Louise Kotze - Smile FM - Potential of work from home tax deductions during the pandemic

Newly released 2022 Grid Emission Factors Report: A guide to accurate emission reporting for electricity usage

In the face of an increasingly environmentally-conscious landscape, South African businesses have been under pressure to accurately report on their carbon footprint, particularly in relation to Scope 2emissions. 

I am not their keeper: An analysis of the impact of non-compliance with electronic tax invoice requirements and Section 17 of the VAT Act on the part of the seller or landlord in real estate transactions

Gone are the days when a buyer or tenant of real estate property only worried about the purchase price or rent. Tax compliance, on the part of the seller, now seems to be a burden that has been placed - both by statute as well as decisions of the court, on the feet of the purchaser or tenant.  

Procurement integrity and general procurement requirements

Public procurement is one of the government activities highly vulnerable to corruption. The financial interests at stake, the volume of transactions and the close interaction between public and private sectors in the awarding of public contracts all pose risks to the integrity of the procurement process. The findings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State all bear testimony to this fact.

Religious practice and inherent requirements of the job

The tension between religious beliefs and workplace demands was addressed in the decision of the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Sun International Management Limited v Sayiti (JA13/23) ZALCJHB 411 (21 October 2024). The issue to be decided was whether the employee’s dismissal was automatically unfair, given that the reason for his dismissal was his inability to perform an inherent requirement of the job, working between sunset on Friday and sunset on Saturday, because of his religious beliefs.

50/50 shareholders and oppressive conduct: When some shareholders are more equal than others

A fundamental principle of South African company law is “ majority rules ” – shareholders and directors are bound by the decisions of the majority even where such decisions are not in their interest. However, recognising the potential for unfair abuse of such a principle, the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) devised section 163, which allows a director or shareholder of a company to apply to court for relief from oppressive conduct of the company or a person related to it that unfairly disregards or prejudices the interests of the applicant. Section 163 therefore paints the picture of a majority shareholder abusing its ability to control the company to unfairly bully or oppress minority shareholders. But what happens if the shareholders are equals – can a 50/50 shareholder be oppressed by their equal? This was the question before the High Court in Van der Watt v Schoeman and Others 91 SA 531 (ECGq).

Webinar recording | Retrenchment law turned on its head