EXTENTION OF LEARNERSHIP ALLOWANCES AND EMPLOYMENT TAX INCENTIVE

B4With the focus on skills development and job creation, the existing allowance for learnership agreements has been extended to all agreements entered into before 1 April 2022. Similarly the Employment Tax Incentive (ETI) has been extended to 28 February 2019.

Section 12H of the Income Tax Act[1] allows an employer to claim a “learnership allowance” in respect of registered learnership agreements entered into or completed during a year of assessment. For purposes of section 12H the learnership agreement must be registered in accordance with the Skills Development Act.[2] A qualifying employer is entitled to two types of allowances, namely an annual allowance (deductible in any year of assessment during which a learner is a party to a registered learnership agreement) and a completion allowance (deductible in the year in which the learner successfully completes the learnership).

In order to qualify for the section 12H allowance the learnership agreement must furthermore have been entered into before a certain date. This period has been extended from 1 October 2016 previously to 1 April 2022.

Also, with effect from 1 October 2015, the amount of the allowance depends on the level of qualification held by the learner. In this regard, employers qualify for both the annual as well as the completion allowance of R40,000 in respect of learners who hold a qualification equal to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level 1 to 6. In respect of learners who hold a qualification equal to NQF level 7 to 10, the employer qualifies for an annual and completion allowance of R20,000 each.

In respect of a person with a disability, the employer qualifies for an additional allowance of R20,000 where the learner has a qualification equal to NQF level 1 to 6, and an additional R30,000 where the learner has a qualification equal to NQF level 7 – 10, i.e. a total allowance of R60,000 and R50,000 respectively.

The ETI[3] was introduced by Government on 1 January 2014 to address the socio and economic problem of youth development. Eligible employers may reduce the monthly employees’ tax withheld and payable to SARS in terms of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Act with the amount of the ETI. It was initially indicated that this allowance will cease on 1 January 2017. However, the incentive has now been extended to 28 February 2019.

In addition to the ETI, an employer may also be eligible for a deduction of a learnership allowance during a year of assessment if the requirements of section 12H of the Income Tax Act are met as set out above.

[1] 58 of 1962

[2] 97 of 1998

[3] Employment Tax Incentive Act No. 26 of 2013

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

GONE ARE THE DAYS OF TAX-FREE SALARIES ABROAD

B3Many South African taxpayers earning a salary abroad have for many years been able to benefit from so-called “double non-taxation”. This would be the case where salaries are earned in countries where the employer country would not tax salaries earned in that country, and where a domestic South African income tax exemption would also be available to such South African employees. The UAE for example is renowned therefore that it levies very little, if any, taxes on non-resident employees employed in that jurisdiction. This regime interacts quite well with the South African exemption from income tax provided to South African employees working abroad and in terms of which South Africa would in many cases also not levy income tax on salaries so earned abroad. In other words, a salary earned abroad may potentially not be taxed in either the country of source or residence (i.e. South Africa).

In terms of section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income Tax Act[1] salaries earned abroad would be exempt from South African income tax if the salary is earned for services rendered outside of South Africa, and the employee would be absent from South Africa for at least 183 days in a tax year, of which at least 60 are consecutive.

In the annual national budget speech earlier this year, Government warned of its intention to withdraw relief for South African individuals working abroad and effectively achieving double “non-taxation” on salaries so earned. This threat has now been borne out by the proposed withdrawal of the exemption in section 10(1)(o)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, proposed in terms of the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill published on 19 July 2017. As is explained by the draft Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill,

“It has come to Government’s attention that the current exemption creates opportunities for double non-taxation in cases where the foreign host country does not impose income tax on the employment income or taxes on employment income are imposed at a significantly reduced rate.”

The draft Bill proposes that section 10(1)(o)(ii) be deleted effectively for tax years commencing on or after 1 March 2019. This would effectively mean that South African residents will be taxable in South Africa on salaries earned abroad to the extent that the source country does not levy tax on the income so earned. To the extent however that income is taxed abroad too, South Africa should grant a credit against taxes payable here in terms of either an applicable double tax agreement or the provisions of section 6quat of the Income Tax Act.

[1] 58 of 1962

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

FURTHER REFINEMENTS TO THE ATTACK ON INTEREST FREE LOANS TO TRUSTS

B2We previously reported on the introduction of section 7C of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962. In terms of this targeted anti-avoidance provision, National Treasury sought to attack interest free loans granted to trusts by connected persons of that trust.

Typically, these loans would have arisen by virtue of an individual that would sell his or her asset to a trust of which he/she is a beneficiary for estate duty purposes on interest free loan account. By doing so, the asset’s value will grow in the trust, while the interest free loan will remain a non-appreciable, static asset in the hands of the beneficiary, thereby excluding future capital growth on the asset from estate duty when that individual should one day pass away.

Section 7C deems an interest component to arise on interest free or low interest loan accounts to the extent that interest is not charged at the prescribed rate. The amount of the deemed interest is then treated as an annual donation by the trust, thereby attracting donations tax on the value of the deemed donation made to the trust. Were the trust creditors to actually charge interest on the loans to the trusts on the other hand, this will lead to taxable income accruing in their hands, and which will be subject to income tax being charged thereon at prevailing income tax rates.

The new proposals contained in the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, published on 19 July 2017, contain two significant reforms which further focus the extent of the anti-avoidance provisions of section 7C and counter two specific planning solutions being conceived in practice to counter the application of section 7C in its current form.

The first such proposal to take note of is that loans to trusts are no longer the sole target, but also interest free loans extended to companies (owned by trusts) by the beneficiaries of that trust. This is in an attempt to counter structuring solutions whereby loans owing by a trust were shifted by way of complex restructurings to companies owned by trusts.

The second proposal is aimed at loans due by trusts being transferred from the creditor individual to another, thereby effectively “breaking the link” between the person that extended the loan to the trust and the person now entitled to the amounts due by the trust. In other words, section 7C would only previously apply to the person who extended the loan to the trust. Since the person now holding the loan claim did not originally grant the loan to the trust, the provisions of section 7C, in its original form, would not have applied. The second new revision to section 7C counters this approach making it clear that a connected person acquiring a loan claim is also caught by the provisions of section 7C (and thus required to charge interest) irrespective thereof that that person did not itself extend any loan finance itself to the trust.

The above are still mere proposals, but are proposed to become effective 19 July 2017 if enacted (which appears likely). Taxpayers with loan accounts to trusts are therefore well-advised to seek guidance on how to treat such loan accounts going forward.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

 

THE 2017 TAX SEASON IS OPEN

B1The Commissioner for SARS recently published the annual notice to officially ‘open’ the 2017 tax season. Individuals are now able to file their annual income tax returns for the 2017 year of assessment (which ended on 28 February 2017) from 1 July, and we request that our clients contact us so that we can arrange for the necessary. The following time frames will apply:
.

  • For a company, within 1 year of its year-end (for example, a company with a financial year-end of 31 March 2017 is required to submit its 2017 tax return by 31 March 2018);
  • For all other taxpayers (including natural persons and trusts), returns are to be submitted at the latest by:
    • 22 September 2017 for persons still making use of manual hardcopy returns;
    • 24 November 2017 for persons (excluding taxpayers registered for provisional tax) making use of SARS’ eFiling system; and
    • 31 January 2018 for all provisional taxpayers making use of SARS’ eFiling system.

As was the case in previous years, companies may only file returns using eFiling – manual returns are not allowed in terms of the above SARS notice.

Not all individuals are required to submit income tax returns. Various criteria are listed which, only if any of these are met, means that a person is obliged to submit a return to SARS.  For example, all companies, whether incorporated in South Africa or not, are obliged to submit returns if South Africa is the place from which the company is effectively managed.  Non-tax resident companies, but which were incorporated in South Africa, must also render returns, as well as non-tax resident companies incorporated outside of the Republic and earning income from a South African source.

Taxpayers (excluding companies) are required to submit returns if they carried on any trade in South Africa during the 2016 tax year. This does not include the mere earning of a salary. A variety of other factors are listed in terms of which non-company taxpayers are required to submit returns. The main exemption from having to submit a return for tax resident natural persons though is if the person earned only a salary from a single employer during the year which did not exceed R350,000, and income from interest for that person was also less than R23,800 (or R34,500 if the person is older than 65).

Quite a number of taxpayers are therefore potentially exempt from the requirement to submit an income tax return, even if registered for income tax purposes. However, even though it may in terms of the notice not be required to submit a tax return, it may still be beneficial to do so. Natural person taxpayers are often under the unfortunate impression that the completion of a return necessarily gives rise to the incidence of tax.  This is of course not so and many may have suffered tax consequences during the year already by having amounts deducted from salaries in the form of pay-as-you-earn contributions deducted from their salaries. This of course amounts to a mere cash flow mechanism introduced to ensure a steady supply of cash to the fiscus and which contributions are set-off from the annual tax liability when the annual tax return submitted is assessed. However, the opportunity to negate this is presented through the completion of a tax return and claiming deductible expenses in the form of e.g. medical aid or pension fund contributions. The principle in this regard is that all income is taxable irrespective of whether a return is completed or not. However deductions can only be claimed by completing a tax return and natural persons specifically should jump at the opportunity to do so.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

TAX RESIDENCE FOR INDIVIDUALS

B3According to the South African Revenue Service (SARS), South Africa has a residence-based tax system, which means residents are, subject to certain exclusions, taxed on their worldwide income, irrespective of where their income was earned. By contrast, non-residents are taxed on their income from a South African source.

In an increasingly global society where individuals travel more freely across borders and are able to hold assets in various countries, it becomes important for individuals with ties to South Africa to have certainty whether they are a South African tax resident or not. If they are, their entire income earned from wherever in the world may potentially be taxed in South Africa.

Tax residence is not linked to migration status. In other words, irrespective of which country’s passport one carries, tax residence may still be established in South Africa by virtue of the domestic tests applied by the Income Tax Act.[1] In terms of that Act, an individual will be tax resident in South Africa if either that person meets the criteria of the “physical presence” test, or if that person is “ordinarily resident” in South Africa.

The physical presence test involves a day counting exercise whereby a person will be considered to be a South African tax resident if he/she has been present in the Republic for at least 91 days every year for 6 tax years, and that the days spent in the country in total over this period amounts to at least 915 days in total. If this test is met, the individual will be tax resident from the first day of the last year forming part of the 6-year period referred to.

The question whether a person is “ordinarily resident” in South Africa is a more involved one. The term as used in the Income Tax Act is undefined, but our courts have considered the term to refer to “… the country to which [an individual] would naturally and as a matter of course return from his [or her] wanderings”.[2] The test involves a facts-based and substantive inquiry that in essence involves a person being asked: Where do you consider home to be.

Tax residence is not only relevant for purposes of where a tax liability may arise, but also to understand what tax compliance-related obligations may arise for an individual. It is therefore important for individuals not to confuse migration and tax residence status; the two rather have very little to do with one another.

References:

  • [1] See the definition of “resident” in section 1 of the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962
  • [2] Cohen v CIR 1946 AD 174

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

VAT AND COMMON LAW THEFT

B1A recent decision has created some interest in whether the taxpayers failing to pay over the correct amounts of VAT can be charged – in addition to other statutory crimes prescribed by the VAT Act, 89 of 1991 – with the common law crime of theft.

In Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Parker[1] the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) appealed a decision by the Western Cape High Court that Parker, in his capacity as sole representative of a close corporation, had not committed common law theft in relation to the misappropriation of VAT due and payable by the close corporation to SARS. (Parker had been convicted of common law theft earlier in the Bellville Regional Court and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, which conviction he appealed to the High Court.)

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the DPP as related to the charge of common law theft levied against Parker as related to the misappropriation of VAT amounts, due and payable to SARS. Essentially to succeed, the DPP had to show that the monies not paid over to SARS were in law monies received and held effectively by VAT vendors as agents or in trust on behalf of SARS, i.e. that SARS had established ownership over such funds even before it having being paid over. The court directed that no relationship could be established whereby VAT amounts due were received and held by VAT vendors prior to payment thereof over to SARS. In other words, the DPP could not show that Parker had misappropriated property which belonged to another – an essential element of common law theft that had to be present to secure a conviction.

VAT remains a tax in the proper sense of the word: monies received from customers were that of the taxpayer. Only once monies were paid over to SARS did it become SARS’ property. Even when the VAT in question became payable, such obligation did not per se create a right of ownership over the funds for SARS. Admittedly SARS has a legal claim against the taxpayer for an amount of tax, but it cannot be said to have established right of ownership over any specific funds held by the taxpayer.

It should be noted that Parker only appealed his conviction of common law theft. He was also convicted in the Regional Court of those crimes provided for in the VAT Act (section 28(1)(b) read with section 58(d)) which he did not appeal. His sentence in this regard was maintained, being either a fine of R10,000 of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

WITHHOLDING TAX ON PROPERTY SOLD BY NON-RESIDENTS

Withholding tax on property soldA remarkable number of non-residents own property in South Africa. While non-residents are not subject to South African capital gains tax generally, an exception is to be found where non-residents dispose of South African immovable property, or shares in “South African property rich” companies.

A obvious practical difficulty arises though for SARS to collect taxes from non-residents once they have sold their properties and have no further connection with South Africa. There is very little SARS can do to collect a tax debt from such non-residents, let alone compel them to file the necessary tax returns.

Section 35A of the Income Tax Act[1] was introduced for this reason. It levies an interim withholding tax on non-residents selling South African immovable property, required to be withheld from the selling price payable by the non-resident, on the following basis:

  • 5% of the selling price where the seller is a non-resident natural person;
  • 5% of the selling price where the seller is a non-resident company; and
  • 10% of the selling price where the seller is a non-resident trust.

In clause 10(1) of the draft Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill, which was released concurrently with the Annual National Budget earlier this year, it is proposed that the rates above be increased to 7.5%, 10% and 15% respectively and effective to disposals of immovable property from 22 February 2017.

While ultimately the withholding obligation lies with the purchaser paying the purchase amount, a conveyancer or estate agent may also be liable where the withholding tax is not withheld from payments made to the non-resident seller.[2]

As referred to above, the withholding tax is not a final tax and its purpose is merely to secure the ultimate capital gains tax liability that may ultimately be due (and which would in most circumstances be substantially less the amount withheld). To the extent that a lesser amount is due in the form of a capital gains tax exposure for the non-resident, the balance overpaid is refunded to the seller upon submission of an annual income tax return.

It is also possible for a non-resident to apply for a tax directive that no withholding tax needs to be withheld from the selling price of the property sold. The directive may be based on either:[3]

(a) the extent to which the seller is willing to provide for security for the payment of taxes due to SARS on the disposal of the property;

(b) the extent of the other assets that the seller has in the Republic;

(c) whether the seller is potentially not subject to tax in respect of the disposal of the property; and

(d) whether the actual liability of that seller for tax in respect of the disposal of the property is less than the amount required to be withheld.

[1] 58 of 1962

[2] Section 35A(12)

[3] Section 35A(2)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

PROVISIONAL TAX RULES

A3b

Since the provisional tax season has arrived, it is important to remember the rules regarding your estimates. The provisional tax payment must be received by SARS on or before the due date, 28 February 2017. Failure to do so could result in penalties and interest imposed by SARS.

.
.
IMPORTANT RULES REGARDING PROVISIONAL TAX

Provisional tax is a method of paying tax due, to ensure the taxpayer does not pay large amounts on assessment, as the tax liability is spread over the relevant year of assessment. It requires the taxpayers to pay at least two amounts in advance, during the year of assessment, which are based on estimated taxable income. A third payment is optional after the end of the tax year, but before the issuing of the assessment final liability is worked out upon assessment and the payments will be off-set against the liability for normal tax for the applicable year of assessment.

  1. Provisional tax payments are calculated on estimated taxable income, which includes taxable capital gains for the particular year of assessment.
  2. It is imperative that if you have earned a capital gain during the current year that you declare it for provisional tax purposes.
  3. In the event that you do not advise us of a capital gain that should be included in provisional tax, an understatement penalty may very well be levied by SARS.

There are certain penalties for underpayment of provisional tax, which will be levied by SARS.

  1. If your actual taxable income is more than R1 million a penalty will be levied if the second period estimate is less than 80% of actual taxable income.
  2. If your actual taxable income is equal or less than R1 million a penalty will be levied should the second period estimate of taxable income for the year of assessment deviate from the basic amount applicable to that period.
  3. A penalty of up to 20% of the underpayment may be charged by SARS.
  4. Interest will be charged on all late payments.

Should your payment not reach the South African Revenue Service on or before the due date, a penalty of 10% will be levied on outstanding amounts and/or SARS will consider your estimated income for the 2nd provisional tax payment to be zero and will apply the relevant penalties.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

ASSETS HELD AS SECURITY BY SARS WHEN A COMPANY IS BEING LIQUIDATED

A2bThe KwaZulu-Natal High Court previously granted an application brought by Van der Merwe and others (acting as liquidators) requiring the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service to release certain assets held by him under his control in a customs warehouse. The assets in question were being held by the Commissioner as security for payment of outstanding Value-Added Tax and customs duty liabilities owed by the insolvent taxpayer involved. After losing in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, the Commissioner took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. This judgment is reported as CSARS v Van der Merwe NO (598/2015) [2016] ZASCA 138 (29 September 2016).

Van der Merwe and the other respondents were all liquidators of Pela Plant (Pty) Ltd, a company that became insolvent and for which Van der Merwe and his colleagues were appointed to act as liquidators. To this end, the liquidators endeavoured to have all the assets of the company sold to realise proceeds from which to repay the creditors of the company to the extent possible. The Commissioner was unwilling to release the assets held, as he contended that he was entitled to hold the assets until the requisite VAT and customs duty owed to him was settled. Only then, in terms of the VAT Act 89 of 1991 and the Customs and Excise Duty Act 91 of 1964, was he obliged to release the assets back to the liquidators. The liquidators on the other hand sought to have the assets released to them, and in spite of the outstanding VAT and customs duty owed to the Commissioner: they had an obligation to realise the company’s assets and to repay the insolvent company’s creditors to the extent possible in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 read with the 1973 Companies Act.

The Supreme Court of Appeal was therefore confronted with the question “[w]hether the law relating to insolvency in respect of the winding up of a company unable to pay its debts permits a liquidator of such a company to take possession of property of the company in the custody and/or under the control of… the Commissioner and to deal with such property as provided for in the law relating to insolvency even though duty has not been paid in respect of such property in terms of… the Customs and Excise Act… and/or value added tax has not been paid in respect of such property as required in terms of… the Value Added Tax Act…”

The judgment came down on the side of the liquidators yet again, and the court confirmed the judgment of the court a quo. When confronted with the question of whether the Commissioner was entitled to hold on to the assets in terms of the VAT and the Customs and Excise Duty Acts, as opposed to releasing them as required by the Insolvency Act, the court was clear in its direction:“When insolvency intervenes one turns to the Insolvency Act.”  This statute will therefore govern the process.

Nothing precludes the Commissioner though from proving a claim as part of the liquidation process. However, he is not permitted to act unilaterally and of his own volition to retain assets held as security by him in the satisfaction of a tax debt due to him.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

APPORTIONMENT OF VAT INPUT CLAIMS

A2bGenerally speaking, the VAT portion of expenditure incurred by a VAT vendor in carrying on its enterprise may be claimed back from SARS when the VAT vendor submits is VAT returns on a periodical basis. Typically, these input tax claims are set off against the output tax liability that the VAT vendor may have. However, it is also often the case that the total input tax claims for a certain period may exceed the total output tax amount payable, resulting in a net refund amount due to the vendor for that particular period.

Section 17 of the VAT Act, 89 of 1991, governs the circumstances and the extent to which a registered VAT vendor may claim input tax to be set off against the output tax due to SARS. It specifically addresses those circumstances when goods or services are acquired partly for use as part of the VAT vendor’s enterprise, and partly for purposes of making VAT exempt or personal supplies. In such instances section 17(1) limits the amount of input tax to be claimed to “… an amount which bears to the full amount of such tax or amount, as the case may be, the same ratio (as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with a ruling …) as the intended use of such goods or services in the course of making taxable supplies bears to the total intended use of such goods or services”.

The ruling referred to in section 17(1) (Binding General Ruling 16, Issue 2) sets out the formula as:

y = a / (a b c) x 100

Where:

“y” = the apportionment ratio/percentage;

“a” = the value of all taxable supplies (including deemed taxable supplies) made during the period;

“b” = the value of all exempt supplies made during the period; and

“c” = the sum of any other amounts not included in “a” or “b” in the formula, which were received or which accrued during the period (whether in respect of a supply or not).

In other words, the calculation referred to aims to limit the input tax deduction to the extent that the expenditure item in question is incurred in the furtherance of the VAT enterprise only.

The calculation assumes that expenditure would be incurred by the VAT vendor generally proportionate to the total taxable supplies made by the enterprise vis-à-vis non-taxable supplies. It may very well be that that this assumption is inapplicable based on the facts of the VAT vendor. For example, where a company extends interest bearing loans to customers (thus exempt supplies) while also providing consulting services (a standard rate taxable supply), the above formula may very well be applicable to apportion the portion of input tax claimable on e.g. rent paid on offices and used both to earn interest and consulting income. However, where expenditure is incurred e.g. towards training for employees linked directly to the consulting business only, said expenditure would not be partly incurred for making taxable supplies and partly not, but wholly for the furtherance of the VAT enterprise and thus rank wholly as a claim for input tax.

BGR16 itself provides for an alternative basis of apportionment to be applied if a more appropriate basis exists. It should be borne in mind that section 17(1) also only comes into play if there is an apportionment to be made whatsoever.

We have noted that SARS is applying BGR16 strictly as part of VAT audits in recent months and even if it may be inappropriate to do so where it is to the disadvantage of taxpayers. Such instances should be monitored and pointed out to your tax advisors when applicable to take up with the SARS auditors timeously.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)