THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CERTAIN CAPITAL ALLOWANCES IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES POLICY OBJECTIVES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through various incentives, special economic zones (SEZs) aim to promote industrial capacity development, create jobs and stimulate the South African economy. However, in practice, misalignment of tax legislation requirements with current practices may undermine the success of the SEZ programme. If property developers are unable to claim capital allowances for expenditure incurred on property developments within an SEZ, this acts as a disincentive to investment, which conflicts with the overarching rationale for the SEZ initiative. This study seeks to determine the extent to which current practices prevent property developers from claiming capital allowances for developments in SEZs, and to propose appropriate remedies. The study presents a doctrinal analysis of the requirements of the SEZ Act and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act in the context of current practices in SEZ development. The analysis demonstrates that, where the ownership of land designated for SEZ development is retained by government, property developer lessees may be unable to claim capital allowances in respect of expenditure incurred on property developments. This study therefore motivates for the removal of the ownership requirement from building allowance provisions of the Income Tax Act. This would align tax legislation with current practice and the policy objectives of the SEZ programme, as well as address the current inconsistency in the requirements of building allowances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it