility in contracts was driven by the group’s acquisition and disposal of mining interests rather than by autonomous business activity by the appellant. It also emphasised that, in practice, the appellant ordinarily did not pay to acquire such contracts; the R30 million payment was therefore treated as an unusual outlay rather than a routine operating expense.


The court also dealt with analogies advanced by the appellant. It rejected a comparison with a landlord’s lease-related expenses, distinguishing the position that a landlord is deploying an existing capital asset (the building) by leasing it, whereas the appellant had to incur expenditure to obtain the right to deploy its service-delivery structure to earn fees from Lefko. The judgment treated the situation as closer to expenditure incurred to acquire a licence necessary to conduct an income-producing activity.


The court further noted that cases treating lump-sum compensation received for premature termination of contracts as revenue in the recipient’s hands did not determine the character of the corresponding payment in the payer’s hands; the deductibility of such payments required an independent enquiry.


Finally, the court considered reliance placed on Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena 71 ATC 4161 and concluded that it addressed a different statutory question (whether expenditure was incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, or in carrying on a business) rather than the capital/revenue classification at issue in the present matter, and therefore did not assist.


On the totality of the relevant indicia, the court agreed with the Special Court that the expenditure was capital in nature and therefore not deductible under section 11(a).


Outcome and Relief


The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the R30 million paid to procure cancellation of GD’s management agreement (so as to secure the new management agreement for the appellant) was expenditure of a capital nature and therefore not deductible in terms of section 11(a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962.


The court ordered that the appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. It substituted the order of the court a quo with an order dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment.


Cases Cited


CIR v George Forest Timber Co Ltd 1924 AD 516.


New State Areas Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1946 AD 610.


Sub-Nigel Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1948 (4) SA 580 (A).


Commissioner for Inland Revenue v African Oxygen Ltd 1963 (1) SA 681 (A).


Secretary for Inland Revenue v Cadac Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd 1965 (2) SA 511 (A).


Secretary for Inland Revenue v John Cullum Construction Company (Pty) Ltd 1965 (4) SA 697 (A).


Heron Investments (Pty) Ltd v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1971 (4) SA 201 (A).


Palabora Mining Co Ltd v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1973 (3) SA 819 (A).


Stone v Secretary for Inland Revenue 1974 (3) SA 584 (A).


Dorstlap v South African Board for Inland Revenue 1981 (4) SA 836 (A).


Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 208 (PC); [1964] AC 948 (PC).


ITC 998, 25 SATC 179.


ITC 1402, 47 SATC 221.


John Smith and Son v Moore 12 TC 266.


HJ Rorke Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 39 TC 194.


ITC 1063, 27 SATC 57.


Pyrah v Annis & Co Ltd [1956] 2 All ER 858 (Ch); 37 TC 163.


ITC 198, 5 SATC 386.


ITC 1224, 37 SATC 30.


Turnbull v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1953 (2) SA 573 (A).


Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena 71 ATC 4161.


Legislation Cited


Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, section 11(a).


Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, section 86A(5).


Rules of Court Cited


No rules of court were cited in the judgment.


Held


The court held that the appellant’s payment of R30 million to terminate a third party’s mine-management agreement, undertaken to secure for the appellant a new long-term management agreement, constituted capital expenditure. Although the amount was incurred in the production of income and within the Republic during the year of assessment, it was not deductible because section 11(a) excludes expenditure of a capital nature.


It further held that, after the appellant abandoned its additional ground of objection, the earlier procedural concern about appealing from a partially heard matter no longer required determination, and the appeal could be disposed of on the merits.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The judgment applied the established South African income tax principle that the classification of expenditure as capital or revenue is a contextual enquiry informed by indicia rather than governed by a single definitive test. Expressions such as “enduring benefit” and “capital structure” were treated as aids to reasoning that remain descriptive and must be assessed for relevance and significance in the particular factual setting.


It reaffirmed the distinction that expenditure incurred to create or acquire a source of profit is generally capital, whereas expenditure incurred in working that source as part of income-earning operations is generally revenue. In this matter, acquiring the contractual right to provide management services (and thereby earn fees) was treated as acquiring the relevant income-producing opportunity, rather than incurring an operating cost in performing the services.


The court also applied the principle that characterisation requires an independent assessment from the payer’s perspective: the fact that compensation for termination of a contract may be a revenue receipt in the hands of a recipient does not determine whether the corresponding payment is revenue or capital for deductibility purposes in the payer’s hands.


Finally, the judgment illustrates that where a payment secures a long-term contractual right that forms part of the taxpayer’s income-earning structure, particularly where the payment is unusual in the taxpayer’s operations and linked to obtaining the right to perform income-producing operations rather than to the performance itself, those features cumulatively support classification as capital expenditure.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1996
>>
[1996] ZASCA 118
|

|

Rand Mines (Mining & Services) Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue (51/95) [1996] ZASCA 118; 1997 (1) SA 427 (SCA); [1997] 1 All SA 279 (A); (27 September 1996)

CASE NO. 51/95
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
RAND MINES (MINING & SERVICES) LTD Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE Respondent
CORAM: Corbett CJ, Hefer, Nienaber, Marais et Zulman JJA
HEARD
: 26 August 1996
DELIVERED
: 27 September 1996
JUDGMENT
MARAIS JA/
2
MARAIS JA:
This is an appeal against a decision of the Cape Income
Tax Special Court. The issue and the circumstances which gave rise
to it were summarised thus by the Special Court:
"The appellant is a mine management company and a member of a large group of mining companies. Its principal function, broadly
speaking, is the administration and management of the mines controlled by the group. In determining its liability for normal tax
for the year of assessment ended 30 September, 1988, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue ('the Commissioner') disallowed as a deduction
an amount of R30-million. The appellant's objection to this disallowance was overruled and hence the appeal to this Court. The sum
of R30-million, described in the appellant's Income Tax Schedule as expenditure for 'management and services rights', represents
the amount paid by the appellant in the circumstances detailed below for a contract to manage a mine which had come under the control
of the group. The question to be decided is whether the sum of R30-million is deductible in terms of section 11 (a) of the Income
Tax Act 58 of
3
1962, as amended. That section, for the purpose of determining the taxable income of any person from carrying on a trade within the
Republic, allows as deductions from income 'expenditure and losses actually incurred in the Republic in the production of the income,
provided such expenditure and losses are not of a capital nature*. It is common cause that the expenditure in the present case was
incurred in the Republic of South Africa during the year of assessment and in the production of income. The issue is whether or not
the expenditure was of a capital nature.
As previously mentioned, the business of the appellant is the administration and management of a large number of mines. While each
mine owning company has its own employees, the appellant provides a management service, including technical supervision, as well
as legal, accounting and other such services. It has, or had at the relevant time, two divisions, a coal division and a gold, platinum
and uranium division. It operates from central Johannesburg and employs a large staff. Indeed, its salary and employment expenses
for the year under discussion amounted to over R37-million. According to its balance sheet for that year it had fixed assets having
a value of some
4
R36-million comprising mineral rights, equipment, aircraft, vehicles and furniture. The mines which the appellant manages are largely
those which are controlled by the group of companies to which the appellant belongs but, as explained by Mr Bradshaw, a director
who gave evidence, the appellant is prepared to deal with any mining company that requires its services and has in the past, as Mr
Bradshaw
put it, 'been
across the world looking for management
contracts and for mines to administer'.
The management and other services in question are provided by the appellant in terms of a contract which it concludes in each case
with the mine owning company. This contract, which has standard terms, makes provision for the payment to the appellant of an administration
fee calculated on a specified percentage of working capital as well as a capital expenditure fee, a marketing and selling fee, a
buying fee and a service fee, all of which are percentage based. The contract is generally for a fixed period of 5 years and thereafter
for an indefinite period until terminated by either party giving 5 years written notice; in other words, a minimum period of 10 years.
5
Upon its formation, or shortly thereafter, the appellant concluded contracts with all the mine owning companies within the group which
then numbered 28. From 1983 to the end of the year of assessment ended 30 September, 1988 the appellant continued to manage the mines
controlled by the group. During this period the number of mines in question increased to over 40. The contracts were all concluded
without the appellant having to pay a consideration therefor. As explained by Mr Bradshaw, the group required the appellant to manage
all its mines. It would ordinarily not invest in a mine unless it could be managed by the appellant.
Against this background, I turn to the circumstances in which the appellant came to expend the amount which the Commissioner disallowed
as an expense. In December, 1986, a company, to which I shall refer as 'Lefko' and which was not a member of the group, was incorporated
in order to establish a platinum mine near Brits in the Transvaal. Lefko immediately entered into a management agreement with another
company to which I shall refer as 'GD'. The agreement was for a period of 15 years with effect from the date of Lefko's incorporation,
but with GD having the option to renew the contract for
6
a further 15 years. A certain Mr P, who was the director and
beneficial holder of the entire issued share capital of GD, held the
controlling interest in Lefko. In July, 1987, Lefko issued a prospectus
with the object of raising funds in order to bring its platinum mine to
production. The scheme ran into serious financial difficulties and in
September, 1988, Lefko still needed an amount running into many
millions of rands to complete the first phase of its mining project. At
the time the price of platinum was comparatively high and a company
in the group to which the appellant belonged and to which I shall refer
as 'B Investments', entered into negotiations with a view to acquiring
a controlling interest in Lefko. These negotiations resulted ultimately
in the conclusion of three agreements on 23 September, 1988. In
terms of what was called the main agreement, B Investments acquired
by way of a purchase and exchange of shares, the controlling interest
in Lefko. This agreement was conditional upon the cancellation of
the existing Lefko management agreement with GD and the conclusion
of a new management agreement between Lefko and the appellant.
The cancellation of the existing management agreement was effected
by the parties involved, including the appellant and GD, entering into
a 'management termination agreement', being one of the agreements
7
concluded on 23 September, 1988. In terms of this agreement the existing management agreement was cancelled and in return the appellant
paid GD the sum of R30-million. It is this payment, of course, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. The new management
agreement was concluded between the appellant and Lefko and took the form of the appellant's standard management agreement. It made
provision, however, for either party to give the other 5 years written notice, but which notice was not to be given until the lapse
of 15 years. In other words, the contract was to endure for a period of not less than 20 years. It is also necessary to mention that
the amount invested by B Investments to acquire the controlling interest in Lefko was considerable and exceeded R300-million. At
a relatively early stage in the negotiations, however, it was made clear by the shareholders of Lefko that the amount in question
would not include the value of the management agreement with GD which would have to be negotiated separately with that company.
Subsequently, the platinum price dropped and the group elected to relinquish its controlling interest in three platinum mines, one
of which was the Lefko mine. As a consequence, the appellant was obliged to
8
terminate its management of those mines. Accordingly, on 5 August, 1991, the appellant entered into an agreement in terms of which
it ceded its rights and delegated its obligations under the management agreement it had concluded with Lefko on 23 September, 1988,
as well as under the two other management agreements. In return it was paid the sum of R5-million. By this time, however, the appellant
had received fees amounting to approximately R30-million under the Lefko management agreement.
In his evidence, Mr Bradshaw pointed out that prior to the formation of the appellant in 1983 the group had from time to time acquired
various mines and subsequently disposed of them. The group had for example acquired at various stages platinum, chrome and asbestos
mines which had subsequently been disposed of together, in each case, with the appropriate management agreement. Mr Bradshaw stressed,
however, that it was not the business of the appellant to 'buy' and 'sell' management agreements. Indeed, the transaction in terms
of which the appellant had acquired the Lefko management agreement was the first occasion on which it had 'bought' a management agreement
in the sense of paying money in order to conclude such a contract or acquire
9
the rights thereunder. Subsequently in 1989, however, the appellant
paid the sum of R7-million in return for the cession to it of the rights
under a management agreement relating to a titaniferous magnetite
mine. In 1991, and in addition to the receipt of R5-million for
relinquishing its rights under the three platinum mine management
contracts referred to above, the appellant was paid a further R5-million
upon ceding its rights under a further 3 mine management contracts
relating to chrome mines. As in the case of the platinum mines, the
reason for the appellant ceding its rights under these contracts was the
group relinquishing its controlling interest in the mines in question.
It is not in dispute that all the receipts and expenditures arising from
the acquisition and alienation of management agreements were treated
as being of a revenue nature in the appellant's financial statements.
No income tax assessments, however, have been issued to the
appellant since 1988. Finally it is necessary to mention that in
October, 1992, and in consequence of a restructuring within the group,
the appellant's management agreements in respect of the group's gold
mines were cancelled and in effect taken over by another company
within the group. By the time of the hearing, the appellant retained
only 6 of the original 28 contracts it had entered into in 1983."
10
The Special Court concluded that the expenditure in question was of a capital nature and accordingly not deductible in terms of section
11 (a) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 ("the Act"). It is that finding which is under attack in this appeal. Before the
validity of the attack is considered it is necessary to deal shortly with a preliminary question which arose.
At the hearing before the Special Court appellant was granted leave to amend its existing objection by adding a further ground in
support of its objection to respondent's refusal to allow the deduction. The hearing proceeded thereafter on the basis that only
the original ground of objection would be considered by the Special Court and, if that was not upheld, that the further hearing of
the appeal would be postponed sine die with a view to the additional ground of objection being considered at some convenient future
date. In the
11
result, the Special Court did not uphold the originally raised ground of
objection, and concluded its judgment with these words:
"It was agreed between the parties that in the event of this Court dismissing the appeal with regard to the original ground of
objection, the appeal with regard to the new alternative ground was to be postponed sine die and to be heard, if the same Court cannot
be constituted, by another court constituted for this purpose. It is so ordered."
Notice of intention to appeal to this Court was given
thereafter and the President of the Special Court (Scott J) granted such
leave in terms of sec 86 A (5) of the Act. Appellant duly noted an
appeal and proceeded to prosecute it. Shortly before the hearing of the
appeal this Court intimated to the parties' legal representatives that it
wished to hear argument as to whether or not an appeal is
maintainable at this stage having regard to the nature of the decision
given and the ensuing order made by the Special Court. Counsel
12
presented argument on the question and were granted leave to supplement their submissions later if so advised. Argument on the merits
of the Special Court's decision proceeded and judgment was reserved on both issues. The Court has now been formally advised that
appellant abandons the additional ground of objection. The consequence is that the question which arose, namely, whether this Court
has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision in what amounted to a matter which was only part heard in the Special Court,
has fallen away. The Special Court's order postponing the further hearing of the matter sine die has become inoperative and its decision
"dismissing the appeal with regard to the original ground of objection" may now properly be regarded as a decision dismissing
the appeal as a whole, thus clearing the way for this Court to exercise jurisdiction on appeal to it. It is therefore unnecessary
to decide what the position
13
would have been if the further ground of appeal had not been abandoned. It is also unnecessary to decide whether or not it was competent
for the Special Court to make provision for the hearing by a differently composed Special Court of what would have been no more than
an additional ground to support the same objection of which the originally composed Special Court was seized, thus conceivably resulting
in two differently composed Special Courts participating in the adjudication of one and the same objection against an assessment.
1 turn to the merits of the appeal. Yet again this Court is required to label expenditure incurred by a taxpayer as either capital
or revenue expenditure. The distinction is clear enough conceptually and by now so familiar that repetition is unnecessary. It will
suffice to refer to the exposition of it in authoritative cases such as C1R v George Forest Timber Co Ltd
1924 AD 516
; New State Areas Ltd
14
v CIR
1946 AD 610
; Sub-Nigel Ltd v CIR
1948 (4) SA 580
(A); C1R v African Oxygen Ltd
1963 (1) SA 681
(A); SIR v Cadac Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd
1965 (2) SA 511
(A); SIR v John Cullum Construction Company (Pty) Ltd
1965 (4) SA 697
(A); Heron Investments (Pty) Ltd v SIR
1971 (4) SA 201
(A); Palabora Mining Co Ltd v SIR
1973 (3) SA 819
(A); Stone v SIR
1974 (3) SA 584
(A); and Dorstlap v SBI
1981 (4) SA 836
(A).
An abiding problem has been to identify and then synthesisc into a reasonably accurate and universally applicable yardstick the factors
which are indicative of each of the two classes of expenditure. No such yardstick has yet been fashioned and the attempt has come
to be regarded as futile and has been abandoned. Instead the courts have identified useful indicia to which regard may be had, emphasising
that they are no more than that and that in each case
15
close attention must be given to its particular facts. In Commissioner of Taxes v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd
[1964] 1 All ER 208
(PC) at 212,
[1964] AC 948
at 959 Lord Radcliffe warned
against the notion that any of the indicia identified by the courts, taken
singly, will always lead to the right conclusion. He said:
"
all these phrases, as, for instance, 'enduring benefit' or
'capital structure' are essentially descriptive rather than definitive, and, as each new case arises for adjudication and it is sought
to reason by analogy from its facts to those of one previously decided, a court's primary duty is to enquire how far a description
that was both relevant and significant in one set of circumstances is either significant or relevant in those which arc presently
before it."
Nonetheless, courts continue to be regaled with comparisons. Given
the absence of a satisfactory litmus test of principle, it is inevitable
that casuistic comparisons will be made and they undoubtedly have
some value. Greater precision is regrettably simply not attainable
16
when value judgments such as this have to be made.
I commence by itemising the respects in which this
expenditure
differs
from expenditure which would be regarded
ordinarily as revenue expenditure. First, management contracts are not
appellant's stock-in-trade in the sense that it acquires such contracts
with a view to disposing of them at a profit. Appellant is not a jobber
in management contracts. Cf ITC 998,
25 SATC 179
at 181 ("The
appellant's business is that of a dealer in produce; in order to make
a profit it has to buy and sell produce, in his case peas; it is not a
dealer in contracts as such."); 1TC
1402, 47 SATC 221
at 225 ("Die
appellant is nie 'n handelaar in kontrakte nie."); John Smith and
Son v Moore
12 TC 266
at 296 ("The business carried on was not
that of buying and selling contracts, but of buying and selling coals.").
There can therefore be no suggestion that the money expended by
17
appellant in order to acquire the management contract is comparable
with the price which a merchant pays for a particular item of his
stock-in-trade and is therefore revenue expenditure. In HJ Rorke Ltd
v CIR
39 TC 194
Cross J said at page 205:
"The cases
undoubtedly draw a distinction between
payments made to acquire stock-in-trade and payments made to acquire rights which will enable you to get stock-in-trade for
yourself."
Appellant's stock-in-trade is the management services which it provides. The acquisition of the management contract merely obliged
Lefko to allow appellant to render to it its management services. In other words, the expenditure resulted in the creation of a particular
income earning opportunity for appellant which it otherwise would not have had.
Secondly, the expenditure was not incurred solely to
18
enable appellant to acquire the management contract. Nor was it
expenditure undertaken at appellant's initiative. It was expenditure
undertaken at its parent company's behest to facilitate the acquisition
by the group of a controlling interest in Lefko. Unless GD was
compensated, it would not have agreed to the cancellation of its
management contract with Lefko. Unless the group had been able to
appoint appellant to manage Lefko's mine, it would not have acquired
the controlling interest in Lefko. Instead of the company in the group
which acquired Lefko compensating GD and then appointing appellant
to manage Lefko, appellant was required to compensate GD.
However, the respective transactions were expressly stated to be
interdependent and it was not contended that appellant had blithely
bound itself to pay GD the sum of R30 million for the cancellation of
its management contract with Lefko with no more in prospect than a
19
spes of being appointed manager of Lefko in its stead. Counsel for appellant acknowledged that GD was "bought off" for the
benefit of both appellant and the company in the group which acquired control of Lefko. The symbiotic relationship between the transactions
and the relationship between appellant and the companies in the group are such that it is tempting to say that, because the essential
character of the transactions when viewed globularly in the context of the group is so plainly of a capital nature, it must follow
that expenditure inextricably connected with them is also of that nature. However, 1 shall resist the temptation and content myself
with observing that appellant had a dual purpose in mind when embarking upon this expenditure and that it was not simply a case of
appellant buying on its own initiative, and solely in its own interests, a management contract from a third party as a normal incident
of its income
20
producing activities.
Thirdly, clause 19 of the new management agreement precluded appellant from transferring its rights or delegating its obligations
without the consent of Lefko to anyone other than another subsidiary of its parent company. This illustrates both the control which
the parent company exercised over appellant's acquisition and disposal of management contracts and the extent to which appellant
was beholden to the group in the matter of management contracts. As has been seen, the acquisition by appellant of management contracts
was in practice inseparably connected with the acquisition or commencement of mines by the group.
Fourthly, the expenditure was made in order to acquire an asset intended to provide an enduring benefit for appellant. The contract
was to endure for at least 20 years. There is also the sheer
21
size of the expenditure (R30 million) and its relative uniqueness (never before and on only one other occasion since has appellant
paid to acquire a management contract). Cumulatively regarded, these factors give the expenditure the colour of a capital outlay.
Fifthly, when one asks whether the expenditure was to acquire something which added to the income earning structure of the business
as opposed to expenditure routinely occurring in the running of appellant's business, the answer which commends itself to one as
being correct is that it was to acquire an asset which added to the income earning structure of the business. Without such contracts,
appellant would have no opportunity of doing that which generates its income, namely, managing mines. The contracts in themselves
generate no income but they do provide appellant with the opportunity of generating income by providing the management services for
which
22
payment will be made. They are assets of a capital nature which constitute part of the income earning structure of the appellant.
In my view, they are comparable in principle with franchise agreements the cost of acquisition of which is not regarded as revenue
expenditure. See ITC 1063,
27 SATC 57
in which it was held that a payment to a manufacturer of gramophone records for a sole right of distribution for 3 years with a right
of renewal for 2 years was expenditure of a capital nature.
I turn to consider the contentions advanced by appellant in support of the characterization of the expenditure as revenue expenditure.
It was submitted that the acquisition and disposal of management contracts was a normal and recurring incident of appellant's business
and relevant statistical information was provided in support of the proposition. The impact of that is much diminished,
23
if not entirely dissipated, by the following considerations. The acquisition and disposal of management contracts does not occur at
the instance of appellant but at the instance of its parent company. Appellant does not function autonomously in that respect. The
acquisitions and disposals are always symbiotically linked to, and coincide with, acquisitions and disposals by the group of interests
in mines. Any volatility that there may be in the acquisition, termination, or disposal of management contracts is therefore solely
attributable to the group's acquisition and disposal of interests in mines. Moreover, appellant does not ordinarily pay to acquire
a management contract. It was only necessary for it to do so in this particular instance because GD required to be compensated for
the premature termination of its management contract with Lefko before it would release Lefko from that contract and so clear the
way for Lefko to award the contract to
24
appellant. It was thus a most unusual item of expenditure and not a normal incident of appellant's business.
It was contended next that the ostensibly long duration of the contract should not be given significant weight because in practice
such contracts were often prematurely terminated. It is so that management contracts were often prematurely terminated but that occurred,
as I have explained, in the context of the group's policy of requiring appellant to surrender its right to manage mines in which
the group no longer had an interest and to undertake the management of any mine in which it might acquire an interest. Thus, a prematurely
terminated contract was likely to be replaced by another ere long.
It was conceded that so large an item of expenditure for an intangible asset such as a management contract might appear at first blush
to represent capital expenditure but it was submitted that in the
25
light of the very large income which accrued to appellant as a consequence of acquiring the contract and performing the management
services, the sum of R30 million paid by appellant was understandably large. That may be so but the fact remains that appellant ordinarily
paid nothing for the management contracts which it acquired and this payment represented an unusual exception and a very large one
at that. It was rightly said that indications such as these arc merely pointers in one or other direction and that none of them is
decisive. It was contended that one of the most important indicia is the answer to the question whether the expenditure is more closely
related to the cost of adding to or enhancing the income earning structure of appellant's business than to the cost of performing
its income earning operations. See the Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines case, supra, at 212 H - 213 B of the All England Law Reports.
26
An affirmative answer would point to the expenditure being
expenditure of a capital rather than a revenue nature. A negative
answer would point to the opposite conclusion. I think that the
expenditure of the R30 million cannot be said to have been a cost
incurred in the actual performance of appellant's income earning
operations; it was a cost incurred in acquiring the right to perform
those operations in this particular instance. The contract was "a source
of profit" and the R30 million was spent to acquire it. See the
African Oxygen case, supra, at 688 C. As Innes CJ observed in the
George Forest Timber case, supra, at 526:
"There is a great difference between money spent in creating or acquiring a source of profit, and money spent in working it.
The one is capital expenditure, the other is not."
It is true, as counsel for appellant submitted, that appellant had an
organizational structure in place which existed to enable it to generate
27
income by providing management services in terms of management contracts as they came and went, and that that structure remained relatively
unaffected by the acquisition or loss of any particular management contract. But non constat that the management contracts did not
also form part of the income earning structure of appellant's business while they were in place.
We were referred to a number of cases in which it was held that lump sums received by taxpayers as compensation for the premature
termination of contracts which would have enabled them to earn future profits should be classified as revenue and not capital receipts.
That was because they were surrogates for those profits. However, their classification as revenue receipts in the hands of the recipient
does not mean that the corresponding payments must be classified as revenue payments by the party making them. Counsel for
28
appellant quite rightly disavowed any intention of contending the contrary. See Meyerowitz on Income Tax 1995-1996, paragraph 11.51.
Whether such payments are to be regarded as capital or revenue expenditure when assessing their deductibility by the payer requires
independent assessment.
We were also invited to find that the case of a landlord whose expenses in connection with leases would be deductible is comparable
in principle with the present case. The invitation must be declined. A landlord's capital asset is his building. He puts it to work
to generate income by hiring out the right to occupy it in return for rent. In entering into a contract of lease he is deploying
his income earning asset to generate income. Expenses incurred in the preparation of a lease to record the transaction are expenses
incurred in so deploying the income earning asset. The expense is not incurred to
29
acquire the right to deploy the asset to earn income. The landlord
was always free to do so. Aliter in the present case where appellant
had first to pay to acquire the right to provide Lefko with
management services before it would be able to deploy its
organizational structure to earn management fees from Lefko. It is
akin to expenditure incurred in the acquisition of a licence which it is
neccsary to have in order to carry out a particular income producing
activity. In Pyrah v Annis & Co Ltd
[1956] 2 All ER 858
(Ch);
37
TC 163
, it was held that the costs of an unsuccessful application to
vary an existing public carrier's licence by increasing the number of
vehicles which could be operated from 4 to 7 was capital expenditure.
See too ITC 198,
5 SATC 386
; ITC
1224, 37 SATC 30.
Appellant's
contention entails comparing like with unlike. A truer but still not
entirely valid comparison would be between the present case and a
30
case where a landlord purchases from another landlord the latter's leases, not with a view to their resale, but with a view to acquiring
the rents payable under them. In such a case the purchasing landlord's outlay in acquiring the leases would surely not be regarded
as expenditure of a revenue nature. Cf Turnbull v CIR
1953 (2) SA 573
(A) at 579 BE.
Counsel for appellant submitted that support for the proposition that the expenditure in this case was revenue expenditure is to be
found in the decision of the Australian High Court in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Maddalena
71 ATC 4161.
The taxpayer was an employee electrician and a professional footballer. He claimed as a deduction travel and legal expenses incurred
in seeking and obtaining a contract with a new and different rugby league club. The claim was disallowed. The passage in one of the
judgments
31
in the case upon which appellant relies, reads:
"Does then the expenditure in question fall within the description of an outgoing 'incurred in gaining or producing' his assessable
income, or was it an outgoing 'necessarily incurred in carrying on a business'? I think not.
It is, I think, worthwhile looking at the taxpayer's earnings as an electrician to illustrate what I regard as the decisive difference
to be observed here. Had the taxpayer claimed as a deduction the expenses of changing from one job to another as an employee electrician
his outlay would not have been an allowable deduction. The expenditure would have been incurred in getting, not in doing, work as
an employee. It would come at a point too soon to be properly regarded as incurred in gaining assessable income. Nor would the expenditure
have been an outgoing in carrying on a business. There is a difference of first importance for present purposes between an electrician
who seeks work as an employee and an electrician who seeks contracts to do work as a principal. In the former case the electrician
would not have a business; in the latter he would. In the latter, therefore, what he spent to obtain contracts to do electrical work
would be properly regarded as an outgoing of his business. There is, however, a clear distinction between the two cases." (At
4163.)
The question which the court was considering and which it answered
32
adversely to the taxpayer was not whether the expenditure claimed as a deduction was capital or revenue expenditure, but whether it
was expenditure incurred "in gaining or producing" his assessable income or in "carrying on a business". It is
in that context that these remarks were made and I do not think they are of assistance in deciding the question which is before us.
All things considered, I am of the view that the Special Income Tax Court was right in its conclusion that the expenditure was of
a capital nature and therefore not deductible. The appeal is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel. There is substituted
for the order of the Court a quo an order dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment.
Corbett CJ)
Nienaber JA) CONCUR
R M MARAIS
Zulman JA )

Back to Law Reports