South African dividend stripping rules: Impact on liquidations and cross-border share buybacks

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

South African dividend stripping rules: Impact on liquidations and cross-border share buybacks

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-ww.png
AdobeStock_35054468_Shares

Changes made last year to South Africa's dividend stripping rules have effectively eliminated the ability of group companies to make use of the rollover relief provisions that historically have allowed qualifying liquidations or deregistration of group companies (both local and foreign) to be done on a tax-neutral basis.

As things stand, certain otherwise-exempt dividends declared to qualifying shareholders will be classified as 'extraordinary dividends' and recharacterised as proceeds for capital gains tax purposes upon the disposal of the shares. An extraordinary dividend is a dividend exceeding 15% of the market value of the distributing company's shares either 18 months prior to the disposal/liquidation or as at the date of disposal/liquidation, whichever is the higher.

Following lobbying by taxpayers, the National Treasury has indicated that changes will be made to narrow the range of situations in which the dividend stripping rules will override the group rollover relief rules to "cases where the corporate re-organisation rules are abused by taxpayers". Certainty on what exactly is meant by this, and what the new rules will look like, will only be available towards the end of the year.

Where South African companies or controlled foreign companies (CFCs) in relation to South African companies have recently declared large dividends, taxpayers hoping to benefit from group relief provisions should therefore not dispose of the distributing companies until they are confident that group relief is in fact applicable. Planned eliminations of group companies are consequently on hold pending resolution of this problem.

The dividend stripping rules also have interesting consequences in circumstances where a South African company (SACo) holds shares in a foreign company (ForeignCo) and divests itself of its shareholding in ForeignCo by way of a buyback of its shares by ForeignCo.

If a South African company (or a CFC in relation to a South African company) sells shares in a foreign company, any gain made on the sale may be exempt if the seller has held a certain number of shares for a qualifying period and the buyer is an unrelated party which is tax resident outside South Africa. The purchase price must be market related. If any of these criteria are not met, capital gains tax (CGT) will apply.

A route which in the absence of the dividend stripping rules could have been followed to avoid CGT in all circumstances is the share buyback route. This involves a prospective purchaser first subscribing for an interest in ForeignCo, with ForeignCo then applying the proceeds of the subscription to buyback SACo's shares in ForeignCo. The prospective purchaser would then own 100% of the shares in ForeignCo. Ignoring the dividend stripping rules, any portion of the buyback consideration which was treated under the tax law in the foreign company's jurisdiction as a dividend would in these circumstances generally also be classified as a tax exempt foreign dividend in the hands of SACo. As a result of the dividend stripping rules referred to above, however, if SACo holds a so-called 'qualifying interest' in ForeignCo, 85% of the portion of the buyback consideration, which constitutes an exempt dividend in the hands of SACo, is likely to be taken into account for CGT purposes in the hands of SACo. Depending on the circumstances, however (and clearly subject to the application of substance-over-form and other general anti-avoidance rules), this could still be more beneficial than a direct sale in which the full proceeds would be taken into account for CGT purposes.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article