Beware of the dangers of prescription

“I lent money to a business partner nearly 3 years ago when he was in a bit of financial trouble. It wat not a massive amount, so I did not press him for the money. He recently won a big contract and I know things are going better with his business. When I asked him to pay back my loan, he refused and said that my claim had prescribed so there was nothing I could do and he was not going to pay it back. Surely this cannot be the case?”

Before determining when a debt prescribes, one must first understand the concept of “extinction of debts by prescription.” The Prescription Act 68 of 1969 states that “a debt shall be extinguished by prescription after the lapse of the period which in terms of the relevant law applies in respect of the prescription of such debt”. In simple terms it means that a debt is completely extinguished after the lapse of the relevant period for the recovery of that debt.. The general period for most civil claims to take action and enforce a debt is usually 3 years. If no action is taken within the allowed 3 years a debt is seen as prescribed. 

Now that the concept of prescription is clarified, the next question that needs to be answered is when does the 3 year period for prescription start running? The following scenario can be used to explain the start of the running of prescription: 

Peter lends R1000 to Paul on 1 March 2012. They agree that Paul will pay back the R1000 on 1 April 2012. The moment that Peter lends the R1000 to Paul the debt came into existance but the debt is not due yet. The debt will only become due on 1 April 2012, on the day that Paul is supposed to pay back the money that was lent to him by Peter. If Paul fails to pay back the R1000 on 1 April 2012 prescription will start running as from the 2nd of April 2012. This means that Peter has 3 years starting on 2 April 2012 to take action to recover the debt from Paul. If Peter does not take any action, the debt will prescribe 3 years later on 2 April 2015 and Peter will lose his claim against Paul.

The distinction between when a debt arises and when it becomes due is of the utmost importance to ensure that action is taken within the allowed time frame of 3 years. Our courts have taken the approach that the prescriptive period will start running the moment that the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises are known to the claimant. In other words the claimant does not need to have knowledge of the relevant legal conclusion. The prescriptive running is also not postponed until the person becomes aware of his full legal rights. If the approach of our courts are applied to the scenario of Peter and Paul – even if Peter was not aware of the fact that he would be able to recover the money that was lent to Paul, the prescriptive period would still start running on 2 April 2012. The reasoning behind this is that Peter was aware that Paul owed him money and that is sufficient to constitute the facts that are required for prescription to start running.

In light of the above, it is therefore adviseable that you consult with an attorney as soon as possible to ensure that the debt owed to you does not prescribe as otherwise it cannot be revived. 

July 7, 2016
Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Section 8C explained: Tax tips for employee share schemes

Employee share schemes are often introduced to reward, retain, or align employees with long-term business growth. However, under section 8C of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the “Income Tax Act”), these arrangements can create significant and unexpected tax liabilities for employees when equity instruments vest. This article explains how section 8C operates, what qualifies as an “equity instrument,” and why careful structuring of share schemes is essential to avoid punitive tax outcomes.

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The costly consequences of backdated share transactions

The South African legislative framework regards backdated shares as a suspicious and illegal practice, as it arises when a share issue or transfer is recorded as having occurred on an earlier date than the actual transaction. While backdating may be viewed as an administrative oversight, the consequences may constitute compliance risk, serious misconduct on directors, beneficial owners and compliance officers who authorise the backdating of share transactions. This is because backdated shares may manipulate the timing of funds, obscure the source of funds, and distort a company’s beneficial ownership structure.

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Tax transparency matters: Are your deals reportable?

Some deals come with hidden reporting duties. Find out when your transactions could trigger SARS disclosure rules, and how to stay compliant. You may have heard the term “reportable arrangement” in tax conversations around commercial transactions. It sounds technical, and it is, but at its core, it’s about transparency. The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) seeks information on certain transactions that could be used to avoid or reduce tax. If you enter a reportable arrangement, you may be legally required to report it. Failure to comply can result in significant penalties.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest