In July 2009 the South African Revenue Services (SARS) introduced section 12J of the Income Tax Act to encourage ordinary taxpayers to invest in small, medium and micro-sized enterprises (SMMEs). Section 12J allows taxpayers to deduct 100% of their investments into qualifying venture capital companies (VCCs) from their current tax obligations as a reward for the ongoing economic benefits that these investments are expected to deliver. The uptake of this allowance was initially slow; but has gathered pace as more section 12J compliant VCCs come to market. Thousands of taxpayers now invest via VCCs to utilise their section 12J tax allowances and curb their ever-increasing tax liabilities. “The VCC structure enables the tax administration of section 12J investments,” says Neill Hobbs, CEO at Anuva Investments. “Our role is to ensure full compliance with the tax legislation, including registering with SARS, identifying and investing in qualifying SMMEs and providing our investors with the necessary documentary support”. Each of these compliance aspects must be met by both taxpayer and VCC for the duration of the investment. The section 12J allowance is ‘paid’ to investors upfront by way of a reduced tax liability in their current tax year. For example, a taxpayer who earned R2 million in the 2018 tax year would be liable for R900,000 in taxes. If this taxpayer invested R1 million in a qualifying section 12J VCC he or she could reduce their tax liability by R450,000. SARS has plenty of terms and conditions to prevent abuse of this allowance. Principal among these are that the capital amount remains invested for at least five years and that upon exiting the investment the base for the taxpayer’s capital gain calculation is set to ‘zero’ to compensate for the initial tax benefit. It still works out as very tax efficient compensating the investor for growing the economy. The capital gains tax liability is greater than that for investments made outside of the . . .

Recent advances in the production and manufacturing of thermoplastic pipes are not only leading to substantial financial savings, but it also making significant strides to help save the environment and reduce the environmental impact of piping systems. According to Jan Venter, CEO of the Southern African Plastic Pipe Manufacturers Association (SAPPMA), the local plastic pipes body and its international counterparts have been researching and documenting the environmental impact of plastic pipes, and compared these figures with pipes manufactured from other materials. Results from these studies have proven unequivocally that pipe systems made from thermoplastic pipes have much lower manufacturing and transportation costs, better long-term maintenance and higher recyclability than pipes made from other materials. “The dramatic increase in the size of the world’s population and the corresponding strain this places on infrastructure, has placed the focus on assessing the net impact products have on the environment. This is an aspect that is increasingly driving the global economies and have increased the demand for plastic pipes. From an environmental and economic point of view, engineers are recognising that investing in plastic pipes make sense because it allows them to do a lot more with the same amount of energy or money they would have spent on traditional materials, because as they offer a design lifespan of 100 years,” Venter says. Significant advances made in recent years have improved both the quality and strength of the raw materials that are used for the manufacturing of plastic pipes. This, combined with efforts to optimise the entire manufacturing processes of polymers (plastics) pipe, auxiliary components and the jointing for the delivery of optimised PVC and HDPE pipe systems, has ensured that plastic pipes are recognised for quite literally punching above its weight. “Piping systems are costly elements infrastructure and it is therefore . . .

By Devan Moonsamy CEO of The ICHAF Training Institute Do we truly understand what racism and sexism are? Do we truly understand why it is offensive, and why it should end? The word offensive has been overused in the context of discrimination. It feels like it has a weak meaning. What is this offence caused? We need to go deeper. Racism and sexism cause pain. That is something we seem to miss in all this mess of accusations and flaring tempers. Discrimination tells the target that they are not good enough simply because of certain physical features, but which do not fully define who they are in any case. Certainly, our gender, race and colour do determine some things about us – and we should all be proud of the positive aspects of our heritage. However, it is extremely hurtful when these features are used as an excuse for ‘less than’ treatment. Racism and sexism lead to anger. People want to get even, often more than even, because it is not the first time they have faced such treatment and the pain and frustration has built up inside them. It is thus a case sometimes of the straw that broke the camel’s back. Racist or sexist remarks and acts of discrimination tell the victim that they are inferior and will never be anything other than what the racist or sexist defines them as. This is ‘offensive’, yes, but let’s forget about that word for now. Let’s focus on the fact rather that it causes immense pain, sometimes long-term or life-long distress which, while people may hide very well for a time, is no less a reality. It damages a person’s and even an entire population’s sense of self-worth, and it oppresses them. It may force them to accept a lower position, which there is no valid reason for them to occupy, at least until they fight back and reclaim equality. What has happened about the allegations of sexism at the African Union Commission? Institutionalised or politically sanctioned racism and sexism are out. However, there is a subtle . . .