SARS Ruling on Improvements on Land By a Sub-Lessee

Posted On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 11:11 Published by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

SARS Ruling on Improvements on Land By a Sub-Lessee.


The South African Revenue Service (SARS) was recently called upon to make a ruling on the income tax consequences for the lessor, lessee and the sub-lessee of land, arising from an obligation on the sub-lessee to effect improvements on the land under a sub-lease in circumstances where no express obligation for improvements was placed on the lessee by the main lease.

The parties to the leases were all independent persons with no common shareholders or any interest in each other. A 99 year renewable lease agreement was concluded (“main lease”) with the lessee in respect of land. The main lease provided that the lessee was under no obligation to effect any improvements on the land, but the lessee or sub-lessee may do so at its own cost. The main lease did however specify the type of improvements that could be effected and, if such improvements were effected, the time periods in which they must be completed.

At the time of concluding the main lease, the lessee concluded a further 99 year lease (“sub-lease”) on the same terms, save for the obligation to make improvements and the rental. The sub-lease provided that the sub-lessee was obliged to effect improvements to the land. The rental for both leases were based on the developmental cost of improvements effected on the land, however, the sub-lease provided for increases after an agreed period of time.

In its ruling SARS stated that the lessor would have to include in its gross income, the fair and reasonable value of all improvements effected by the sub-lessee as contemplated in paragraph (h)(ii) of the definition of “gross income” of the Income Tax Act. Having regard to the circumstances and the duration of the leases, the lessor would be entitled to an allowance under section 11(h) determined by using the present value of the actual development costs discounted at a rate of 6% over the 99 year lease period.

The sub-lessee on the other hand was entitled to an allowance under section 11(g) over a 25 year period for any expenditure actually incurred in effecting the improvements, provided that the improvements are occupied or used by it in the production of income. If the sub-lease was terminated before the expiry of the 25 years, the unredeemed balance of the allowance at the termination date could be deducted by the sub-lessee from its income.

Source: Graeme Palmer, Garlicke and Bousfield Inc.

Last modified on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 12:47

Most Popular

Should you rent or buy your business premises?

Jun 23, 2022
Malusi Mthuli_FNB
This is a question that most business owners will face at some point in their journey.…

April 2022 Hotel Accommodation Income Statistics continue to show a very weak picture compared to pre-lockdown times.

Jun 23, 2022
Hotels Monthly Income 2022
The StatsSA release of April 2022 preliminary monthly tourism statistics show the Hotel…

South Africa’s inflation exceptionalism: can it last?

Jun 23, 2022
Carmen Nel
South Africa is often seen as a high-beta play, be it regarding financial market risk…

Hyprop continues to reduce debt and reposition its portfolios in SA and EE

Jun 30, 2022
Skopje City Mall Playground
Hyprop, which manages dominant retail centres in mixed-use precincts in key economic…

Vaal Mall rolls up its sleeves for pothole repairs

Jun 30, 2022
Vaal Mall crew busy repairing the various potholes making easier access to the Centre.
Vaal Mall is showing their commitment towards their community by stepping up to repair…

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.