A few years ago, during the National Budget Speech, government put a cap of R350k pa on retirement contributions. It appears that no one at treasury has given this much thought Continue reading It’s time that treasury stopped being short-sighted when it comes to the wealthy!
Am I the only one who dislikes Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) and all the hype that goes with them?
Let’s take a step back before getting all excited about TFSA’s. They were introduced (by Government) to encourage non-savers to save and unfortunately, Continue reading The great Tax Free Savings Account con!
Not content with being lambasted by the tax ombudsman’s office, SARS now seem to be making up their own rules as they go along. Continue reading More SARS flu
You know that SARS is really in a mess when they still insist that Internet Explorer is the “safest” browser. It is also the only browser in which their efiling application functions correctly. How is this possible in 2017? Continue reading “Internet explorer is the safest browser” SARS*
The tax ombudsman recently made damning findings about SARS unreasonably delaying paying refunds. SARS, of course, denied that there is anything malicious in this. However, experience seems to show that they are still very much applying stalling tactics in their desperate search for funds. Continue reading SARS still employing delaying tactics
Something seriously dodgy is happening at SARS – just had the 3rd case of them rejecting an RA tax certificate as proof of contribution to an RA. They are insisting on proof of contributions (since inception). Shouldn’t be too difficult to obtain but so much additional work – and on what legal grounds?
Worse still is that they have applied the same ruling to pension and provident fund contributions and are insisting on proof of contributions to the fund – not that easy to get! And more costs to the tax payer.
And in a separate ruling, they went back to a 2014 tax return and outright declined the RA deduction – no reasons given and penalties imposed for underpayment of tax and outstanding interest. The call centre was clueless and the only possible reason they could offer was that the contribution was “too large”. Insanity! So it’s an objection and lots more cost to the client (who will win this one).
There are many with strong opinions about the merits of a share portfolio versus a unit trust portfolio. Here’s another one (strong opinion) in favour of a unit trust portfolio.
Continue reading UT or share portfolio
Just received a revised assessment from SARS for a client for the 2014 tax year, disallowing her retirement annuity contribution and thus resulting in a revised assessment and penalties!!!
Continue reading SARS – touching lives negatively
At first I thought that maybe it was only me and that the settings on my computer must be faulty – turns out it’s not me. It’s everyone who uses efiling…
Continue reading Bad design – come on SARS
Much has been written about the value of financial advice. There are many people who believe that financial planners offer little value for the fees charged while there are others who believe that the value financial planners add is very significant.
Research by Morningstar has revealed that the value of advice (they call it “gamma”) can be as much as 3% (of the client’s portfolio) per annum. This is, among other things, a result of managing investor behaviour and greater tax efficiency for the advised client.
We have more than a few clients who prefer to manage their own funds with no on-going advice fees and who will then consult with us from time to time when they think it necessary. And while this may seem to save them an “annual advice fee”, in my experience, it has almost always cost them significantly more than the fee that they would have paid as an “advised” client. Consider the following example from our practice.
The client retired a few years back and transferred his funds to a living annuity – he met with us around the income draw, asset allocation and resulting fund selection and has been looking after it on his own since then. He has been drawing the minimum income (as a result of some consulting that he was doing) until the anniversary earlier this year when the consulting stopped and he needed to increase the annuity. Which he did – without consulting us and without any thought to the tax consequences.
He did not consider that he had a discretionary pot of money from which he could effectively draw (close to) tax-free income. The result is that he is now paying at least R100k in tax that he need not be paying. This is R100k that we would have saved him if he had been an advised client (or if he had at very least sought advice before making the change). The R100k is certainly many times the quantum of the annual fee that we would have been paying. And he is currently staring at an estate duty problem because of the choice to increase the annuity income draw and leave the discretionary assets in his estate.
Add to this the fact that he recently switched funds – “the funds had done nothing for the past few years” and so he made the change. The move was at exactly the wrong time and his asset allocation is now also out of kilter (way too much offshore exposure for a living annuity with a 5% draw). The annual fund fees that he is paying is also way too high – he had “no idea that was an issue”.
Clearly in this case, the value of advice would have been way less than the cost to his portfolio. But then, perhaps we have ourselves to blame. If all clients think we do is choose funds then why would you pay (a significant) ongoing fee for that?
We need to make sure that clients fully understand that asset allocation is but one part of the value-add from a professional financial planning service. There is so much more to the financial planning service, but they wont know that if we don’t tell them and more importantly, if we don’t demonstrate it.