1.Following Barth et al. (2017:45), we submit that the 'comply or explain' principle and government of integrated reporting in South Africa can be classified as a mandatory setting. Background:No prescribed standard disclosure requirements for integrated reporting exist. Instead, the International Integrated Reporting Framework is widely adopted, which provides guidelines for integrated reporting to improve the quality of information reported to endusers. These guidelines, however, allow management a degree of freedom in implementing integrated reporting, making the quality of disclosure thereof dependent on management's approach to reporting. In contrast to the purpose of integrated reporting stands the management of earnings where management can use judgement to manipulate financial reports to mislead end-users. The conflicting theoretical objectives of integrated reporting and earnings management (EM) pose the question of how these two variables relate to one another. Aim:We examine the association between the quality of integrated reports and EM.Setting: Our sample consists of 238 company-years from 2013 to 2017 that were listed as part of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) top 100 companies and were ranked on Ernst and Young (EY's) annual Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards. The likely association between integrated report quality (IRQ) and EM was identified based on theoretical frameworks, including the stakeholder and agency theories. Method:We perform a robust, one-way cluster regression on our main empirical model, measuring IRQ on rankings, determined by the annual EY Excellence in Integrated Reporting Awards and EM through discretionary accruals.Results: We find a statistically significant negative association between EM, measured as income increasing accruals, and IRQ. Conclusion:Results suggest that companies with income increasing EM activities are less likely to disclose higher quality integrated reports.

The classification of income from cloud computing activities, according to the substance-over-form doctrine, is fundamental to the application of the correct taxation source test. The designation of IaaS, PaaS and SaaS, the three main cloud computing service models, clearly denotes the form of cloud computing activities as that of a service. However, the nature of cloud computing inherently raises the question of whether or not cloud computing income should not rather be classified as income from leasing activities or the imparting of know-how. In fact, the findings of this study suggest the classification would not necessarily always be that of a service. The possible classification as lease income can be either income from the lease of tangible computer hardware and/or of intellectual property (royalty income). The aim of this study was to formulate guidelines to assist in the correct classification of income from cloud computing activities. This was achieved by performing doctrinal research based on the South African and international literature.

The location-independent nature of cloud-based transactions results in many source-related difficulties for normal tax purposes. This study considered the source determination for each of the possible classifications of cloud-based income (lease, service and royalty income, and/or income from know-how) by performing a doctrinal study based on South African and international literature. This study identified and formulated the challenges in applying traditional source tests in the context of cloud-based transactions. These challenges stem from the potential absence of physical presence of the provider in the country of consumption, in contrast to traditional source tests where physical presence indicate a tax presence; as well as the location-independent nature of cloud-based transactions from the perspective of both the provider and the consumer. The findings of the study suggest that the source determination for cloud-based transactions could be based on the source of the payment or residency of the payer, rather than the physical location.