Blogs & News

Die Openbare Beleggingskorporasie (OBK) van Suid-Afrika is ‘n staatsbeheerde batebestuurder wat tans meer as R3 triljoen bestuur namens die Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), die grootste pensioenfonds in Afrika. Die OBK is tans in die kollig oor kommer weens bestuur, politieke inmenging en die veiligheid van staatsamptenare se pensioengeld. Nuwe wetgewende verwikkelinge, insluitend die voorgestelde Pension Protection Bill, poog om die OBK se raad te depolitiseer en die fonds se integriteit te beskerm. Kortom, die huidige omstredenheid gaan nie bloot net oor die pensioenfonds self nie, maar veral oor hoe die OBK bestuur word en hoe onafhanklik dit van politieke invloed funksioneer. Die jongste verwikkelinge rondom die OBK blyk ernstig te wees. In Julie vanjaar is die uitvoerende hoof van die OBK, Patrick Dlamini, op voorsorgskorsing geplaas na ‘n fluitjieblaserklag. Verskeie nie-uitvoerende direkteure het ook bedank. Hierbenewens is daar ondersoeke deur die finansiële sektorreguleerder en daarmee saam ‘n hewige debat oor die rol van die minister en die OBK-raad. Hoop is op die DA se Ashor Sarupen, adjunk minister van finansies, geplaas om die nuwe uitvoerende hoof van die OBK te word. In stede daarvan het die ANC vir Seiso Mohai, adjunk minister van beplanning, monitering en evaluering, aangestel asook sewe nie-uitvoerende direksielede. Die GEPF het onlangs wysigings aan sy reëls ingestel, onder meer oor diensjare en oorlewende voordele. Hierdie tegniese aanpassings is belangrik, maar kan die OBK werklik die geld van miljoene werknemers beskerm? Vakbonde en burgerregte organisasies waarsku dat wanbestuur en korrupsie pensioengeld kan dreineer. Wetgewing is nou deur die DA voorgestel, die sogenaamde Pension Protection Bill, wat sal poog om die OBK se raad te depolitiseer. Die voorgestelde wet beoog onder meer onafhanklike aanstellings en ‘n nie-politieke voorsitter. Die hervormingsinisiatiewe kan beskou word as ‘n reaksie op ‘n breër krisis van vertroue. Voorstanders van depolitisering argumenteer dat onafhanklike toesig noodsaaklik is om die OBK se geloofwaardigheid te herstel en korrupsie te beperk. Kritici wys egter daarop dat probleme nie slegs in die samestelling van die raad lê nie, maar ook in die kultuur van bestuur en die gebrek aan konsekwente aanspreeklikheid. Die OBK-situasie illustreer dus die spanning tussen politieke verantwoordbaarheid en institusionele onafhanklikheid in staatsfinansies. Uiteindelik behoort die kernvraag eenvoudig die volgende te wees: Wie se geld is dit? Dit is nie die regering se geld nie. Dit is die aftreegeld van mense wat onderwys gegee, siekes versorg, polisiëring gedoen en ander openbare dienste gelewer het. Hulle het nie hulle pensioenbydraes gemaak om politieke doelwitte te finansier nie. Wanneer politiek, persoonlike belange en beleggingsbesluite in een vloei, is die prys die toekoms van gewone mense. Ten slotte. Die OBK en die GEPF bevind hulle op ‘n kritieke kruispad. Hervormings kan die pad baan na groter deursigtigheid en sekuriteit, maar die sukses daarvan hang af van daadwerklike implimentering en ‘n verbintenis tot goeie korporatiewe bestuur. Die OBK se stabibliteit is nie bloot ‘n tegniese kwessie nie; dit is ‘n toets vir die land se vermoë om groot staatsfondse verantwoordelik te bestuur en die belange van miljoene werknemers te beskerm. Geskryf deur Koos van die Waterberge vir Bovest

Ek het self drie kinders en dink gereeld oor hoe en wanneer ’n mens hulle by die familie se finansies moet begin betrek. Waar trek ’n mens die lyn tussen om vir jou kinders goeie geleenthede te gee en om hulle te bederf? Moet hulle sakgeld ontvang? Moet hulle daarvoor werk, of moet dit gekoppel wees aan die waarde wat hulle skep? En wanneer begin ’n mens met hulle praat oor wat die familie besit en wat hulle moontlik eendag kan erf? Daar is baie verskillende sienings hieroor, en ek is nie seker dat daar net een regte manier is nie. Elke kind en elke familie verskil. Wat vir die een gesin werk, gaan nie noodwendig vir ’n ander werk nie. Waarvan ek wel al hoe meer oortuig raak, is dat ons met ons kinders oor geld móét praat. Die gesprek begin lank voor ’n erfenis Wanneer kinders nog jonk is, hoef die gesprek nie oor die waarde van die familie se beleggings of eiendom te gaan nie. Dit kan bloot begin by hoe geld werk. Hulle kan leer dat ’n mens nie alles kan kry wat jy wil hê nie. Geld word verdien, ’n deel word bestee, ’n deel word gespaar en ’n deel kan gebruik word om ander mense te help. Sakgeld kan ook deel van hierdie leerproses wees. Sommige ouers gee ’n vaste bedrag sodat kinders kan leer begroot. Ander verkies dat kinders daarvoor moet werk of op ’n manier waarde moet skep. Albei benaderings kan waarskynlik werk. Die belangrikste is dat kinders begin verstaan dat geld keuses, verantwoordelikheid en gevolge meebring. Namate hulle ouer word, kan die gesprek ontwikkel. Hulle kan meer leer oor skuld, belasting, beleggings, saamgestelde groei en waarom ’n mens soms vandag iets prysgee om later meer keuses te hê. Dit beteken nie dat ’n mens noodwendig vir hulle presies hoef te vertel hoeveel geld daar is nie. Om kinders finansieel op te voed en om die familie se finansiële syfers bekend te maak, is nie dieselfde ding nie. Wat ons by ouer kliënte sien Hierdie gesprek word belangriker namate ouers ouer word. Ons sien gereeld families waarin die ouers al die finansiële besluite geneem het, terwyl die kinders min weet van hoe die familie se sake gestruktureer is. Die kinders weet dalk nie waar die beleggings gehou word, wie die adviseurs is, wat in die testament staan of wat die plan vir die besigheid, plaas of ander eiendom is nie. Dit raak veral belangrik wanneer daar verskillende bates en verskillende kinders betrokke is. Gaan die besigheid na een kind? Gaan die plaas na ’n ander? Hoe word die ander kinders billik behandel? Is daar genoeg kontant in die boedel om belasting, koste en ander verpligtinge te betaal, of sal bates noodgedwonge verkoop moet word? Dit is nie maklike gesprekke nie. Ons stel dit dikwels uit omdat niemand graag oor afsterwe wil praat nie. Dit voel ongemaklik en ver weg. Die ironie is egter dat ons almal weet dit gaan een of ander tyd gebeur. Ons weet net nie wanneer nie. Maak dit ’n menslike gesprek ’n Familiegesprek oor finansies hoef nie ’n formele vergadering te wees waarin elke bedrag en dokument op die tafel geplaas word nie. Dit kan eenvoudig begin met: “Ons wil hê julle moet verstaan hoe ons sake werk en wat die plan sal wees indien iets met ons gebeur.” Van daar af kan ’n mens verduidelik: Wie die belangrike adviseurs en kontakpersone is. Waar die testament en ander dokumente gehou word. Hoe die beleggings, trust, besigheid of plaas gestruktureer is. Wat met die verskillende bates behoort te gebeur. Wie waarskynlik verantwoordelikheid vir bepaalde sake sal aanvaar. Waarom sekere besluite geneem is. Dit gee kinders ook die geleentheid om vrae te vra en moontlike misverstande uit die weg te ruim terwyl die ouers nog self die redes vir hul besluite kan verduidelik. Begin by die waardes, nie die waarde nie Die belangrikste gesprek gaan waarskynlik nie oor presies hoeveel geld daar is nie. Dit gaan oor die verhaal agter die geld. Hoe is dit opgebou? Watter werk, opofferings en risiko’s was nodig? Watter geleenthede moet dit skep? En watter verantwoordelikheid kom daarmee saam? Goeie boedelbeplanning gaan dus oor meer as ’n testament, belasting en voldoende kontant in die boedel. Dit gaan ook daaroor om die mense wat die bates gaan ontvang, voor te berei vir die verantwoordelikheid wat daarmee saamkom. Ons moet daarom nie net vra: “Wat gaan ons kinders eendag erf?” Ons moet ook vra: “Verstaan hulle wat hulle gaan erf, waarom dit opgebou is en wat ons hoop hulle daarmee sal doen?” Daar is dalk nie een regte manier om met kinders oor geld te praat nie. Maar om nooit daaroor te praat nie, is waarskynlik die grootste risiko van almal.

Die woord “aftrede” beteken om jou aan jou loopbaan te “onttrek” en dit te vervang met ’n lewe van “ontspanning” en “niks doen”. Navorsing toon egter dat hierdie siening van aftrede besig is om te verander. Al hoe meer ouer mans en vroue is produktief en betrokke by die gemeenskappe waarin hulle leef. In die welvaartbestuursomgewing weet ons dat persone aftreekapitaal geskep het terwyl hulle aktief hul loopbane gevolg het en dat hierdie kapitaal met aftrede benut word om hul lewenstandaard te befonds. Die huidige veranderende tendense wys dat afgetredenes steeds betrokke wil bly by aktiwiteite waarin hulle ’n opbouende rol speel. Genoemde veranderende aftreetendense sal in die volgende nuusbriewe van Bovest bespreek word. In hierdie artikel word meer inligting oor moontlike behuisingsopsies bespreek. • Wat is my nuwe woonadres? Die kinders het hul “grootwordhuis” verlaat en die onderhoud aan die huis en tuin tap die energie en finansies van die afgetrede huiseienaar. Die emosionele verbintenis aan die huis waarin die kinders grootgeword het, is ’n realiteit. Wanneer die kinders egter navraag doen oor wanneer hul ouers gaan begin afskaal deur die huis te verkoop, ontwikkel nuwe perspektiewe. Die soektog na ’n nuwe woonadres het begin. Die behuisingstatistieke van persone van 60 jaar en ouer in Suid-Afrika wys dat die meerderheid in hul eie woonhuise bly. Daar bestaan egter, volgens die eiendomsontledingsmaatskappy Lightstone, ’n stygende tendens dat meer afgetredenes na aftreekomplekse verhuis. Hierdie tendens word gedryf deur die groeiende bevolking van ouer persone, veranderende lewensstylvoorkeure, asook die groter behoefte aan finansiële sekuriteit. Wanneer daar besluit word om eiendom in genoemde aftreeoorde te koop, bestaan daar ’n keuse tussen eiendomsreg en verblyfreg. In eersgenoemde opsie word eiendomsreg deur die koper verkry, wat vererf kan word, terwyl verblyfreg slegs die reg tot verblyf bied – wat verval met die afsterwe van die langslewende. Die vereensaamheid van afgetredenes, veral ná die dood van ’n lewensmaat, is ’n moontlikheid wat veral in alleenstaande woonhuise in ’n woonbuurt kan voorkom. Die geleentheid wat aftreekomplekse egter bied om sosiaal deel te wees van ’n gemeenskap van afgetredenes, help om vereensaamheid teen te werk. Persoonlike sekuriteit, asook mediese versorging, is verdere voordele wat aftreekomplekse bied. Die nadele van aftreekomplekse is eerstens dat die finansiële koste om daar te woon hoog kan wees, en kosteberekeninge moet vroegtydig gedoen word om te verseker dat die finansiële onafhanklikheid van inwoners nie in gedrang kom nie. Tweedens moet daar seker gemaak word dat die reëls van die kompleks die persoonlike privaatheid van sy inwoners beskerm. Ten slotte kan veranderende behuisingstendense vir afgetredenes ten beste benut word deur vooraf persoonlike finansiële ontledings te doen oor die bekostigbaarheid van moontlike keuses.

Suid-Afrika se Protea F-Ope-span het homself as die beste ter wêreld bewys deur die VSA met 18 punte te klop en die F-Ope-spanwêreldtitel (die Farquharson-beker) te verower. Die sewende F-Klas-wêreldkampioenskap is van 10 tot 16 Augustus by die National Shooting Centre in Bisley, Engeland, gehou, met meer as 220 skuts van meer as 19 lande wat aan die individuele kompetisie deelgeneem het en tien nasionale spanne wat om die spantitel meegeding het. Dit was 'n besondere prestasie: die VSA word as een van die sterkste F-Ope-lande ter wêreld beskou, met 'n groot poel skuts en uitstekende toerusting, en het reeds die wêreldtitels van 2017 en 2023 gewen — albei kere met slegs vyf punte. Spankaptein Jan Swanepoel het gesê die 18-punt-oorwinning dié keer wys hoe goed die Suid-Afrikaanse span dwarsdeur die wedstryd gevaar het. Die span, bestaande uit 12 skuts, twee windafrigters, 'n kaptein en 'n bestuurder, het op die eerste dag reeds 'n sterk indruk gemaak deur op 800 m en 900 m uitstekend te skiet ondanks moeilike windtoestande — 'n prestasie wat die span 'n 25-punt voorsprong op dag een besorg het. Volgens Swanepoel was dit nie een spesifieke skoot wat die titel verseker het nie, maar eerder die somtotaal van baie goeie besluite, konsekwente skietwerk en spanwerk oor die hele kampioenskap. Onder die skuts wat namens Suid-Afrika gekompeteer het, was Werner Prinsloo — 'n kliënt van Bovest.

Most divorcing couples fight over the house, the cars, or who gets the dog. Retirement savings barely get a mention until months later, when someone asks their adviser what actually happens to their pension fund now that they're divorced. By then, the assumptions they were working from are usually wrong. What happens to your retirement investments in a divorce comes down to two things: how you're married, and what stage your investment is in. Start with the marriage. If you're married in community of property, everything you and your spouse own falls into one joint estate, including retirement savings built up during the marriage. That estate gets divided when the marriage ends, and your spouse has a claim on your pension interest. If you're married out of community of property with accrual, your estates stay separate, but the spouse whose estate grew the most during the marriage owes the other spouse a claim equal to half the difference, and retirement fund growth counts towards that number. If you're married out of community of property without accrual, your estates stay entirely separate, and so does your pension. Your spouse has no automatic claim on it at all. So the contract you signed years ago quietly decides how your retirement savings get treated on the way out. Now the second question: is your investment still growing, or already paying you an income? Pension funds, provident funds, preservation funds, and retirement annuities that are still accumulating are all treated the same way under the law. Section 37D of the Pension Funds Act allows a portion of that fund, the pension interest, to be paid out to the non-member spouse immediately on divorce, without waiting for the member to retire or resign. That's the clean-break principle, and it's been law since 2007. The non-member spouse can take their share in cash, which is taxed in their hands, or transfer it into their own retirement fund and keep the tax benefit intact. If you belong to the Government Employees Pension Fund, the same clean-break idea applies, but the mechanics differ because the GEPF isn't regulated by the Pension Funds Act; it runs under its own legislation. Since 2011, the GEPF has paid a portion to the non-member spouse in much the same way private funds do. Where it differs is how the fund recovers that amount from you afterwards. Instead of creating a debt that you had to repay with interest, as it once did, the GEPF now reduces your years of pensionable service to reflect what was already paid out. That quietly lowers your eventual benefit, so it's worth building into your retirement planning rather than discovering it later. Living annuities work differently again. By the time you're in one, you've already retired, and the capital technically belongs to the insurer, not you. What you hold is a contractual right to draw an income from it for the rest of your life. That means a living annuity doesn't count as pension interest, and an ex-spouse can't simply claim a slice of it the way they could with a pension fund. But the right to keep receiving that income is still worth something, and the courts have found ways to bring that value into account. Read our previous article on this here: https://www.bovest.co.za/living-annuities-and-divorce Here's a case worth knowing about, because it shows how a badly worded divorce order can leave someone chasing their ex-spouse personally for money that should have come straight from the fund. Mrs Swemmer's divorce order stated that she was entitled to the “full proceeds” of her husband's retirement annuities, held with Old Mutual and Sanlam. When she tried to claim, both insurers refused to pay out the full amount. She took them to court, and in 2004 the Supreme Court of Appeal sided with the insurers. The Divorce Act, the court explained, only deems a specific, narrowly defined slice of a retirement fund — the “pension interest”, roughly what the member would have received had they resigned on the date of divorce — to be an asset that can be assigned to a non-member spouse. Anything beyond that isn't binding on the fund, no matter what the divorce order says, because the Pension Funds Act specifically prevents a member's benefit from being ceded or transferred outside that narrow exception. The lesson: a divorce settlement is only as good as the wording used in it. If the order doesn't track the statutory definition precisely, the fund is entitled to refuse payment, and you're left pursuing your ex-spouse personally for a shortfall that should never have existed. A few things worth doing if this applies to you: Get retirement fund statements and living annuity valuations to your adviser and attorney early, not once the settlement is already being drafted. Make sure the divorce order's wording tracks the statutory definition of pension interest exactly. Funds won't act on anything less precise. Update your beneficiary nominations the moment the decree is final. Divorce doesn't automatically remove an ex-spouse from a nomination form. This is general information, not advice tailored to your specific situation.  Ruvan J Grobler FSA® (PGDip Financial Planning)

Internasionale lughawens in Suid-Afrika is bedrywig gedurende skoolvakansies, want kinders en kleinkinders wat oorsee woon, kom vir hul jaarlikse besoek by oupa en ouma kuier. Dit is opmerklik dat, wanneer die kinders in die ontvangslokale aankom, die glimlagte en opgewondenheid aansteeklik is. Die teenoorgestelde emosies is egter teenwoordig in die vertreklokale twee of drie weke later. Wanneer jy persoonlik deur hierdie emosionele ervarings geraak word, besef 'n ouer hoe hierdie realiteit, wat in baie Suid-Afrikaanse gesinne voorkom, jou familie se finansiële plan beïnvloed. Kom ons bespreek 'n paar aspekte hiervan: Jaarlikse reise na familie wat oorsee woon, is duur en daarom moet daarvoor begroot word. Nie alle kinders wat oorsee werk, het 'n standhoudende inkomste om hul lewenstandaard te befonds nie. Die moontlikheid bestaan daarom dat hulle soms deur hul ouers finansieel ondersteun moet word. Die beplanning van vererwing aan kinders is uniek omdat vaste bates hierdeur geraak word. Dit is byvoorbeeld nie prakties om die familie se woonhuis aan 'n kind wat oorsee woon, te laat vererf nie. Dit is bekend dat familiewelvaart meer as net materiële besittings behels. Daarom behoort familielede met mekaar gesprek te voer oor hoe familiebande sterk gehou kan word nadat vererwing plaasgevind het. Blootstelling aan die daaglikse ekonomiese aktiwiteite van ander lande verbreed die ervaringswêreld van kinders wat oorsee woon. Hierdie nuutgevonde kennis en ervaring kan weer met die Suid-Afrikaanse familielede gedeel word. Dit is bekend dat arbeid in ekonomies ontwikkelde lande, soos die VSA, Australië en verskeie Europese lande, duur is. Daarom moet daar begroot word vir enige arbeid wat oorsee benodig word, veral indien ondersteuningsdienste benodig word. Daar bestaan min twyfel dat die ervaring wat kinders oorsee opdoen, plaaslike finansiële beplanning binne families beïnvloed. Hierdie nuwe werkservarings kan ook 'n positiewe bydrae lewer tot die skepping en behoud van die familie se welvaart.

Is investing offshore just for people who've given up on South Africa? I get some version of this question a lot, and the honest answer is no. It's really just about not keeping all your eggs in one rand-denominated basket. And it got a lot more relevant this year, because in April 2026 the Reserve Bank doubled the Single Discretionary Allowance from R1 million to R2 million per person, per year. That's a meaningful jump, and it's worth understanding properly before you use it. Here's how the allowance system actually works. Every South African resident over 18 gets a Single Discretionary Allowance of R2 million a year. No SARS approval, no tax clearance, you just instruct your bank and off it goes, for travel, gifts, or offshore investing. On top of that sits the Foreign Investment Allowance, up to another R10 million a year, but that one needs a SARS Approval for International Transfer first, which comes off your tax compliance status on eFiling. Between the two, that's R12 million per person, per year, without needing special Reserve Bank sign-off. A couple, or a family with adult kids, can add that up quickly. Worth knowing too, this is different from the rand-denominated offshore funds most people already hold through their local platforms. Those use asset swap or feeder structures, and your allowance never actually leaves the country. Direct offshore investing means the money physically converts to dollars, pounds or euros and sits in an account in your own name, offshore. Different animal, different mechanics. Side note: if you've got a retirement annuity, you already have some offshore exposure, Regulation 28 lets retirement funds hold up to 45% offshore. That's real diversification, but it's locked inside a retirement structure with its own rules on access and estate treatment. Using your personal allowance is a completely separate lever, money you actually hold in your own name, offshore, that you can access, restructure or leave to whoever you want without waiting for retirement age. Who actually uses this in practice? Families with kids studying or working abroad. People planning to retire partly offshore, or just wanting a foreign currency buffer for when they travel. Business owners who've built most of their wealth locally and want a real counterweight sitting outside the country. It's rarely about chasing better returns, it's about not having every asset you own exposed to the same risks at the same time. So why bother with the direct route? Two reasons come up in almost every conversation I have about this: currency, and geography. On currency, if your salary is in rand, your house is in rand and your whole portfolio is in rand, your entire financial life rises and falls with one currency. Holding some of your wealth in hard currency doesn't mean you think the rand is doomed, it just means you're not betting your whole future on one outcome either way. On geography, the JSE makes up less than 1% of total global stock market value. Some of the biggest growth stories in the world right now, in tech, in healthcare, aren't listed here at all. Investing offshore isn't a vote against South Africa, it's just access to the other 99%. Now here's a case worth knowing about, because it shows how badly this can go if someone tries to get clever with the rules instead of just following them. In Singh v South African Reserve Bank, decided by the Pretoria High Court in 2023, an attorney and businessman moved R80 million between local accounts, with about R20 million of it headed for a UK bank account. The problem wasn't the amount, it was how it moved, in R1 million chunks, each one apparently using someone else's Single Discretionary Allowance instead of his own. His bank picked it up and reported it to the Reserve Bank, who placed a blocking order on the remaining R40 million sitting in his account back home. He went to court arguing his bank had approved the transfers, so it must have been fine. The court didn't agree. A bank can't lawfully approve something that breaches exchange control in the first place, and the blocking order stood. If you genuinely need to move more than R2 million a year, that's exactly what the Foreign Investment Allowance is for. It just takes proper paperwork, not creativity.  A few practical things that catch people out: Your allowance resets every calendar year, it doesn't carry over if you don't use it. A clean SARS record matters. Outstanding returns or disputes will delay your approval, and it can take up to three weeks even when everything's in order. Financial institutions want proof of where the money actually came from, especially as the amount grows. Moving a big amount in one go means you're stuck with whatever the exchange rate happens to be that day, that's a separate risk from the compliance side, and worth thinking through. One more thing, since estate planning is where I spend most of my time. Assets held directly offshore, in your own name, usually fall under the estate administration rules of wherever they're held, not just South Africa's. That can mean your executor needs a foreign grant of probate before anything can be dealt with, on top of the local process. It doesn't mean don't do it. It just means the structure deserves as much thought as the decision to invest offshore in the first place. This is general information, not advice tailored to your situation. Ruvan J Grobler FSA® PGDip (Financial planning)

Die immigrantekwessie het die afgelope paar jaar een van die mees omstrede politieke en sosiale onderwerpe in Suid-Afrika geword. Openbare debat word dikwels aangevuur deur kommer oor werkloosheid, misdaad, druk op openbare dienste en die teenwoordigheid van ongedokumenteerde immigrante. In dieselfde asem waarsku navorsers dat 'n groot deel van die debat deur wanopvattings en emosies beïnvloed word eerder as deur feite. Kom ons kyk na die bekommernisse en die feite. Eerstens is daar opvattings oor die getal immigrante in Suid-Afrika. Volgens die jongste data het Suid-Afrika tussen ongeveer 2,4 en 2,6 miljoen buitelandsgebore inwoners. Dit verteenwoordig sowat vier persent van die totale bevolking van ongeveer 63 miljoen mense. Die grootste groepe kom uit Zimbabwe, Mosambiek, Lesotho en Malawi. Werkloosheid vorm 'n tweede bekommernis. Suid-Afrika het een van die hoogste werkloosheidskoerse ter wêreld. Baie Suid-Afrikansers ervaar dat immigrante werksgeleenthede wegneem, veral in die informele sektor, kleinhandel, konstruksie en landbou. Die oorsake van werkloosheid lê waarskynlik veel dieper en hou verband met swak ekonomiese groei, onvoldoende vaardighede, korrupsie en beperkte belegging. 'n Derde bekommernis is druk op openbare dienste. Hospitale, skole, behuisingsprojekte en munisipale dienste verkeer reeds, soos dit is, onder groot druk. Waar immigrante hierdie dienste gebruik, ontstaan die persepsie dat skaars hulpbronne verder uitgedun word. Dit is moeilik om die impak werklik te meet. 'n Vierde bekommernis hou verband met ongedokumenteerde immigrasie. Daar bestaan wydverspreide kritiek dat die staat nie sy grense doeltreffend beheer nie. Selfs mense wat positief teenoor immigrasie staan, erken dikwels dat beter administrasie en grensbeheer nodig is. 'n Vyfde bekommernis is misdaad en veiligheid. Sommige politieke groepe verbind immigrasie met misdaad. Statistiese bewyse toon egter nie dat immigrante as groep vir die meeste misdaad verantwoordelik is nie. Tog bly die persepsie sterk, veral in gemeenskappe wat reeds deur misdaad geteister word. Die debat word verder bemoeilik deur die verskil tussen wettige immigrante, vlugtelinge, asielsoekers en ongedokumenteerde persone. Hierdie groepe word dikwels in die openbare debat saamgegooi. Die immigrasievraagstuk gaan dus oor veel meer as net die persentasie immigrante. Dit raak die ekonomie, staatskapasiteit, grensbeheer en die publiek se vertroue in die regering. Die onderliggende probleme van werkloosheid, armoede en swak dienslewering bly waarskynlik die grootste drywers van die huidige spanning. 'n Volhoubare oplossing sal daarom waarskynlik beter immigrasiebestuur en sterker ekonomiese groei vereis. Geksryf deur Koos van die Waterberge vir Bovest

Dear Client, Tax season is here again, and many South Africans will receive an auto-assessment from SARS. Auto-assessments can be very convenient. SARS uses information from employers, medical schemes, retirement funds, banks and investment providers to pre-populate your tax return. In many cases, this makes the process quicker and easier. However, easier does not always mean correct. We have already seen cases where auto-assessments were not fully accurate or where important information still needed to be checked. That is why our message this tax season is simple: don’t just accept your SARS assessment without reviewing it properly first. Between 1 July and 12 July 2026, SARS will notify selected taxpayers by SMS or email if they have been auto-assessed. The notice will show whether you are due a refund, whether you need to pay SARS, or whether there is no amount payable or refundable. If you receive an auto-assessment and everything is correct, you do not need to submit a separate return. But before accepting it, you should still log in to SARS eFiling and check the details carefully. If something is incorrect or missing, you should update and submit your tax return through eFiling. A few practical tips for tax season Before accepting or submitting anything, make sure you have the correct supporting documents on hand. These may include your IRP5, medical aid tax certificate, retirement annuity contribution certificate, investment tax certificates, tax-free investment certificate, donation certificates, rental income records and any other relevant supporting documents. Do not only look at the refund or amount payable. It is tempting to focus only on whether SARS says you are getting money back, but the more important question is whether the information behind the assessment is correct. Check that your personal details and banking details are up to date. Incorrect banking details can delay refunds, while outdated contact details may mean you miss important communication from SARS. Keep your supporting documents for at least five years from the date of submission, as SARS may request them later to verify your return. What to look out for on your investments Investment income is an area where clients should be especially careful. SARS may receive information directly from financial institutions, but you should still compare the information on your return with your tax certificates. Here are a few important items to check: Interest income Check whether all local and foreign interest has been included correctly. Even small interest amounts from bank accounts or money market investments can form part of your taxable income. Dividends and foreign dividends Local dividends are generally subject to dividends tax, but they may still appear on your tax certificate. Foreign dividends can have different tax treatment and should be reviewed carefully. Capital gains and losses If you sold or switched investments during the tax year, there may be a capital gain or loss. This can happen even if you did not withdraw the money into your bank account. For example, switching between funds can sometimes trigger a disposal for capital gains tax purposes. Retirement annuity contributions Make sure your retirement contributions are correctly reflected. If your contributions were more than the amount allowed as a deduction for the year, the excess amount may be carried forward and used in future years. Your notice of assessment, known as the ITA34, should reflect this. Tax-free investments Although growth and income in a tax-free investment are not taxed, your contributions still need to be monitored. Make sure your tax-free investment certificate is correct and that you have not exceeded the annual or lifetime contribution limits. Living annuity income If you receive income from a living annuity, check that the income and PAYE deducted are correctly reflected. It is also important to keep your tax affairs up to date, as SARS can recover outstanding tax debts directly from certain third parties, including income providers. Two-pot retirement withdrawals If you made a withdrawal from the savings component of your retirement fund, this amount is taxed at your marginal income tax rate. Your fund administrator should issue an IRP5 or IT3(a) certificate showing the withdrawal and any tax withheld. Be careful not to assume that the tax deducted at the time of withdrawal fully settles your final tax position. If you also earned other income during the year, such as a bonus, rental income or investment income, you may still have additional tax to pay when your return is assessed. A simple checklist before you accept or submit Before finalising your tax return, ask yourself: Have I checked my SARS auto-assessment in detail? Have I compared the SARS information to my actual tax certificates? Are all my sources of income included? Are my investment certificates reflected correctly? Are my retirement contributions correct? Have I checked whether any capital gains or losses apply? Have I included medical aid, donation or other allowable deductions where relevant? Are my banking and contact details correct? Have I saved my supporting documents? Tax season does not need to be stressful, but it does require care. SARS has made the process more automated, but the responsibility to ensure your return is complete and accurate still remains with you. Taking a few extra minutes to check your assessment properly can help you avoid delays, unexpected tax bills or corrections later. PJ Botha CFP ® CA(SA)