MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991584681

Home Office Expenditure: A critical analysis of the applicable law governing the deductibility of home workspace expenses incurred by persons in employment - given the shift to working from home

2023· dissertation· en· W6991584681 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureInternal revenueStatutory lawInterpretation (philosophy)Statutory interpretationCommon lawTax lawService (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The applicable law governing the income tax deductibility of home workspace expenses incurred by persons in employment has remained contentious and inconclusive. This has been heightened given the accelerated shift toward employees working from home in recent years. It is therefore necessary for there to be research conducted in resolving this heightened contention, with potential legislative amendments being recommended to National Treasury, who have acknowledged that the applicable law needs to be updated. An exposition of the applicable law over the last fifty years is provided, which includes historical analyses and the general mechanics of the law. More complex matters relating to the interpretation of the applicable law are then highlighted and analysed in light of the applicable principles of fiscal statutory interpretation (mainly using the landmark Endumeni approach). The South African Revenue Service (‘SARS') has attempted to update the existing Interpretation Note (‘IN') dealing with home workspace expenditure, for which they released two drafts, both in 2021; and finalised such IN in 2022. Although SARS' interpretations are determined to not be authoritative in terms of the law, their interpretations are analysed in terms of the applicable law to identify and analyse inconclusive matters. These matters relate to the types of home workspace expenses that are tax deductible, and the ‘tests' under section 23(b). Some of the key findings in this regard are that the legislation does not require a separate-room home workspace, and that all of the ‘tests' should be performed for the period which an employee is working from home, even if this period is less than a full year of assessment. Potential legislative amendments are identified, specifically in the short-term, by looking to comparable jurisdictions, namely the United Kingdom and Canada. These jurisdictions offer taxpayers a ‘simplified cost' deduction which is capped to a legislated amount. Legislating a ‘simplified cost' deduction accordingly will provide the fiscus more time to adequately review the applicable law substantially, given the accelerated shift toward employees working from home and heightened contention in this regard.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen University of Cape Town (University of Cape Town)Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207