This study employs a sample survey to determine and analyse the corporate finance practices of South African listed companies in relation to cost of capital, capital structure and capital budgeting decisions.The results of the survey are mostly in line with financial theory and are generally consistent with a number of other studies. This study finds that companies always or almost always employ DCF methods such as NPV and IRR to evaluate projects. Companies almost always use CAPM to determine the cost of equity and most companies employ either a strict or flexible target debt‐equity ratio. Furthermore, most practices of the South African corporate sector are in line with practices employed by US companies. This reflects the relatively highly developed state of the South African economy which belies its status as an emerging market. However, the survey has also brought to the fore a number of puzzling results which may indicate some gaps in the application of finance theory. There is limited use of relatively new developments such as real options, APV, EVA and Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore, the low target debt‐equity ratios reflected the exceptionally low use of debt by South African companies.

The reportable arrangements (RA) provisions are contained in sections 80M to 80T of the Income Tax Act. SARS issued a revised Draft Guide on 31 March 2010, which contains a model for the application of these provisions. However, due to numerous discrepancies and ambiguities contained in the Act and the guide, the interpretation of these provisions could be subjective and difficult to apply in practice. Failure to disclose a RA may result in a R1 million penalty. It is the purpose of this paper to develop an alternative, workable model to serve as a usable guide for taxpayers. This paper comprises a literature review and a study of empirical evidence obtained through a survey conducted among tax partners at a sample of 40 leading audit and legal firms. The majority of respondents considered the alternative model to be more accurate, user-friendly and helpful than SARS’ model.

This article examines the South African financial system for start-up companies, and focuses particularly on the support provided by the Khula indemnification scheme. Most research rests on the assumption that a lack of finance is the sole impediment to success of start-ups; however, it is unclear whether such government intervention can indeed foster successful entrepreneurial activity. We show that the current system provides profitmaking opportunities for both banks and consultants, but lacks a focus on sustainable business development. There are incentives to create companies not in an attempt to be profitable, but rather as a means to gain access to government or government-backed money. We question whether a lack of finance is the primary obstacle to the formation of businesses. Instead, we argue that it is a lack of accountability and an insufficient application of business tools such as basic cost accounting that make entrepreneurs less creditworthy.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) implemented a more aggressive reporting system in 2008 by introducing new reportable arrangements ('RA') provisions in the Income Tax Act. In March 2010, SARS issued a revised Draft Guide to Reportable Arrangements for public comment. More than three years after its release, there is still no finalised, updated guide available to address the 'new' RA provisions. Determining when arrangements should be reported to SARS therefore remains both problematic and onerous. It is the purpose of this article to examine some of the problematic terminology in an attempt to afford South African taxpayers greater clarity in the identification and disclosure of RAs. The research findings are tested through a survey conducted among tax partners and directors at a sample of 40 leading audit and legal firms in South Africa. The majority of respondents agreed with the conclusions drawn from the literature study.