Welcome to our latest Newsletter!!!
8HA PRIME INDUSTRIAL LAND SOLD TO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY FUND
The new owner will develop an A-Grade Industrial Park further uplifting Blackheath Industria which has experienced a boom phase during the past 10 years.
For further information contact:
083 581 8944
email@example.com | www.capeindustrialproperty.co.za
On Friday 28 March 2019 the National Council of Provinces passed the Property Practitioners Bill. This means that the Bill will now be placed upon President Ramaphosa’s desk for signature. As soon as he signs, the Bill will become law. We don’t know yet if the Bill was passed with any amendments .
The Property Practitioners Act will replace the current Estate Agency Affairs Act. The new law will be accompanied by a set of Regulations that have yet to be published.
Disappointingly, there is material fiscal slippage relative to the Budget initially read in February 2018. A main budget deficit of -4.4% of GDP is projected for 2018/19, compared with the initial estimate of -3.8% of GDP. The deficit increases to -4.7% of GDP in 2019/20. This compares with an estimated deficit of -3.8% of GDP for 2019/20 projected in February last year.
Following fiscal year 2019/20, the deficit does decline a little, but remains wide at -4.55 of GDP in 2020/21 and -4.3% of GDP in 2021/22.
The consolidated budget deficit also remains wide, increasing to 4.5% of GDP in 2019/20 from 4.2% of GDP in 2018/19, before easing to 4.0% of GDP by 2021/22.
Also, after accounting for the borrowing requirement of SOCs and municipalities the total public sector borrowing requirement is 6.5% of GDP in 2018/19, which declines in 2021/22, but remains elevated at 5.5% of GDP.
Worryingly, the main budget primary deficit (revenue less non-interest spending) increases to -1.0% of GDP in 2019/20 from -0,8% in 2018/19 and remains in deficit over the medium term. Accordingly, the government’s debt ratio continues to increase.
Specifically, the gross loan debt is projected to increase to 56.2% of GDP at end 2019/20 from 55.6% of GDP at end 2018/19. Note that the government’s borrowing requirement in 2019/20 is partially funded by running down its cash balances by R71.6 billion. Hence, its net debt ratio (gross loan debt less cash balances) increases faster than the gross loan debt ratio – from 49.9% of GDP at end 2018/19 to 52.3% of GDP at end 2019/20.
Ultimately, the gross loan debt ratio only stabilises in 2023/24 at a projected level of close to 60% of GDP.
Source: SA Reserve Bank, SA National Treasury
The debt level, in itself is not especially high relative to GDP. However, given persistent sovereign debt rating downgrades the real interest rate government pays on new debt is high relative to GDP. Hence, in the absence of a substantial improvement in the primary budget balance, the debt level can only be stabilised over time should the real interest rate on debt decline relative to the real GDP growth rate.
But, at present, the ratio of debt servicing cost to main budget revenue continues to increase – from an already high 14.2% of revenue in 2018/19 to 15.2% of revenue in 2021/22.
The clearest path to changing this unsustainable path would be to improve South Africa’s sovereign debt ratings or to lift real GDP growth. The former is hardly likely under current conditions, while the latter is difficult given high real interest rates and a situation in which the government is absorbing a large share of available savings to fund itself.
It should be noted that the support for state owned companies is (almost) deficit neutral. But, the point is this support is preventing expenditure saving measures elsewhere from lowering the budget deficit and constraining the level of borrowing. The build-up in off-balance sheet contingent liabilities and the accompanying deterioration in the public sector’s balance sheet are now preventing the National Treasury from sticking to its fiscal consolidation path.
Government guarantees to public institutions amount to R483.1 billion of which current exposure amounts to R372.4 billion. Eskom’s guarantees amount to R350 billion (with an exposure of R294.7 billion).
Other contingent liabilities include post-retirement medical assistance to government employees (an estimated present value of R69.9 billion), legal claims against government departments (R28.7 billion) and obligations for the Road Accident Fund (which increased by R76.9 billion to R216.1 billion in 2018/19).
New revenue raising measures amount to R15 billion in 2019/20, mainly by not compensating for bracket creep, which effectively raises personal income tax and produces an additional R12.8 billion. Meanwhile, medical tax credits are not increased, which nets an additional R1 billion in tax revenue. Changes in the general fuel levy, the road accident fund levy and the introduction of a carbon tax on fuel result in a net increase of 29c per litre in the total fuel levy. Apart from increases in excise duties (which raise revenue by R1 billion) and the “sugar” tax, additional zero rating of VAT items reduces revenue by R1.1 billion. An additional R10 billion in revenue raising measures will be announced in the 2020/21 budget.
Overall, main budget revenue increases from 25.4% of GDP in 2018/19 to 25.9% in 2019/20. Consolidated revenue increases from 28.8% of GDP to 29.3% of GDP over the same period.
Source: SA National Treasury
Note, in tandem with improvements in tax administration the revenue raising measures announced result in an increase in tax buoyancy (growth in tax revenue relative to GDP growth) from 0.98 in 2018/19 to 1.31 in 2019/20. But, tax buoyancy has surprised on the low side in recent years, suggesting an element of risk, especially if tax administration does not improve.
You sell your house/apartment/office/factory/plot of land. You instruct your conveyancer to pass transfer to the buyer, and start dreaming of what you will do with the proceeds.
But then your lawyer says “Hang on, you didn’t give me the property’s original title deed and I need it before I can pass transfer – where is it?”
You can’t find it. The bank doesn’t have it (bondholders normally insist on keeping the title deeds of properties bonded to them as a security measure, at least until the loan is repaid in full and the bond cancelled). You didn’t leave it with your lawyer for safekeeping (perhaps you should have). You search high and low both at home and in the office, to no avail. Your spouse has a vague memory that you may have left it with Uncle Festus to lock away in his vault; but Uncle F died 10 years ago and his house and all his worldly goods are long gone. Or perhaps it was stored in your holiday home and went up in smoke (literally) in that bush fire in ’93? Panic!
Relax. There is – for a short while longer anyway – a quick and cost-effective remedy. Have your lawyer apply for a certified copy of the Title Deed. All you need to do is attest to an affidavit, say that a “diligent search” has failed to locate the title deed, and confirm that it isn’t pledged or held as security by anyone.
All being well, a few weeks and a reasonable legal fee later, the Deeds Office issues a certified copy of the title deed and the transfer proceeds.
Act now, before it all changes
What has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons is a recent change to the applicable Regulations which will, from 25 February, require that –
Owners, buyers and agents: Your urgent action plan
In a property transfer, time really is of the essence. The last thing any of the parties wants is delay, or extra cost. So here’s what you should do right now –
And a note for bondholders
The new Regulations apply equally to lost mortgage bonds, notarial bonds, registered leases, holders of real rights etc, so what is said above applies equally to you.
These new requirements kick in on 25 February, so your window of opportunity here is a narrow one.
Asof eiendom-ontwikkelaars nie in die huidige swak ekonomiese toestande genoeg uitdagings in die gesig staar nie, is hulle, hul prokureurs en ouditeure, teen einde verlede jaar begroet met die Appèlhof uitspraak in die saak Milnerton Estates Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1159/2017)  ZASCA 155, wat vir hul verreikende kontantvloei uitdagings mag inhou.
In this matter the Appeal Court rejected the appeal of the appellant against its challenge of an income tax assessment by SARS requiring it to include the proceeds of the sales of a number of properties deemed to have accrued to the developer in terms of section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act in the year the agreements were signed despite the fact that transfer of the properties sold was only passed in the subsequent tax period.
Die uitspraak bevestig die beginsel neergelê in ‘n vroeëre uitspraak van die appèlhof in SIR v Silverglen Investments (Pty) Ltd 1969 (1)( SA 365 (A) dat waar ‘n ooreenkoms vir die verkoop van onroerende goed ‘n opskortende voorwaarde bevat waarvolgens oordrag van eienaarskap in die Aktekantoor vertraag word tot betaling van enige gedeelte van die koopprys, word die aankoopprys geag in die belastingjaar te val wat die ooreenkoms gesluit is ongeag die appellant se finale argument dat die laasgenoemde uitspraak regtens verkeerd was omdat artikel 24(1) van voormelde wet eintlik net van toepassing is op vaste eiendom wat op krediet terme verkoop was.
Property developers should therefore take note of this judgment and its interpretation of section 24(1) of the Act and ensure that where a sale agreement falls within the scope of this provision, they declare the income from the sale in the tax year that the agreement was concluded, even if payment of the purchase price and transfer of ownership only takes place in the following tax year.
Ontwikkelaars word aangeraai om kennis te neem van hierdie uitspraak vir hul beplanning vorentoe en veral ag te slaan op die kontantvloei implikasies daarvan met betrekking tot hul inkomstebelasting opgawes. Hul moet bewus wees dat die volle opbrengs van die verkoop in hul inkomstebelastingopgawes ingesluit moet word vir die jaar waarin die ooreenkoms onderteken is, in gevalle waar die betaling van die koopprys opgeskort word in lyn met die feite in die onderhawige saak. Steek gerus kers op by jou prokureur en of ouditeur om onaangename verassings vorentoe te vermy.
For an in-depth discussion of this judgement and in particular the reasoning of the judges please refer to the article in “The primacy of precedent” in PWC’s Synopsis for November / December 2018, by following the link hereunder.