Re-evaluating Fairness: A Legal and Rational Argument Against the Prohibition on Deducting Essential Living Expenses for South African Sole Proprietors

I. Introduction: The Sole Proprietor's Tax Conundrum

A. Overview of the Issue

South African sole proprietors operate within a unique tax environment characterized by a significant challenge: the strict prohibition against deducting personal living expenses from their business income. While these costs – encompassing basic necessities like food, shelter, and essential utilities – are fundamental to an individual's ability to live, work, and ultimately generate income, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the governing legislation, the Income Tax Act (No. 58 of 1962, hereafter "the Act"), categorize them as non-deductible private expenditure.1 This report contends that while this prohibition is rooted in established legal principles designed to prevent the erosion of the tax base through personal consumption claims, its rigid application to sole proprietors results in substantial unfairness.

The current legal position stems from the interplay between the general rules allowing deductions and specific rules prohibiting them. Section 11(a) of the Act provides the general authority for deducting expenses incurred in the production of income.5 However, this is significantly curtailed by provisions like Section 23(a), which explicitly disallows costs related to the maintenance of the taxpayer, and Section 23(b), which bars deductions for domestic or private expenses, including most costs associated with a dwelling unless stringent home office requirements are met.5 Section 23(g) further reinforces this by denying deductions for moneys not laid out for the purposes of trade.7 The cumulative effect is a near-absolute barrier to deducting essential living costs for sole proprietors.

B. The Sole Proprietor in the Tax System

For South African tax purposes, a sole proprietorship is defined by its simplicity and its lack of legal distinction from its owner. It is a business owned and operated by a natural person, where the individual trades in their own name.2 Crucially, the business is not a separate legal entity; the owner and the business are considered one and the same in the eyes of the law.2

This structure dictates the tax mechanism applied. All income generated and expenses incurred by the sole proprietorship are reported on the owner's personal income tax return (ITR12).2 The net profit (or loss) from the business is aggregated with any other personal income the individual might have (such as salary from employment or investment income), and tax is levied at the individual's marginal income tax rates.3 Because they earn income other than a fixed salary, sole proprietors are typically classified as provisional taxpayers, required to make estimated tax payments twice a year.2

A defining characteristic, with significant implications for both liability and taxation, is the unlimited personal liability of the owner.1 Business debts are the owner's personal debts, meaning personal assets (like a house or car) can be claimed by business creditors.4 This legal fusion of owner and business contrasts sharply with incorporated entities like private companies (Pty Ltd), where the company is a separate legal person with limited liability for its owners.1

C. Argument Thesis

This report advances the argument that the inflexible application of the prohibition against deducting essential living expenses for sole proprietors is fundamentally unfair and warrants critical re-evaluation. This position is based on several interconnected pillars: the resulting inequities when compared to other taxpayers undertaking similar economic activities; the failure of the current rules to adequately reflect the unique economic reality of the sole proprietorship structure, where the owner's capacity to work is the business; and the reliance on legislative distinctions (particularly between business and private expenses) that may be outdated or ill-suited to the complexities of the modern economy, especially concerning freelancers and gig workers.3 The analysis will delve into the specific legislative provisions, principles of tax fairness, and the economic substance of sole proprietorships to build a rational and legally grounded case for reform.

II. The Legislative Framework: Dissecting the Deduction Rules

Understanding the fairness argument requires a clear grasp of the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act that govern expense deductions. The framework operates through a combination of a general permission rule and specific prohibition rules.

A. The General Deduction Formula (Section 11(a)): The Starting Point

Section 11(a) of the Act establishes the foundational principle for deductibility. It permits a taxpayer, in determining their taxable income derived from carrying on a trade, to deduct "expenditure and losses actually incurred in the production of the income, provided such expenditure and losses are not of a capital nature".5 This formula sets out four key requirements that must generally be met for an expense to be deductible:

1. Carrying on any trade: The deduction is only available if the taxpayer is engaged in a 'trade'. The Act defines 'trade' very broadly, encompassing "every profession, trade, business, employment, calling, occupation or venture, including the letting of any property...".6 This definition clearly includes the activities undertaken by a sole proprietor.7
2. Actually incurred: The expenditure or loss must have been 'actually incurred'. This does not necessarily mean the amount must have been paid; rather, the taxpayer must have incurred an unconditional legal obligation to pay the amount during the relevant year of assessment.6 The emphasis is on the establishment of the liability.
3. In the production of income: This is often the most critical and litigated requirement. The expenditure must be incurred 'in the production of the income'. South African courts have interpreted this to mean there must be a sufficiently close link or nexus between the expenditure and the taxpayer's income-earning operations or structure.6 A key factor is the purpose of the expenditure – it must be incurred with the intention of producing income.35 Importantly, the expenditure does not need to have generated income in the same year it was incurred; it can relate to the production of future income.35 Expenses considered too remote from the income-earning activities will fail this test.8
4. Not of a capital nature: The expenditure must be revenue, not capital, in nature. This distinguishes between costs incurred in the day-to-day running of the business to generate income (revenue expenditure, deductible under section 11(a)) and costs incurred to acquire, create, or improve a long-term asset or the income-earning structure itself (capital expenditure).8 Capital expenses are generally not deductible under section 11(a) but may qualify for specific capital allowances (like depreciation or wear-and-tear) under other sections of the Act.21

B. The Prohibitions: Sections 23(a), 23(b), and 23(g)

Even if an expense appears to meet the criteria of Section 11(a), it may still be disallowed if it falls foul of the specific prohibitions contained in Section 23. This section acts as a "negative test," overriding the general permission granted by Section 11(a) in certain circumstances.5 Three subsections are particularly relevant to the issue of personal living expenses for sole proprietors:

1. Section 23(a): Maintenance Costs: This section prohibits any deduction for "the cost incurred in the maintenance of any taxpayer, his family or domestic establishment".7 This is the primary legislative barrier preventing sole proprietors from deducting fundamental living costs such as food, clothing (unless it's a qualifying uniform), and other expenses deemed necessary for personal upkeep.5
2. Section 23(b): Domestic or Private Expenses: This section disallows deductions for "domestic or private expenses," explicitly including "the rent of or cost of repairs of or expenses in connection with any premises not occupied for the purposes of trade or of any dwelling-house or domestic premises".7 There is a crucial exception, however: a deduction may be allowed for a part of a dwelling-house or domestic premises, but only if that part meets the stringent conditions for a qualifying home office (discussed below).2
3. Section 23(g): Not for Purposes of Trade: This section prohibits the deduction of "any moneys, claimed as a deduction from income derived from trade, to the extent to which such moneys were not laid out or expended for the purposes of trade".7 This provision is fundamental in cases of dual-purpose expenditure (where an expense serves both a business and a private purpose). It mandates that such expenses must be apportioned, and only the portion attributable to the trade purpose can be deducted.5 For example, if a sole proprietor uses their personal cell phone for both business calls and private calls, only the portion of the cost relating to the business use is potentially deductible, assuming it meets the Section 11(a) criteria.

C. The Home Office Exception (Proviso to Section 23(b)): A Narrow Gate

The only explicit legislative pathway for deducting costs associated with a personal dwelling involves the strict home office rules found in the proviso to Section 23(b). This exception is notoriously difficult to qualify for, requiring taxpayers to meet several cumulative conditions 2:

• Specific Part: The deduction relates only to a specific part of the dwelling-house or domestic premises occupied for trade purposes.
• Specifically Equipped: This part must be specifically equipped for the purposes of the taxpayer's trade (e.g., containing necessary office furniture, equipment).39
• Regularly and Exclusively Used: This part must be used regularly and, critically, exclusively for the purposes of the trade. Any non-trivial private use of the designated space typically disqualifies the deduction.2 SARS interprets "exclusively" to mean solely; using the space as a guest room or for personal activities is fatal to the claim.56
• Mainly Performed Duties (Non-Commission Earners): For taxpayers whose income is not mainly (more than 50%) derived from commission, an additional hurdle exists: their duties must be mainly (more than 50%) performed in that specific home office space.2 This often excludes consultants or tradespeople who spend most of their time at client sites.48

Even if these stringent requirements are met, the deduction is limited. Only a pro-rata portion of expenses directly related to the premises (such as rent, rates and taxes, electricity, cleaning, repairs to the premises) can be claimed. This apportionment is typically based on the floor area of the qualifying home office relative to the total floor area of the residence.2 Expenses not related to the premises themselves, like wear-and-tear on office equipment used in the space, are considered separately and do not require floor-area apportionment but must still meet the general deduction criteria.58 Notably, for employees and office holders, the deduction for interest on a mortgage bond related to the home office portion was disallowed with effect from the 2023 tax year.58

The extremely narrow scope of this exception is a significant point of contention. The "exclusivity" requirement, in particular, is often criticized as being impractical for many individuals, especially those living in smaller homes where dedicating an entire room solely to work is not feasible.19 This effectively makes the home office deduction inaccessible to a large number of sole proprietors and employees who genuinely incur costs working from home.

D. Contrast with Other Entities/Employment

The treatment of essential costs for sole proprietors contrasts sharply with how similar costs are handled, directly or indirectly, in other business structures or employment scenarios:

• Companies (Pty Ltd): A private company is a separate legal entity.1 It can employ its owner(s) as directors or employees and pay them a salary. This salary, provided it is reasonable for the services rendered, is a deductible business expense for the company under Section 11(a).3 The director/employee then pays personal income tax on this salary. Crucially, the salary paid (and deducted by the company) covers the individual's personal living expenses. While the individual cannot deduct their living costs, the business entity effectively bears the pre-tax cost associated with securing the individual's labour and expertise, which inherently includes the cost of maintaining that individual.10 Business expenses incurred by the company are clearly separated from the owner's personal finances.72
• Employees: Employees are generally prohibited from deducting commuting expenses and other personal costs related to their employment, often due to the limitations imposed by Section 23(m).45 However, employers can provide employees with allowances (e.g., travel allowances) to cover business-related expenses incurred on behalf of the employer. While these allowances are generally taxable, the employee can claim deductions against the allowance for the actual business expenditure incurred, subject to specific rules and limits.73 Employers may also directly reimburse employees for certain business costs or provide tools, equipment, or services (like internet connectivity) needed for work, effectively absorbing these costs within the business structure. The stringent home office rules under Section 23(b) also apply to employees, making deductions difficult for them as well.55

This comparison reveals a fundamental tension within the tax system. The Income Tax Act attempts to impose a strict separation between business and personal expenditure for deduction purposes. However, it applies this separation to a business structure – the sole proprietorship – which is legally defined by the absence of such separation between the owner and the business.2 While companies can deduct owner remuneration (indirectly covering living costs) and employees may receive allowances or employer support, the sole proprietor, whose personal survival is inextricably linked to the business's operation, is denied any deduction for the essential costs required to maintain their ability to generate income under the broad prohibitions of Sections 23(a) and 23(b). This inherent contradiction lies at the heart of the fairness concerns addressed in this report.

III. The Argument for Unfairness: Challenging the Status Quo

The legislative framework, particularly the strict application of Sections 23(a) and 23(b) to sole proprietors, gives rise to significant concerns regarding fairness and equity within the South African tax system.

A. The Principle of Equity (Fairness)

Tax equity is a cornerstone principle of sound tax policy, generally encompassing horizontal equity (taxpayers in similar economic circumstances should bear similar tax burdens) and vertical equity (taxpayers with a greater ability to pay should contribute proportionally more). The current rules governing sole proprietor deductions appear to violate both aspects.

Horizontal Inequity

Horizontal equity demands that individuals facing similar economic situations be treated similarly by the tax system. The prohibition on deducting essential living costs creates disparities between sole proprietors and other taxpayers performing comparable economic functions:

• Sole Proprietor vs. Remote Employee: Consider two individuals performing identical knowledge-based work from home – one as a registered sole proprietor (freelancer), the other as an employee of a company. Both incur costs related to their workspace (utilities, internet) and basic living expenses enabling them to work. The employee might receive a remote work allowance, have internet costs reimbursed, or use company-provided equipment, partially mitigating these costs on a pre-tax basis for the employer.55 The sole proprietor, however, bears these costs personally. Their ability to claim deductions is limited to the stringent home office rules, which often prove impossible to meet, especially the exclusivity requirement.19 The fundamental costs of maintaining a home base from which to work are largely non-deductible for the sole proprietor, unlike the potential partial relief available indirectly to the employee.
• Sole Proprietor vs. Owner-Managed Company (Pty Ltd): A starker contrast exists between a sole proprietor and an individual operating the same small business through a private company (Pty Ltd) where they are the sole director and shareholder. The Pty Ltd can pay the owner-director a salary.37 This salary, which the owner uses to cover their essential living expenses, is a deductible expense for the company, reducing its taxable income before the corporate tax rate (currently 27%) is applied.70 The sole proprietor, in contrast, cannot deduct their "drawings" (the equivalent of a salary taken from business profits). These drawings are merely appropriations of post-tax income. The income used for the sole proprietor's essential living costs is taxed at their personal marginal rate before it can be used for subsistence.1

This differential treatment is illustrated in the table below:

Table 1: Comparative Tax Treatment of Essential Living Costs (Illustrative)

Assumptions: Essential costs refer to basic, non-discretionary expenditure required to sustain the individual and enable them to perform their work. Comparisons are illustrative and specific circumstances may vary. References: Sec 11(a), Sec 23(a), Sec 23(b), Sec 23(m), Company Salary Deductibility.

The clear implication arising from these comparisons is a violation of horizontal equity. Taxpayers generating income through similar levels of personal exertion and facing the same fundamental need to incur living costs to do so are treated markedly differently based purely on their chosen business structure or employment status. The sole proprietor bears a significantly heavier tax burden on the income required simply to live and continue working.

Vertical Inequity / Ability to Pay

The principle of vertical equity suggests that tax burdens should align with a taxpayer's ability to pay. By disallowing deductions for essential living expenses, the current system artificially inflates the taxable income of sole proprietors. Tax is levied not merely on the economic profit (gross income less true costs of generating that income, including the cost of maintaining the income generator) but also on the portion of gross income required for basic survival.3

This disproportionately impacts sole proprietors at the lower end of the income scale. Individuals operating small craft businesses, gig economy workers, or freelancers starting out often spend a much larger fraction of their gross earnings on non-discretionary necessities like rent, food, and basic utilities compared to higher earners.20 When these essential costs cannot be deducted, the tax liability consumes a larger portion of their already limited discretionary income (income remaining after essential costs). This effectively results in a higher tax rate on the income they actually have available for savings, investment, or non-essential consumption, undermining the progressive intent of the marginal tax rate system and the core principle of taxing based on ability to pay.77

Neutrality Concerns

An ideal tax system should strive for neutrality, meaning it should not unduly influence economic decisions, such as the choice of business structure. However, the significantly harsher tax treatment of essential living costs for sole proprietors compared to incorporated entities creates a potential distortion.1

Entrepreneurs might be incentivized to incorporate their business as a Pty Ltd, even if a sole proprietorship is a more natural, simpler, or administratively efficient structure for their operations, purely to gain the tax advantage of deducting the owner's remuneration (salary) as a business expense.3 This choice, driven by tax disparity rather than commercial logic, represents an economic inefficiency created by the tax system itself. While incorporation offers limited liability, the tax treatment of owner remuneration adds a powerful, potentially distorting, incentive that disadvantages the simpler sole proprietorship structure.

B. The Economic Reality of Sole Proprietorship

The legal framework's strict separation of business and personal expenses clashes with the fundamental economic reality of the sole proprietorship.

The Indivisible Proprietor

Legally, the sole proprietor and their business are one entity.2 Economically, this means the proprietor is the business's primary, indispensable income-generating asset. Unlike a company, which is a separate legal person that employs individuals or uses machinery, the sole proprietor's personal capacity – their skills, knowledge, health, and sheer ability to perform work – is the engine of the business.13 Business continuity depends entirely on the proprietor's continued existence and functionality.

Viewed through this lens, the basic costs required to keep the proprietor alive and capable of working – minimal food for energy, basic shelter providing a necessary base for operation and rest, essential healthcare maintaining working capacity – are arguably fundamental inputs necessary for the "production of income".6 These are not merely personal choices separate from the business; they are the prerequisites for the business's existence and revenue generation.9 The "in production of income" test, as established in Section 11(a), requires a close link between expenditure and income-earning activities.6 For a sole proprietor, the link between basic subsistence and the ability to perform income-earning activities is arguably the closest link possible. However, this direct economic connection is severed for tax deduction purposes by the specific prohibition against deducting maintenance costs in Section 23(a), creating a conflict between the general deduction principle and the specific exclusion in the unique context of the sole proprietor.

Beyond Discretionary Spending

It is crucial to acknowledge the legitimacy of preventing deductions for purely discretionary personal consumption financed by business earnings. Tax deductions should not subsidize holidays, luxury goods, or personal lifestyle choices unrelated to income generation.71 The current legislative framework, however, fails to make a critical distinction. Sections 23(a) and 23(b) treat essential, non-discretionary living costs – those necessary simply to enable the proprietor to exist and work – identically to purely voluntary, discretionary personal spending. Both are disallowed.9 This lack of differentiation is a core element of the unfairness experienced by sole proprietors, who must incur basic subsistence costs as a prerequisite to earning any income at all.

Human Capital Maintenance Analogy

Economic theory increasingly recognizes the concept of "human capital" – the accumulated skills, knowledge, health, and experience embodied in an individual, which represents their capacity to generate income.87 Businesses routinely deduct expenses incurred to maintain their physical capital assets under Section 11(d) (repairs) or claim wear-and-tear allowances under Section 11(e), recognizing that preserving these assets is essential for ongoing income production.30

Applying this logic to a sole proprietor, whose primary (and often only significant) income-generating asset is their own human capital, suggests an inconsistency. Basic living expenses – food, shelter, healthcare – can be viewed as the fundamental "maintenance costs" required to preserve and sustain this human capital, enabling it to continue producing income for the business.88 Section 23(a)'s prohibition on deducting costs for the "maintenance of any taxpayer" directly contradicts this economic reality when applied to a sole proprietor. It treats the essential upkeep of the business's core income-generating asset (the person) as a purely private matter, unlike the treatment of maintenance for physical assets.5 This inconsistency highlights how the current tax law fails to fully align with the economic substance of the sole proprietorship model, particularly when viewed through the lens of human capital theory.

C. Critiquing the Legislative Rationale

The rationale underpinning the strict separation enforced by Sections 23(a) and 23(b) warrants scrutiny, particularly in the context of the modern economy.

Outdated Framework?

The fundamental structure of these prohibitions dates back many decades. It assumes a clearer demarcation between work life and personal life than often exists today, especially with the rise of the gig economy, freelancing, remote work, and portfolio careers.19 For many sole proprietors, particularly those in service or knowledge-based industries operating from home, the lines are inherently blurred. The legislative framework, conceived in an era dominated by traditional employment and separate business premises, may no longer adequately capture these contemporary work structures.

The "Exclusivity" Problem

The critique of the home office "exclusivity" rule under Section 23(b) is particularly pertinent.19 As highlighted previously, this rule often requires a separate, dedicated room used only for business. Post the widespread shift to remote work prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, this requirement seems increasingly detached from reality. Many individuals, whether employees or sole proprietors, now work from home out of necessity or arrangement, often in shared or multi-use spaces within their homes.64 Maintaining the strict exclusivity rule appears "elitist" 19, favouring those with larger homes, and serves little practical purpose beyond potentially simplifying administration for SARS. It penalizes those who genuinely incur costs working from home but lack the physical space to meet an arguably arbitrary requirement, raising questions about its continued fairness and relevance.19

Consistency Issues

The Act exhibits internal inconsistencies in its treatment of expenses that blur the line between business and personal. For instance, specific work uniforms may be deductible if they are clearly distinguishable from ordinary clothing and required for the trade, yet the basic cost of presentable clothing needed for client meetings by a consultant sole proprietor is disallowed under Section 23(a).38 Similarly, travel expenses between different work sites might be deductible, but the fundamental cost of maintaining the home base from which those travels originate (basic rent/utilities enabling the proprietor to operate) is generally disallowed.99 These inconsistencies suggest a need for a more principled and coherent approach to defining the boundary between deductible business inputs and non-deductible personal consumption, especially for sole proprietors.

IV. Navigating SARS's Position and Counterarguments

Any argument for reform must acknowledge the perspectives and challenges faced by the tax authority, SARS.

A. Acknowledging the Anti-Abuse Rationale

SARS has a legitimate mandate to protect the fiscus and ensure the integrity of the tax system. A primary reason for the strict prohibition on deducting personal expenses is to prevent abuse – taxpayers attempting to fund their personal lifestyles with pre-tax business income.5 Allowing deductions for broadly defined "living expenses" could open the door to widespread claims for non-business-related costs, significantly eroding the tax base. The current rules provide a clear, albeit blunt, line to prevent this.

The technically "correct" way for a business owner (including a sole proprietor, though less common in practice than for company directors) to handle personal expenses paid using business funds is through a loan account.12 The business records the payment as a loan to the owner, which the owner is legally obligated to repay. This maintains the separation between business funds and personal use, but it offers no tax deduction for the underlying personal expense and can be administratively burdensome or impractical for many small sole proprietors.

B. Administrative Complexity

Permitting deductions for essential living expenses, even if narrowly defined, would undoubtedly introduce significant administrative complexity for both taxpayers and SARS. Drawing a consistent and verifiable line between essential, non-discretionary subsistence costs and discretionary personal spending would be extremely challenging.19 How would one differentiate between basic food necessary for work capacity and food consumed for pleasure? How would basic shelter costs be distinguished from preferences for location or size? The verification process would be intensive and potentially intrusive. The current blanket prohibition, while potentially unfair, offers administrative simplicity.

C. SARS's Established Stance

SARS's interpretation and application of the law have consistently upheld the strict separation between business and personal/domestic expenses. Official publications, such as the Tax Guide for Small Businesses and Interpretation Note 28 (dealing with home office expenses), reinforce the non-deductibility of personal maintenance costs and the stringent requirements for any home-related deductions.8 The high rate of disallowance reported for home office claims further indicates SARS's strict enforcement posture in this area.54 Any argument for change must contend with this established administrative practice and interpretation.

D. Rebutting Counterarguments

While the concerns about potential abuse and administrative complexity are valid, they do not necessarily justify a system that imposes significant unfairness on a large group of taxpayers.

• Addressing Abuse: The risk of abuse exists in many areas of tax law. Rather than employing a blanket prohibition that penalizes legitimate economic activity and creates inequity, more targeted solutions could be explored. This might involve setting reasonable thresholds for deductions, implementing clearer guidelines, or strengthening anti-avoidance provisions specifically related to personal expenses claimed by sole proprietors. A sledgehammer approach that disallows even essential costs may not be the most equitable or efficient solution.
• Addressing Complexity: Administrative complexity is a genuine challenge. However, alternative models, such as standard deductions or simplified expense regimes (discussed below), could mitigate this burden while still providing a measure of fairness. The current complexity and high disallowance rate of the home office rules already impose significant administrative burdens on both taxpayers and SARS; a simpler, albeit potentially less precise, mechanism might be preferable.

V. Pathways to Fairness: Considerations for Reform

Given the identified inequities and the misalignment with economic reality, several potential pathways for reform could be considered to create a fairer tax environment for sole proprietors regarding essential expenses.

A. Exploring Alternative Models

Instead of the current all-or-nothing approach (primarily governed by Sections 23(a) and 23(b)), alternative models could balance fairness with administrative feasibility:

1. Standard Subsistence Deduction/Allowance: One possibility is to introduce a standard, non-itemized deduction specifically for sole proprietors, perhaps tiered based on income or limited to those below a certain turnover threshold. This deduction would represent a deemed amount for the basic, non-discretionary costs (food, shelter, utilities) necessary to sustain the proprietor and enable them to conduct their trade.77 Such an approach avoids the complexity of verifying actual expenses, simplifies compliance for small businesses, and directly addresses the fairness issue by acknowledging the essential link between subsistence and income production. It aligns conceptually with the existing standard deduction and personal exemptions in other tax systems, which aim to shield basic living costs from taxation.77
2. Simplified Expense Regimes: Drawing inspiration from international examples like the United Kingdom and Canada, which offer simplified, capped deductions for home office expenses 19, South Africa could consider a similar model for sole proprietors. This could take the form of a fixed-rate deduction or a capped percentage of turnover allowed for deemed operational costs, potentially incorporating an element representing essential subsistence. This approach leverages the simplification principle already present in South Africa's Turnover Tax regime for microbusinesses 7, offering administrative ease while providing some tax relief for essential costs.
3. Revisiting "In Production of Income": A more interpretative approach could involve SARS and the courts revisiting the application of the "in production of income" test (Section 11(a)) specifically in the context of sole proprietors' essential subsistence costs. Acknowledging the human capital maintenance aspect – that the proprietor is the business's primary asset requiring upkeep – could lead to a nuanced interpretation allowing for the deduction of proven, basic, non-discretionary costs directly linked to maintaining the capacity to work. This would require a departure from the rigid application of Section 23(a) in this specific context.
4. Targeted Legislative Amendment: A direct legislative amendment could modify Section 23(a) or 23(b) to create a specific, narrow exception for sole proprietors. This exception could allow for the deduction of demonstrably essential, non-discretionary living expenses (e.g., a portion of basic rent/utilities, potentially capped or subject to thresholds) directly enabling the conduct of their trade. This would require careful drafting to prevent abuse but would explicitly address the fairness gap within the existing legislative structure.

B. The Need for Legislative Review

Regardless of the specific model chosen, the underlying issue necessitates a thorough review of the current legislative framework by National Treasury and SARS. The analysis presented indicates that Sections 23(a) and 23(b), in their application to sole proprietors, may no longer align with principles of tax fairness (equity, neutrality, ability to pay) or the realities of modern economic structures, particularly the rise of independent work.19

The significant number of sole traders in the South African economy, particularly within the SMME sector which is crucial for economic growth and job creation, underscores the importance of addressing these tax-related challenges.105 A policy discussion is warranted to evaluate the fairness implications of the current rules and consider reforms that could foster a more equitable and supportive tax environment for this vital segment of the economy.19 Such a review should explicitly consider the unique legal and economic nature of the sole proprietorship and the fundamental link between the proprietor's basic needs and their ability to generate taxable income.

VI. Conclusion: Reassessing Fairness for Sole Proprietors

A. Summary of Arguments

The current South African tax regime, governed by the Income Tax Act, presents a significant fairness challenge for sole proprietors through its strict prohibition on the deduction of essential personal living expenses. This report has argued that this prohibition, primarily enforced through Sections 23(a) and 23(b), is problematic on several grounds:

• It creates horizontal inequity, treating sole proprietors less favourably than employees or owner-managed companies who can, through different mechanisms (allowances, salary deductions), effectively have the business bear some of the pre-tax cost associated with the individual's ability to work and live.
• It undermines vertical equity and the ability-to-pay principle by taxing income required for basic subsistence, disproportionately affecting lower-income sole proprietors.
• It ignores the economic reality of the sole proprietorship, where the individual owner is the primary income-generating asset. Essential living costs function as necessary maintenance for this "human capital," analogous to deductible maintenance costs for physical business assets – a link severed by the current law.
• The legislative rationale, particularly behind strict rules like the home office exclusivity requirement, appears increasingly misaligned with contemporary work patterns and economic structures, questioning its continued relevance and fairness.

B. Balancing Integrity and Fairness

While the need to protect the tax base from abuse by disallowing purely personal expenses is undeniable 72, the current system achieves this through a blanket prohibition that imposes a considerable burden of unfairness on sole proprietors.105 The cost of this inequity, impacting a large and economically significant group, may be too high. A well-designed tax system should strive to balance the imperative of fiscal integrity with the principles of fairness and economic reality. The current approach arguably fails to strike this balance effectively for sole proprietors regarding their most basic operational necessity: their own subsistence.

C. Final Statement

The unique structure of the sole proprietorship – the legal and economic fusion of the owner and the business – demands a nuanced application of tax deduction principles. The current rigid application of Sections 23(a) and 23(b) fails to acknowledge the direct link between a sole proprietor's essential, non-discretionary living costs and their fundamental capacity to produce income. This results in demonstrable unfairness compared to other taxpayers and potentially distorts economic choices. Therefore, a critical reconsideration of these provisions by policymakers and SARS is strongly urged. Whether through legislative amendment introducing targeted relief, the adoption of simplified deduction mechanisms, or a revised interpretation acknowledging the human capital maintenance aspect, reform is necessary to create a tax environment that is not only administratively sound but also fundamentally fair and equitable for the thousands of South Africans operating as sole proprietors.

Works cited

1. Common Mistakes to Avoid When Registering a Business in South Africa - QuickBooks, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://quickbooks.intuit.com/za/resources/starting-a-business/common-mistakes-to-avoid-when-registering-a-business/
2. Sole Proprietors: How SARS will tax you - Find an Accountant, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.findanaccountant.co.za/content_sole-proprietor-tax
3. The Guide to Small Business Tax | TaxTim SA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.taxtim.com/za/guides/the-guide-to-small-business-tax
4. Sole Proprietorship | South African Revenue Service - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/businesses-and-employers/small-businesses-taxpayers/starting-a-business-and-tax/sole-proprietorship/
5. Earning commission? This is what you can deduct - SA Institute of Taxation - SAIT, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.thesait.org.za/news/244606/Earning-commission-This-is-what-you-can-deduct-.htm
6. Short notes on: DEDUCTIONS FROM TAXABLE INCOME A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL DEDUCTION FORMULA - South African Tax Guide, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sataxguide.co.za/short-notes-on-deductions-from-taxable-income-a-brief-outline-of-the-general-deduction-formula/
7. Tax Guide for Small Businesses - Fincor, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://fincor.co.za/tax-guide-for-small-businesses/
8. Tax Guide for Small Businesses | SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Ops/Guides/LAPD-Gen-G09-Tax-Guide-for-Small-Businesses.pdf
9. N6 Income Tax | PDF | Tax Deduction - Scribd, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/presentation/746413778/N6-Income-Tax
10. The 5 Business Structures In South Africa Explained - ProfitBooks.net, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://profitbooks.net/the-5-business-structures-in-south-africa-explained/
11. TAX CHRONICLES - SAIT, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://thesait.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/TAX-CHRONICLE-AUGUST-2024.pdf
12. Everything small business owners need to know about tax - Old Mutual, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.oldmutual.co.za/articles/everything-small-business-owners-need-to-know-about-tax/
13. Going It Alone: Sole Proprietorships | Intro to Business Class Notes - Fiveable, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/intro-to-business/unit-4/1-alone-sole-proprietorships/study-guide/BMtQ4nZUEUgDpU5Z
14. What is a Sole Proprietorship & How to Start One | Wolters Kluwer, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-is-a-sole-proprietorship-and-how-to-start-one
15. Chapter 4: Forms of Business Ownership - Seneca Polytechnic Pressbooks System, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://pressbooks.senecapolytechnic.ca/introbusiness/chapter/__unknown__/
16. Economic Entity Principle | Importance, Limited Liability, Examples - Carbon Collective, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.carboncollective.co/sustainable-investing/economic-entity-principle
17. Theory of Firms-Industrial Economics. | PDF | Sole Proprietorship | Partnership - Scribd, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://es.scribd.com/document/733839401/THEORY-OF-FIRMS-INDUSTRIAL-ECONOMICS
18. Sole Proprietorship vs. LLC: Key Insights You Need to Know (2024) - Shopify South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.shopify.com/za/blog/sole-proprietorship-vs-llc
19. open.uct.ac.za, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstreams/1ffd8e81-aad7-494c-8b96-c57def52e631/download
20. HORIZONTAL EQUITY IN THE TAXATION OF THE INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE REPUBLIC Of SOUTH AFRICA SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUBMISSION OF T - Unisa Institutional Repository, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/17905/1/thesis_coetzee_k.pdf
21. SARS Tax Deductible Business Expenses in South Africa For 2024/2025 - QuickBooks, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://quickbooks.intuit.com/za/resources/taxes/sars-deductible-business-expenses/
22. Tax-Deductible Expenses for Business: The Complete Guide - FreshBooks, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.freshbooks.com/en-za/hub/taxes/tax-deductible-expenses-sars
23. How does Sole Proprietorship work? : r/PersonalFinanceZA - Reddit, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceZA/comments/1h6dp1o/how_does_sole_proprietorship_work/
24. Separating business and personal expenses (part 1): Why is it necessary? - MMS Group, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.mmsgroup.co.za/separating-business-and-personal-expenses-part-1-why-is-it-necessary/
25. INTERPRETATION NOTE 51 (Issue 6) DATE: 4 October 2023 ACT : INCOME TAX ACT 58 OF 1962 SECTION : SECTIONS 11, 11A AND 23 SUBJECT - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Notes/Legal-IN-51-Pre-trade-expenditure-and-losses.pdf
26. interpretation note: no. 80 - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Notes/LAPD-IntR-IN-2014-05-IN80-Income-Tax-Treatment-of-Stolen-Money.pdf
27. The meaning of "expenditure" for purposes of section 11(a) and (GA) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC125378
28. Section 11A, rental income, spouse, married, property, donations, donor, assessment - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/news/read/faq-property-financed-by-a-taxpayer-but-registered-in-the-spouse-s-name
29. taxfaculty.ac.za, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/news/read/faq-property-financed-by-a-taxpayer-but-registered-in-the-spouse-s-name#:~:text=Section%2011A%20of%20the%20Income,is%20derived%20from%20the%20trade.
30. Expenditure of a capital nature – back to basics - BDO South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.bdo.co.za/en-za/insights/featured-insights/expenditure-of-a-capital-nature-%E2%80%93-back-to-basics
31. DRAFT DRAFT INTERPRETATION NOTE DATE: ACT : INCOME TAX ACT NO. 58 OF 1962 (the Act) SECTIONS - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Drafts/LAPD-LPrep-Draft-2013-09-Draft-Interpretation-Note-Deductibility-Expenditure-and-Losses-arising-from-Embezzlement-or-Theft.pdf
32. South Africa: Deduction of expenses incurred in the production of interest - KPMG International, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2023/08/tnf-sa2-aug4-2023.pdf
33. Tax Treatment of Non-Trade Expenses and Forfeiture of Assessed Losses, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.bdo.co.za/en-za/insights/2024/tax/tax-treatment-of-non-trade-expenses-and-forfeiture-of-assessed-losses
34. Tax-deductibility of Interest on Debt Used to Acquire Shares - BDO South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.bdo.co.za/en-za/insights/2024/tax/tax-deductibility-of-interest-on-debt-used-to-acquire-shares
35. General rules regarding interest deductibility - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/news/read/general-rules-regarding-interest-deductibility
36. Deductible expenses, production of income, staff costs - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/news/read/faq-the-deduction-of-expenses-incurred-when-taking-staff-on-a-weekend-away
37. Did you know you can claim back on tax when self-employed?, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://partners.24.com/sage-tax-year-end/did-you-know-you-can-claim-back-on-tax-when-self-employed/
38. What can I deduct as business expenses for tax? - Anlo Financial Solutions, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://anlo.co.za/blogs-and-articles/what-can-i-deduct-as-business-expenses-for-tax
39. Self-Employed Expenses - What can you claim - Zeelie Professional Accountants SA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.zeeliepasa.co.za/blog/self-employed-expenses---what-can-you-claim.html
40. What you can and can't claim–a tax guide for the self-employed | Sage Advice South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sage.com/en-za/blog/what-you-can-and-cant-claim-a-tax-guide-for-the-self-employed/
41. 8 Lesser-Known Tax Deductible Expenses - Exceed, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.exceed.co.za/8-lesser-known-tax-deductible-expenses/
42. A Guide To Self-Employed Expenses | QuickBooks South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://quickbooks.intuit.com/za/resources/taxes/self-employed-expenses-all-you-need-to-know/
43. What Tax Deductions Can Your Business Make | Sourcefin, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sourcefin.co.za/claiming-tax-deductions/
44. The Supreme Court of Appeal speaks on the apportionment of expenditure - SAIT, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.thesait.org.za/news/166837/The-Supreme-Court-of-Appeal-speaks-on-the-apportionment-of-expenditure-.htm
45. Does section 23(m) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 rationally differentiate - University of Pretoria, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/82933/Botha_Tax_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
46. Nonprofit Law in South Africa | Council on Foundations, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://cof.org/content/nonprofit-law-south-africa
47. DRAFT DRAFT INTERPRETATION NOTE 28 (Issue 3) DATE: ACT : INCOME TAX ACT 58 OF 1962 SECTION - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/Legal/Drafts/LPrep-Draft-2021-22-Draft-IN-28-Issue-3-Deductions-of-home-office-expenses-incurred-by-persons-in-employment-or-persons-holding-an-office-14-May-2021.pdf
48. Home Office expenses, deductions and tax - Fincor, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://fincor.co.za/home-office-expenses-deductions-and-tax/
49. Personal services companies and the Constitution - Sabinet African Journals, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA02500329_6770
50. Navigating the Tax Implications for Personal Service ProvidersNavigating the Tax Implications for Personal Service Providers – The Core Group, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://thecoregroup.associates/navigating-the-tax-implications-for-personal-service-providersnavigating-the-tax-implications-for-personal-service-providers/
51. TAX RELIEF TO EMPLOYERS OF DOMESTIC WORKERS AS A MEANS OF ADDRESSING UNEMPLOYMENT - ResearchSpace@UKZN, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/bitstreams/6d905071-7542-46f6-a2f3-fabd535fd550/download
52. WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS – A REVIEW OF GENDER BIAS IN SOUTH AFRICAN TAX LAW by Taskeen Jaffer 16071809 Submitted in p - University of Pretoria, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/80447/Jaffer_Women_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
53. (1 April 2019 – to date) INCOME TAX ACT 58 OF 1962 (Gazette No. 250, Notice No. 827, dated 29 May 1962. Commencement date - LPH Chartered Accountants, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.lph.co.za/dev/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Income-Tax-Act-58-of-1962.pdf
54. A Tax Deduction for Home Office Expenditure: The Interpretation of and Proposed Removal of the Exclusive-Use Requirement in Section 23(b) of the Income Tax Act - SciELO SA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1727-37812024000100056&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
55. Deducting Home Study Expenditure - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/news/read/deducting-home-study-expenditure
56. Claassen, P---"A Tax Deduction for Home Office Expenditure: The Interpretation of and Proposed Removal of the Exclusive-Use Requirement in Section 23(b) of the Income Tax Act" [2024] PER 37 - SAFLII, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www1.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2024/37.html
57. A Tax Deduction for Home Office Expenditure: The Interpretation of and Proposed Removal of the Exclusive-Use Requirement in Section 23(b) of the Income Tax Act, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/16833
58. Home Office Expenses | South African Revenue Service - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/types-of-tax/personal-income-tax/filing-season/home-office-expenses/
59. Tax Deduction for Home Office Expenses. Do You Qualify? - Moore South Africa, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.moore-southafrica.com/news-views/june-2021/tax-deduction-for-home-office-expenses-do-you-qual
60. Draft Interpretation note on home office expenses #ThinkTAX #ThinkPKF, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://pkf.co.za/media/mnymswjx/draft-interpretation-note-on-home-office-expenses.pdf
61. Home office tax deductions: Tax professional weighs in on the latest updates from SARS on what you can and cannot claim for | Hobbs Sinclair, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.hobbsinc.co.za/home-office-tax-deductions-tax-professional-weighs-in-on-the-latest-updates-from-sars-on-what-you-can-and-cannot-claim-for/
62. Consider your home office this tax season - Adriaans Attorneys, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://adriaansattorneys.com/consider-your-home-office-this-tax-season/
63. A Tax Deduction for Home Office Expenditure: The Interpretation of and Proposed Removal of the Exclusive-Use Requirement in Section - SciELO SA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scielo.org.za/pdf/pelj/v27n1/56.pdf
64. University of Cape Town, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstreams/572a0dfb-1401-4074-a109-dd8857f52451/download
65. FAQ | I keep getting the error below, im sending the mail instead, please would you be able to clarify as per SARS's response SARS is of the opinion that the interest is excessive in terms of Section 11(a) read with Section 23(g) how do they determine 'excessiv - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/faq/general_faqs/solution/401
66. ANALYSIS: Arm's length pricing between connected persons - Accountancy SA, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.accountancysa.org.za/analysis-arms-length-pricing-between-connected-persons/
67. FAQ | I have a client that started an Uber business and purchased vehicles to be used in this trade. These vehicles would be used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade and there would be no element of private use. - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/faq/general_faqs/solution/1201
68. FAQ | Will it be allowed by SARS if a sole proprietor give themselves a travel allowance from their business which they then claim a deduction against with a logbook? They will not be depreciating the vehicle that they drive. Or will SARS only allow the sole proprietor to deduct actual expenses incurred for travelling and depreciation for the vehicle? The latter will be less tax beneficial. - The Tax Faculty, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfaculty.ac.za/faq/general_faqs/solution/1712
69. Tax Guide 2022/2023 | PKF, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://pkf.co.za/media/cq0bm11y/pkf-tax-guide-2022-2023.pdf
70. 10 South African Tax Facts for Business Owners - MMS Group, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.mmsgroup.co.za/10-sa-tax-facts-every-business-should-know/
71. What expenses can I deduct from my business?, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://smartaboutmoney.co.za/planning-for-life/your-own-small-business/what-expenses-can-i-deduct-from-my-business/
72. Crossing the line: Legal risks of using company funds for personal ..., accessed on May 2, 2025, https://gvinc.co.za/crossing-the-line-legal-risks-of-using-company-funds-for-personal-expenses/
73. South Africa - Individual - Deductions - PwC Tax Summaries, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/south-africa/individual/deductions
74. Tax Budget Guide 2025/2026 - KPMG International, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/za/pdf/2025/Budget%20guide%202025%20Final%20%202.pdf
75. Individual Deductions | South African Revenue Service - SARS, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.sars.gov.za/individuals/i-need-help-with-my-tax/your-tax-questions-answered/individual-deductions/
76. South Africa - Corporate - Branch income - PwC Tax Summaries, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/south-africa/corporate/branch-income
77. The Taxation of Discretionary Income - UNT Libraries, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/comments/_files/TheTaxationofIncomeAvailableforDiscretionaryUse.doc
78. Incorporation and Taxation: Theory and Firm-level Evidence, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://oxfordtax.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sitefiles/wp0908.pdf-0
79. the taxation ®f imputed income an the rule in - The Canadian Bar Review, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/download/2920/2913/2920
80. Taxing Status: Tax Treatment of Mixed Business and Personal Expenses - Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1493&context=jbl
81. ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY STATE - NYU Law, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Malman[1].I...
82. TIME FOR US TAX REFORM? THE TAX REFORM PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS - Rice Research Repository, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://repository.rice.edu/bitstreams/19468d87-46c7-4116-a059-860ba931359a/download
83. 19. TAX EXPENDITURES | Treasury, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Tax-Expenditures-FY2006.pdf
84. Some Income Tax Simplification Proposals - Scholarship Repository, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=lr
85. US Taxation of Americans Abroad - KPMG LLP, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/08/us-taxation-of-americans-abroad-2015.pdf
86. How to Approach Tax Negotiation With the IRS Effectively, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://accountinginsights.org/how-to-approach-tax-negotiation-with-the-irs-effectively/
87. Introduction: A Principled Approach to Tax Expenditures - Mercatus Center, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/introduction-principled-approach-tax-expenditures
88. OPTIMAL TAXATION AND HUMAN CAPITAL POLICIES OVER THE LIFE CYCLE Stefanie Stantcheva Working Paper 21207, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21207/w21207.pdf
89. Taxing Human Capital, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/2014/059-simkovic-taxing-human-capital.pdf
90. Using Human Capital Theory to Establish a Potential Income Tax - International Center for Public Policy, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://icepp.gsu.edu/files/2015/03/ispwp0710.pdf
91. The Taxation of Capital and Labor Through the Self-Employment Tax - Congressional Budget Office, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-27-SECA.pdf
92. Optimal Taxation and Human Capital Policies over the Life Cycle Stefanie Stantcheva - Harvard University, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/s_stantcheva_humancapital.pdf
93. Optimal Taxation and Human Capital Policies over the Life Cycle - Harvard University, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantcheva/files/s_stantcheva_jmp.pdf
94. Tax Policy and Entrepreneurship: A Framework for Analysis - Tax Foundation, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tax-policy-entrepreneurship/
95. Navigating Business Expense Deductions - Anlo Financial Solutions, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://anlo.co.za/blogs-and-articles/navigating-business-expense-deductions
96. Business Deduction for Personal Living Expenses: A ... - SciSpace, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scispace.com/pdf/business-deduction-for-personal-living-expenses-a-uniform-tcdsfsj3lg.pdf
97. Home Office Deduction in Need of Repair: Applying Mixed-Use, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64992/OSLJ_V60N1_0199.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
98. (PDF) Recommendations for Improving Tax Compliance by South African Airbnb Hosts, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320245140_Recommendations_for_Improving_Tax_Compliance_by_South_African_Airbnb_Hosts
99. The Deductibility of Daily Transportation Expenses To and From Distant Temporary Work Sites - Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2819&context=vlr
100. Common mistakes when filing a return - SA Institute of Taxation - SAIT, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.thesait.org.za/news/460261/Common-mistakes-when-filing-a-return.htm
101. Common Tax Mistakes To Avoid In 2025: Don't Let Errors Cost You - Thrive CFO, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://thrivecfo.co.za/common-tax-mistakes-to-avoid-in-2025/
102. Tax Trouble? Avoid These 9 Common And Costly Mistakes - Thrive CFO, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://thrivecfo.co.za/tax-trouble-avoid-these-9-common-and-costly-mistakes/
103. Expanding the Study of Comparative Tax Law to Promote Democratic Policy: The Example of the Move to Capital Gains Taxation in Po, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=fac-works
104. Simple, Fair, and Pro-Growth: Proposals to Fix America's Tax System - Treasury, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Report-Fix-Tax-System-2005.pdf
105. www.jutajournals.co.za, accessed on May 2, 2025, https://www.jutajournals.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Afr_Multi_discipline_Tax_journal_Book_2023_02.pdf