Latest news with #FormB
The Citizen
4 days ago
- The Citizen
Disbarment battle: Suspended Malalane attorney wins round in high court
Controversial suspended attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg won a round in the Mpumalanga High Court today. As a result, the Legal Practice Council of South Africa (LPC) will only return to court on October 27 for its application to have her struck off the roll. Although the court ordered on April 29 that the hearing be set down for today (August 11), it also stated that a Form B had to be signed and filed at the registrar's office by May 12. The order stipulated that all issues had to be attended to before the hearing date as per Form B, Lowvelder reports. Form B is a prescribed document used as part of the judicial case management process, particularly under the practice directives that apply in various divisions of the high court. It serves to certify that the parties in a civil matter have complied with the court's requirements under case management rules and indicate that the matter is ready for trial. When the unopposed court roll was circulated on Monday, August 4, the LPC's case against Janse van Rensburg was not listed. Janse van Rensburg questions 'irregularities' In an email on August 5, Janse van Rensburg wrote to Thembeka Ratshibvumo, the LPC's legal representative. She said: This is a matter of grave concern. The matter is not on the roll and thus will not legitimately appear before court on 11 August 2025. I emphasise that you are dominus litis in this matter. It is not my prerogative to advise you of any irregularities.' Dominus litis is a Latin term meaning 'master of the suit' or 'owner of the lawsuit'. In a follow-up email, Janse van Rensburg expressed that enrolment can be an irregular process as per rules 30 and 30A and said there had been no compliance with the case management order. These rules relate to the handling of procedural irregularities or non-compliance with the rules in litigation before the high court. The case was, however, enrolled on a separate unopposed case roll sent out on Wednesday, August 6. Janse van Rensburg emailed the court before 08:00 today and informed them of her intention to deal with the judicial management order that was not complied with, as well as a supplementary affidavit she received on August 6. 'In my humble opinion, this matter is not court-ready.' The court informed her that the case would continue. Judge presses LPC on case directives Today's hearing was presided over by Mpumalanga Judge President Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele and Acting Judge Beauty Madavha. Janse van Rensburg represented herself. Mphahlele started proceedings by dealing with the previous court order and asked whether the order had been adhered to. Ratshibvumo addressed the court and said the LPC had written a letter to Janse van Rensburg on May 6 to engage on the matter, which was followed up with a letter to the office of the judge president, in which the LPC stated that Janse van Rensburg was not replying. 'Listen to what I'm saying. You requested her to sign Form B. The parties were directed to complete Form B. Our practice directive was to advise on what to do if there was no co-operation,' Mphahlele said. To this, Ratshibvumo said she accepted the judge's remarks and recommended that the matter be removed from the roll and re-enrolled on a later date. Janse van Rensburg agreed to the proposal and to comply with the Form B procedure. During the proceedings, Mphahlele asked Janse van Rensburg if she was going to apologise for not replying to the LPC's letter. 'I apologise, my lady. I also want to thank you for restoring discipline in this court.' Mphahlele ordered that the matter be removed from the roll, and it will now be heard on October 27, on condition that a duly signed Form B is filed by no later than September 30. The LPC and Janse van Rensburg agreed that she would submit all her court documents by Friday. Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on
The Citizen
4 days ago
- The Citizen
Disbarment battle: Suspended attorney wins round in high court
Controversial suspended attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg won a round in the Mpumalanga High Court today. As a result, the Legal Practice Council of South Africa (LPC) will only return to court on October 27 for its application to have her struck off the roll. Although the court ordered on April 29 that the hearing be set down for today (August 11), it also stated that a Form B had to be signed and filed at the registrar's office by May 12. The order stipulated that all issues had to be attended to before the hearing date as per Form B. Form B is a prescribed document used as part of the judicial case management process, particularly under the practice directives that apply in various divisions of the high court. It serves to certify that the parties in a civil matter have complied with the court's requirements under case management rules and indicate that the matter is ready for trial. When the unopposed court roll was circulated on Monday, August 4, the LPC's case against Janse van Rensburg was not listed. Janse van Rensburg questions 'irregularities' In an email on August 5, Janse van Rensburg wrote to Thembeka Ratshibvumo, the LPC's legal representative. She said: This is a matter of grave concern. The matter is not on the roll and thus will not legitimately appear before court on 11 August 2025. I emphasise that you are dominus litis in this matter. It is not my prerogative to advise you of any irregularities.' Dominus litis is a Latin term meaning 'master of the suit' or 'owner of the lawsuit'. ALSO READ: Zietta's legal drama continues In a follow-up email, Janse van Rensburg expressed that enrolment can be an irregular process as per rules 30 and 30A and said there had been no compliance with the case management order. These rules relate to the handling of procedural irregularities or non-compliance with the rules in litigation before the high court. The case was, however, enrolled on a separate unopposed case roll sent out on Wednesday, August 6. Janse van Rensburg emailed the court before 08:00 today and informed them of her intention to deal with the judicial management order that was not complied with, as well as a supplementary affidavit she received on August 6. 'In my humble opinion, this matter is not court-ready.' The court informed her that the case would continue. Judge presses LPC on case directives Today's hearing was presided over by Mpumalanga Judge President Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele and Acting Judge Beauty Madavha. Janse van Rensburg represented herself. Mphahlele started proceedings by dealing with the previous court order and asked whether the order had been adhered to. Ratshibvumo addressed the court and said the LPC had written a letter to Janse van Rensburg on May 6 to engage on the matter, which was followed up with a letter to the office of the judge president, in which the LPC stated that Janse van Rensburg was not replying. 'Listen to what I'm saying. You requested her to sign Form B. The parties were directed to complete Form B. Our practice directive was to advise on what to do if there was no co-operation,' Mphahlele said. To this, Ratshibvumo said she accepted the judge's remarks and recommended that the matter be removed from the roll and re-enrolled on a later date. Janse van Rensburg agreed to the proposal and to comply with the Form B procedure. During the proceedings, Mphahlele asked Janse van Rensburg if she was going to apologise for not replying to the LPC's letter. 'I apologise, my lady. I also want to thank you for restoring discipline in this court.' Mphahlele ordered that the matter be removed from the roll, and it will now be heard on October 27, on condition that a duly signed Form B is filed by no later than September 30. The LPC and Janse van Rensburg agreed that she would submit all her court documents by Friday. ALSO READ: Suspended Malalane attorney challenges LPC ahead of April disbarment battle
The Hindu
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
PMK founder Ramadoss hints at resolving stand-off with son Anbumani
Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder S. Ramadoss on Sunday (June 8, 2025) said, 'Age is only a number', reeling out names of popular 'older' politicians such as former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, suggesting he still has enough fight in him in politics. However, he appeared optimistic about giving 'good news' about the resolution of his conflict with his son Anbumani Ramadoss, which threatens to split the party. Interacting with journalists in Chennai, Dr. Ramadoss confirmed meeting RSS ideologue and Thuglak editor S. Gurumurthy again in Chennai (following an earlier meeting in his native town), but refused to reveal whether discussions with him and with Dr. Anbumani were fruitful. PMK's party constitution Sources in the party said Dr. Ramadoss is seeking larger share of the powers to operate while asking Dr. Anbumani to continue as the 'working president'. Dr. Anbumani has reportedly agreed to allow his father to take the lead in deciding the electoral alliance and negotiating the seats while he wished to remaining as the party's 'president', a post to which he was earlier anointed unanimously. 'Dr. Ayya (Ramadoss) wants powers to sign Form A and Form B too, which would give him powers over selection of candidates and make appointments. But, Dr. Anbumani wants to be allowed to continue as president and make appointments within the party,' said a senior leader. In the party's bylaws, Rule 13 states that party founder should be invited and his guidance is necessary to call for the general council and executive council meetings. However, Rule 15 explicitly states the party president, appointed by the general council, will head the party's political committee, executive council, general council, and state conference and has the powers to control the party's funds, properties owned by the party and its bank accounts. Rule 12 states that the general council will consist of district presidents, district secretaries, treasurer, vice-president, deputy secretary and area secretaries at the Union, Town Panchayats, municipal corporations and corporations along with representatives from linguistic, religious, and caste-based minorities. The executive council will consist of party president, general secretary, treasurer, organisation secretary, deputy general secretaries, vice-presidents, headquarters secretaries, disciplinary action committee members, property protection group and district presidents and secretaries make up the party's executive council. A senior leader says while it is true that general council has to be held in the presence of the party founder and its affairs conducted under his guidance, it is not binding on the general council to accept his guidance or decisions. 'The president continues to have the powers to appoint office bearers, which makes up the general council. Ultimately, the general council can reject his guidance. This is perhaps why Doctor Ayya began removing and re-appointing district president, secretaries and other office bearers. But, I don't think he (Dr. Ramadoss) has the powers to do it,' he added.
The Sun
09-06-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Tax Matters – Are independent directors employees or consultants?
ARE independent directors' employees of the company, or are they consultants providing services to the company? The treatment for e-invoicing, service tax and income tax will be dependent on the answer to this question. At the moment, the treatments adopted for e-invoicing, service tax and income tax do not seem to be aligned. The common thread running across the treatment of e-invoicing, service tax and income tax is whether the independent director is an employee or a consultant. This will be based on whether the director has entered into a contract of service or a contract for service with the company. There is no definition of either of the terms in the literature surrounding the above matter. The general understanding from case laws is that contract of service denotes that there is an employee-employer relationship, while a contract for service is for a consultant carrying on his profession or business. For e-invoicing purposes and service tax purposes, an independent director will be engaged under a contract for service since he will be providing independent views and expert opinion to the board of directors. Effectively, he is earning income as a consultant – therefore it is treated as business income. If this line of thinking is adopted for income tax, and in particular, the monthly deduction of tax (MTD), the independent director should not be subject to any MTD as he is not an employee of the company. What is happening in practice? In majority of the cases, companies are applying MTD to director fees and allowances received by independent directors. This is incorrect because independent directors are not employees receiving remuneration from companies for exercising employment. The correct approach should be for the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) to collect advance taxes through the bimonthly deduction mechanism using the CP500 approach instead of deduction through MTD. Independent directors who have a contract for services with companies should file their tax returns using Form B which is meant for individuals carrying on a business, and the filing deadline for such forms is June 30 every year, but the IRB normally grants a grace period up to July 15 to submit Form B. Directors who have a contract of service are treated as employees, and their income will be subject to MTD, and they need to file a Form BE by April 30 every year, but there is a grace period of up to May 15. Independent directors whose income exceeds RM500,000 annually need to issue e-invoices to the companies they serve for their director fees and allowances. They will also need to register for service tax and impose a service tax of 8% on their services provided. Deciding when the RM500,000 threshold is exceeded is based on reviewing your past 12 months and based on your forecast for the next 12 months. The time at which you register is not based on any tax year, but it is based on a 12-month 'rolling basis'. For e-invoicing purposes, the threshold of exemption has recently increased to RM500,000. This threshold is calculated based on the calendar year. The 2022 revenues are used as a starting point to decide whether the independent director should issue e-invoices. However, if the independent director in the subsequent years exceeds the RM500,000 threshold, then, depending on the level of income, e-invoicing has to commence. If, for example, the income from director fees is more than RM500,000 but less than RM1 million in calendar year 2025, it appears that you need to commence e-invoicing from July 1, 2026. If you are still in doubt, it is best to seek a written view or a confirmation from the IRB and the Royal Malaysian Customs Department to avoid any future disputes with both authorities.
The Hindu
08-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Age is only a number, says Ramadoss; hints at resolution of conflict with son
Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder S. Ramadoss on Sunday (June 8, 2025) said, 'Age is only a number', reeling out names of popular 'older' politicians such as former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, suggesting he still has enough fight in him in politics. However, he appeared optimistic about giving 'good news' about the resolution of his conflict with his son Anbumani Ramadoss, which threatens to split the party. Also read: Anbumani not to react to Ramadoss' accusations, plans three-day meet with PMK functionaries Interacting with journalists in Chennai, Dr. Ramadoss confirmed he did meet with RSS ideologue and Thuglak editor S. Gurumurthy again in Chennai (following an earlier meeting in his native town), but refused to reveal whether discussions with him and with Dr. Anbumani, were fruitful. PMK's party constitution Sources in the party said Dr. Ramadoss is seeking larger share of the powers to operate while asking Dr. Anbumani to continue as the 'working president'. Dr. Anbumani has reportedly agreed to allow his father to take the lead in deciding the electoral alliance and negotiating the seats while he wished to remaining as the party's 'president', a post to which he was earlier anointed unanimously. Also read: Making Anbumani a Cabinet Minister was my mistake: PMK founder Ramadoss 'Dr. Ayya (Ramadoss) wants powers to sign Form A and Form B too, which would give him powers over selection of candidates and make appointments. But, Dr. Anbumani wants to be allowed to continue as president and make appointments within the party,' said a senior leader. In the party's bylaws, Rule 13 states that party founder should be invited and his guidance is necessary to call for the general council and executive council meetings. However, Rule 15 explicitly states the party president, appointed by the general council, will head the party's political committee, executive council, general council, and state conference and has the powers to control the party's funds, properties owned by the party and its bank accounts. Rule 12 states that the general council will consist of district presidents, district secretaries, treasurer, vice-president, deputy secretary and area secretaries at the Union, Town Panchayats, municipal corporations and corporations along with representatives from linguistic, religious, and caste-based minorities. The executive council will consist of party president, general secretary, treasurer, organisation secretary, deputy general secretaries, vice-presidents, headquarters secretaries, disciplinary action committee members, property protection group and district presidents and secretaries make up the party's executive council. A senior leader says while it is true that general council has to be held in the presence of the party founder and its affairs conducted under his guidance, it is not binding on the general council to accept his guidance or decisions. 'The president continues to have the powers to appoint office bearers, which makes up the general council. Ultimately, the general council can reject his guidance. This is perhaps why Doctor Ayya began removing and re-appointing district president, secretaries and other office bearers. But, I don't think he (Dr. Ramadoss) has the powers to do it,' he added.
