Monday, 30 April 2012
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Friday, 27 April 2012
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Monday, 23 April 2012
Sunday, 22 April 2012
http://ow.ly/i/zMZe
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Friday, 20 April 2012
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Monday, 16 April 2012
The Road Accident Fund: Discerning Fact From Fiction
The Constitutional Court has officially ruled on recent amendments to the constitution concerning the compensation and liability on the part of the Road Accident Fund in 2010, and as such, the new guidelines have been implemented. The following report is an explanation of the changes made and how they are going to impact claims, liability and procedures for certain parties.
The following is an abstract from a report written up and published by Deneys Reitz and can be found on the Moneyweb.co.za website:
The Abolition of Common Law Claims
Prior to the introduction of the Amendment Act, a victim of a road accident was entitled to claim from the Fund. In the event that no claim lay against the fund, or its liability was limited, the victim retained a residual common law claim against the wrongdoer. Section 21 of the Amendment Act abolishes this right subject to two exceptions. The first is if the Fund is unable to pay any compensation. The second exception is in respect of claims for loss or damage resulting from emotional shock sustained as a result of a claimant having witnessed, or being informed of the bodily injury or death of another person as a result of a motor accident.
The Court examined the rationale behind the abolition of the right of action against the driver personally. The Minister of Transport furnished an explanation to the effect that a system for the compensation of road accident victims must be integrated into a comprehensive social security system that offers life, disability and health insurance cover for all accidents and diseases. The government's intention is to replace the current system with a set of limited no-fault benefits, which will form part of the broader social security net.
The court accepted that the retention of common law claims would have no bearing on the financial viability of the Fund but commented that it would not "sit well with a social security system that aims to provide equitable compensation for all people regardless of their financial ability". The common law losses would only be recovered from those drivers or owners who would be capable of paying compensation or were able to afford the required insurance. In addition the right to sue would only be exercised by those that could afford to pay legal fees.
In the circumstances the Court found that the abolition of common law claims is rationally related to the legitimate government purpose to make the compensation scheme equitable.
The Court also examined the contention that the abolition of common law rights is an infringement of the road accident victim's constitutional right to security of the person. It accepted that when a person is injured or killed as a result of the negligent driving of a motor vehicle, the victim's right to personal security is severely compromised. In the circumstances the state has obligations to road accident victims and the abolition of the common law claim diminished the victim's capacity to protect and enforce the right to the security of person. This would render the abolition unconstitutional unless it is justifiable.
The court found that the abolition was reasonable and justifiable because it formed part of the scheme to put in place a compensation regime directed at ensuring that the Fund is inclusive, sustainable and capable of meeting its constitutional obligations towards victims of motor vehicle accidents.
Cap on Compensation
The applicants contended that the cap on compensation for loss of income or of dependants' support infringed the right to property under section 25 (1) of the constitution. They argued that the Amendment Act deprives victims of property in the form of reduced compensation for loss of earning capacity or support. In order to succeed they would have to prove that the scheme was irrational, because the constitution only protects arbitrary deprivation of property.
The court found that the scheme was not irrational. It followed that the offending sections did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property.
Regulation 5(1) and the Prescribed Tariff
In regulation 5(1) the Minister has prescribed that the tariff for claims to be paid by the fund for hospital and other medical treatment is that prescribed in the Uniform Patient Fee Schedule (UPFS) tariff. The applicants contended this was irrational, unreasonable and deprived innocent victims of an effective remedy in breach of section 12 of the Constitution.
The evidence before the court was clear that the regulation would make it impossible for road accident victims to obtain treatment in a private health care centre. The tariff was found to be "wholly inadequate and unsuited for paying compensation for medical treatment of road accident victims in the private health care sector".
The actuarial evidence showed that the implementation of the UPFS tariff would save the fund no more than 6% of its total compensation bill. This was seen as a relatively meager saving against other compelling factors, which indicated that the tariff was unsuitable.
The court struck down Regulation 5(1) with retrospective effect. The Fund will therefore be liable for the cost of healthcare needs for accident victims from the inception of the amending act in August 2008.
What are the consequences?
The judgment brings an end to the uncertainty brought about by the constitutional challenge. The Amendment Act introduced important and far-reaching changes to the compensation scheme for road accident victims.
Individuals whose earning capacity is compromised as a result of an accident may only recover the capped amount from the Fund which currently stands at R180 000. The gap between what the individual previously earned, and what is recovered from the Fund may not be recovered from the wrongdoer.
The loss of a breadwinner will result in a claim for the capped amount regardless of whether the breadwinner earned substantially more than the capped amount. An example of the difficulties that may arise would be where a deceased breadwinner earned R500 000 a year and has commitments commensurate with these earnings. The family would have to readjust to live on the capped amount.
No claims exist either against the Fund or against the wrongdoer for general damages unless the injury sustained is assessed as a "serious injury", in which case a claim lies against the Fund.
Insurance companies will have certainty that no passenger liability claims will arise against them from the date of the Amendment Act. Any reserves, which may have been held in this regard, may be released except in cases where potential emotional shock claims exist.
Personal Accident policies and income protector type policies will be important to most households whose main breadwinner earns more than the capped amount. Motor insurance policies may have to be amended to include contingency cover in the event that the Fund is unable to pay any claims that are brought against it, and for emotional shock claims.
On the positive side passenger claims are no longer restricted and this means that bus and mini bus passengers will enjoy claims against the Fund to the same extent as other road accident victims.
(End of report by Deneys Reitz)
Note: To claim from the Road Accident Fund, visit the websiteand download the official claim forms. All information on procedures, time frames and claim amounts are available from the website.
Other amendments include those to the Tax act, which contains stipulations about trip logging and detailed vehicle claims.
The Little Logbook utilizes GPS technology in conjunction with Google Maps that tracks the vehicles movement and logs it inside of its secure server. The device is fully SARS-compliant and can be used more permanently and reliably than paper logbooks. Visit the Little Logbook website for more information on how you can benefit from using one of these GPS logbooks.
http://ow.ly/i/zhlT
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Friday, 13 April 2012
Thursday, 12 April 2012
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Monday, 9 April 2012
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Friday, 6 April 2012
Thursday, 5 April 2012
SARS: What can I claim for?
There are many theories and myths about exactly what kinds of travel you can claim for when filing your tax return with SARS. Many of them may have been correct at one time, but due to the changing laws and amendments, have fallen away. The following is some useful advice from Johan Swart, tax manager at one of the largest firms in South Africa, Legal & Tax, first posted on businesslive.co.za (a Times South Africa affiliate):
South Africa's tax laws make provision for you to claim a deduction for the use of your private vehicle to fulfill work tasks, but doing so is no longer as straightforward as it was.
To be able to claim travel expenses you must receive a travel allowance or you must earn most of your income in the form of commission.
In the past, you could simply use your odometer readings at the start and close of the tax year and SARS would deduct private use from your calculation of your travel expenses for the tax year. This is not the case any more - you must keep a logbook specifying each business trip.
SARS may ask to see your logbook up until five years after the present tax year. Commuting to work is considered private travel and cannot be claimed as a business expense. You can calculate your claim in two ways. You can use the SARS cost tables to link the costs of your travel to the value of your vehicle, which is ideal if you haven't been diligent about holding onto invoices. If you receive a travelling allowance, this method will work to your advantage in the majority of cases.
You can also use the actual costs to calculate your claim. If commission is your primary source of income, this is the only way you can claim travelling expenses. This is only possible if you have accurate records about how much you spent on petrol, repairs and maintenance, insurance and so on. You must have proof of all expenses in the form of invoices, account statements, et cetera.
If you have kept a logbook, you would calculate your business travel simply by adding up your business trips during the tax year (March 1 to February 28 the following year).
That means you need to record the distance of your trip to make that delivery or to see that client when you get into your car to use it for business.
If you haven't kept a logbook this year, you will not be able to claim a travel deduction unless you can find details of all your trips in your diary and calculate the distance you travel for business from that.
It's not advisable unless you are really sure of your business mileage.
Keeping a logbook is simple, so be sure to start doing so immediately if you qualify for travel deductions.
Any little journal will do. Just record the date, odometer reading, trip distance, and the purpose of the trip each time you get in your car for business travel.
Then, at the end of the financial year, enter your opening and closing odometer readings for the year and fill in the business travel.
If you use e-filing, the system will do many of the calculations for you.
To make some of your return claims easier to manage if you are one of the individuals or companies that keeps mandatory logbooks, check out The Little Logbook’s new GPS Logging system. Visit the website or contact (011) 050-0999. You can also send an e-mail to sales@littlelogbook.co.za
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
How many trips can my Little LogBook log?
Let Ettiene Brown from Little LogBook answer that for you: