CAPE TIMES TUESDAY, JANUARY 28,
INSIGHT
2014
9
Century of cat and mouse games since the start of income tax I’m starting
Peter Surtees
THIS year marks 100 years of income tax
in South Africa, which gives pause to
reflect on the birth and progress of the
Income Tax Act. It is an event that will be
commemorated in the Smuts Hall at UCT
in recognition of General Jan Smuts, who
introduced the first Income Tax Act in
Parliament.
Several of the newer additions to the
current Income Tax Act were borrowed
and adapted from Australian, Canadian
and, especially in the case of VAT, New
Zealand tax statutes. The first Income Tax
Act promulgated in 1914 was based
entirely on the New South Wales act.
Before 1914, the Treasury coffers were
filled from interest, customs duties, and
revenue from posts and telegraphs, mining, and the railways. However, Smuts –
acting as minister of finance following the
resignation two years previously of Henry
Hull – presented the first Income Tax Bill
David Kaplan
FROM Cape Town to the tip of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and back – and back again
– the award-winning staging of Tennessee
Williams’s often-overlooked late play, Kingdom of Earth, from Abrahamse-Meyer
Productions, is a not-to-be-overlooked
example of what the Tennessee Williams
Festival in Provincetown means and does
to act on its mission – to roll out Williams’s
work into the world.
In late September 2012, the meeting hall
of the musty P-town VFW on Highway 6
opened to the beat of Sam Chatmon’s
haunting Mississippi Delta blues song, I
Have to Paint my Face:
“Say God made us all / He made some at
night / That’s why he didn’t take time / To
make us all white.”
The sight of hyper-masculine Marcel
Meyer stripped to the waist, pouring water
on himself, readies the audience to pay
close attention to the entrance of Anthea
Thompson in hot-pink gingham Capri
pants stretched over ample assets. She’s
playing Myrtle, an ex-stripper prattling in
a spot-on country-fried accent, mysteriously acquired 14 000km from the Mississippi Delta, where the play is set.
Myrtle got married the day before to
nervously-disordered Lot, played with
albino blonde perfection by Nicholas Dallas. Lot aims to have Myrtle set up home on
his family farm, though he didn’t bother to
tell his new wife about his half-brother,
Chicken, who lives on the place. That’s
Meyer as Chicken, glistening wet, listening
to their arrival, feral.
A Boston-based critic described what it
was like to be in the audience:
“As directed by Fred Abrahamse, the
play grabbed hold of your throat and
slowly, purposefully, squeezed your breath
away… The effect was riveting.” (Robert
Israel, Edge Magazine)
The South African cast flew into Boston
two days before their festival premiere,
thanks to last-minute intercession to get
the proper visas from America’s vice-consul in Cape Town, Collier F Graham, who
coincidentally hails from Clarksdale, Mississippi, where Tennessee Williams spent
his boyhood. In a fortuitous Washington
meeting between Robert Gips, US ambassador to South Africa, and Ebrahim
Rasool, South African ambassador to the
US, the two diplomats discussed the hope
that South African theatre artists would
bring a new point of view to a version of a
play better, and badly, known as The Seven
Descents of Myrtle.
Under that ungainly title, the play
opened on Broadway the day after
Williams’s birthday in 1968 and closed
after 29 performances. The critics were
baffled:
“There is no rational explanation of
The Seven Descents of Myrtle except that
Tennessee Williams is burlesquing himself, if that is rational. Williams’s exercises
in southern degradation have sometimes
illuminated the human condition, but this
one is narrow, obsessively petty and essentially ludicrous.” (Edwin Newman, NBC
News)
Forty-four years later, the South
African production did bring a different
perspective, in particular a sensitivity to
the issues of race that underscore the play,
something unnoticed in 1968, so distracted
were Americans by the playwright’s
recently-disclosed and unapologetic homosexuality. What was called burlesque –
Williams’s reconfiguration of his earlier
themes under the light of his later experience – is now recognised as a widening of
to the Union Parliament. Legend has it
that Smuts delivered his Budget speech
without notes, but I haven’t found firm evidence of this feat.
“We have now come to a definite point
in our financial history,” began Smuts.
“We have exhausted all the various expedients and devices to which we have resorted
since Union for making the revenues and
expenditure balance…
“At first we resorted to the railways.
The old system of taxation relied very
much on the railways.”
And so began our journey, beginning
with an act that was in some respects
almost touching in its naivete and susceptibility to interpretation more favourable
to the taxpayer than Parliament had
intended.
The development of the legislation during its early years began a trend that we
still see today. Firstly, taxpayers made it
their business to plan their affairs to
remain as far as possible outside the act,
requiring the legislature to react with
amendments to plug loopholes.
Secondly, outside events began to influence tax legislation: the first was World
War I, which placed an inevitable strain on
the fiscus. A few years later, a post-war
drought led to changes to the tax treatment
of farmers that are still with us today.
Thirdly, we learn with the “bewilderment of hindsight” that the income of married women was taxed in the hands of their
husbands. Imagine the reaction if the current act included such a provision. And it
stayed with us until 1991, believe it or not.
The first cases to be argued before the
courts also reflected the novelty and
naivete of the legislation and of taxpayers.
For example, a Mr Deary learnt an expensive lesson when he sold his business to his
employees. Because they could not afford
to pay the purchase price in cash, he
agreed that they could pay him a percentage of the profits for a number of years
instead. The result: he had converted a
capital amount, the proceeds of the sale of
his business, into revenue taxable in his
hands. The outcome of this unfortunate
step by Deary, driven by compassion for his
employees, has ever since been at the forefront of the mind of every informed tax
adviser when a client sells a business.
Then a Mr Lunnon was probably the
first taxpayer whose victory resulted in a
change to the act. He successfully argued
that, because there had been no mention of
a bonus in his employment contract, his
bonus was not taxable. Needless to say, Parliament moved swiftly to ensure that this
argument would never again prevail.
This has been the pattern of the development of our tax legislation ever since.
Parliament passes the act, taxpayers do
their best to arrange their affairs to fall
outside its provisions, the revenue authorities contest the taxpayers’ efforts and the
courts decide which party is correct. When
the taxpayers succeed, Parliament has to
decide whether the tax base is in sufficient
danger from the result to justify an amendment to the legislation.
In other words, we are playing a game
where one competitor, the fiscus, sets the
rules, the other competitor, the taxpayer,
tries to minimise their effect, and the referee, the court, decides who has won.
Unlike most other games, if the fiscus
loses, it can and often does change the rules
to ensure that it won’t lose that particular
game again.
So we have a robust and usually healthy
tension between fiscus and taxpayer, and
the result of this tension over the past century has been a piece of legislation that,
despite inevitable complexity and shortcomings, is reasonably effective.
● Prof Surtees is with the department of
finance and tax, UCT. One hundred years of
Income Tax is to be discussed at a conference
on this theme on November 10 at UCT. Information on the call for papers can be found
at www.commerce.uct.ac.za/FinanceandTax/TaxConference.
INSPIRED CONNECTIONS RESURRECT
A terrible beauty
DARK FORCE: Marcel Meyer as Chicken in Tennessee Williams’s often-overlooked late play Kingdom of Earth which will be staged at the Baxter next month.
his vision as a creative artist. Knowing the
festival’s enthusiasm for presenting adventurous work written by Williams, Tom
Erhardt, the London-based theatre agent
who represents the Tennessee Williams
estate, suggested that the AbrahamseMeyer production premiere in Provincetown.
Critical theory aside, visceral enjoyment of the performances in Provincetown was undeniable. The run sold out.
Home in Cape Town, where it played next,
the production was acclaimed. “The cast
are, without exception, absolutely outstanding,” said the Cape Times, commending the “terrible beauty” of the acting and
pointing out that “the play is ultimately
one of hope. It is a resounding affirmation
of the power of love.”
The production was nominated for four
Fleur du Cap Awards. Anthea Thompson
was nominated for best actress, CharlJohan Lingenfelder for original score,
Marcel Meyer for best costume design, and
Fred Abrahamse won for the best set
design.
The further resonance of the production is most impressive. Brenda Caradine,
the executive director of the Columbus,
Mississippi, Tennessee Williams Tribute,
has been coming to Provincetown for each
of the last eight years of the Tennessee
Williams Festival.
She was so moved by Kingdom of Earth
that she had her own production of it
staged this spring in Columbus – the small
‘‘
The honesty that
defined the complexity
of a man who is
tormented by his own
existence was felt
throughout his entire
performance
town where Williams was born. Echoing
the Provincetown VFW, an old pharmacy
on the historic downtown Main Street was
converted into an intimate theatre. MJ
Etua directed, with Alex Orsak as Lot and
Cherri Golden as Myrtle. A reviewer in
Columbus extolled David Trotter in the
role of Chicken:
“He both dazzled and disturbed the
audience. The honesty that defined the
complexity of a man who is tormented by
his own existence was felt throughout his
entire performance. The subtleties of
anger, hate, madness and shame permeated his performance. No emotions were
left unaddressed.” (Joseph St John, in
This Is Real Media)
Mississippi social mores are not
Provincetown’s. The play was controversial in Columbus, its impoliteness “disappointing”, and e-mails circulated protesting Williams’s “objectionable language.”
And this, too, the reviewer in Columbus
took on:
“Tennessee Williams was a man before
his time… a true philosopher of the
human condition. He did not mince his
words as he dealt with the complex issues
of race, sex, passion, heterosexuality,
homosexuality and the Eros of humanity… Some people may not like what Tennessee Williams had to say, and that is
their loss. Williams accomplished what all
writers want to be: an artist who says,
writes and does whatever he wants. In the
end, he was the master of his own art.”
Joe Paprzycki, the artistic director of
the South Camden Theatre Company in
New Jersey, also comes to the Tennessee
Williams Festival in Provincetown every
year. His productions of Williams’s plays
Suddenly Last Summer and The Night of
the Iguana have brought his company
great reviews. A production of Kingdom of
Earth, directed by Connie Norwood,
opened last year’s season in Camden, starting in October. Paprzycki explained: “I
knew about the play before and had probably read it, maybe even more than once,
but seeing it was something else. Seeing
the South African production at the festi-
val inspired me to produce it.”
The genesis of these inspired connections began in 2006, when a small group of
people gathered in Boston to draw up a
mission statement for the Provincetown
Tennessee Williams Theatre Festival. The
agreed-on goals: to celebrate Williams’s
work and connection to Provincetown, but
also to send the spirit – “searching spirit”
was suggested – rolling forward out of the
Cape and back. That is what has happened
to Kingdom of Earth. The original South
African cast returned to the 2013 Provincetown Festival and played to sold-out
houses.
● September 25 to 28, the Provincetown
Festival theme will be Tennessee Williams
and his circle of friends, with plays written by Williams on the subject of friendship – Vieux Carré, Period of Adjustment,
and A Lovely Sunday for Creve Coeur –
along with plays written by his friends,
among them William Inge, Jane Bowles
and Yukio Mishima.
Abrahamse-Meyer Productions will
bring a production of Yukio Mishima’s
modern Noh play, The Lady Aoi.
● Kaplan is curator of the Provincetown
Tennessee Williams Theatre Festival and a
leading US director and author. He has
directed Williams’s repertory around the
world and is also the author of Tennessee
Williams in Provincetown and the editor of
Tenn at One Hundred: The Reputation of
Tennessee Williams. Kingdom of Earth runs
at the Baxter from February 3 to 22.
to believe we
would be
disappointed
if Bafana won
IN MY ARROGANT
OPINION
Khaya Dlanga
I THINK we all know that Bafana aren’t
doing well. We are constantly looking
forward to being disappointed by our
team. They have not lived up to the
expectations set up by the 1996 African
Cup of Nations-winning team led by Neil
Tovey. It has gone downhill ever since.
We have become a pale shadow of what we
used to be and it is embarrassing. One
Twitter user said he wants Bafana to
carry his casket to the grave when he dies,
because he wants them to let him down
one more time. That particular tweet
echoed sentiments shared by many.
Bafana are, of course, used to
disappointing us. I think they may even be
more surprised than us when they
actually win. Many people missed the
match when they played the world
champions, Spain, and won. When they
were knocked of the African Nations
Championship tournament, it was as if
they figured if they could beat Spain,
what’s the point of beating Nigeria.
South Africans then went on a
complaining rampage, as we always do
whenever Bafana play. In fact I’m starting
to think we would be disappointed if they
won because we would have nothing to
complain about. It is as if we want and
hope for them to let us down as usual.
But it was truly unexpected and
surprising that the minister of sport
would lambaste them in public.
Fikile Mbalula did not mince his
words.
“What I saw was not a problem of
coaching, it was a bunch of losers, who
have got no respect for this country.
“I saw people lining up after the game
to greet them… I won’t greet them, I didn’t
even call them. I felt like just standing up
and walking out.”
Then he went on to call them, “A bunch
of unbearable, useless individuals. That is
it.”
“Useless individuals.” That was a hard
thing to say. Mbalula did not talk like a
minister in that press conference. He
spoke like the president of the ANC Youth
League he used to be. His remarks were
not befitting of a minister. He obviously
does not believe in this Bill Clinton school
of thought: “I think the best way to deal
with people… is to be brutally honest with
them in private, and then do what you can
to avoid embarrassing them in public.”
Was he wrong in saying that we can’t
praise mediocrity? He was right. They are
pretty bad. But the question that needs
asking goes beyond the team. It does not
matter how many times Bafana changes
players or coaches, they still lose. So one
has to conclude that the problem is deeper
than coaches and players. There is more
to their losing than meets the eye.
They have to find out why the 1996
team, for example, did so well versus the
teams that followed. Why can’t we
replicate what that team did? Why didn’t
we improve on it? Is the problem money?
Too much of it perhaps? Then take it
away. No one seems to have a solution for
at least 10 years. Yet our other national
sporting codes thrive.
The Proteas are the world’s number 1
Test side. The Springboks have won two
rugby World Cups since 1995. Our
swimmers dominate the world at the
Olympics despite not having enough
support. Our golfers are incredible. In
fact, South African golfers have won the
most majors out of all countries outside
the US. What is it about soccer that makes
them so bad when others are so good?
One would be excused for suggesting
that South Africa should just give up on
soccer. We keep throwing money at the
problem with no results.
We almost need to commission a study,
even from Malcolm Gladwell, author of
David and Goliath. He would look at our
history and tell us what we need to do to
figure out how to change.
Stooping to base levels of political discourse brings down the political tone
THE DA’s plan to march on the ANC’s
Luthuli House headquarters was not a very
sensible political move. But at least it has
again shown up the ANC’s basic instincts
of over-reaction and intolerance.
I didn’t like the idea of a march on
Luthuli House because it was obviously an
attention-seeking exercise without much
meaning in terms of job creation, which
was its stated aim. This is Malema-style
politics, which is unbecoming of the DA.
Still, if the DA got the necessary permission for the march, it would have been a
legal and legitimate exercise in political
electioneering.
The ANC’s reaction that the DA plans
were “provocative” was, actually, more
provocative. ANC leaders came up with
dark threats that Luthuli House would be
“defended at all costs” against this
“assault”. ANC members escalated this
PALE
NATIVE
Max du Preez
rhetoric on social media and on radio talk
shows to a threatened race war, promising
bloodshed and reminding the DA of the
slaughter at the same building 20 years ago
when the IFP launched march on it. The
SACP called the proposed march “a declaration of war” and “threatened the ANC’s
right to exist”. Yes, really.
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction, seems to be the natural
law of South African politics.
We’re talking about the DA here. Did the
ANC hotheads really expect Helen Zille
and Lindiwe Mazibuko in camouflage
uniforms with hand grenades in their belts
and with rocket launchers draped over
their shoulders launching an assault on
their building? Or did they know full well
that the DA was simply planning to march
up to their front door in Joburg’s CBD,
hand over a memorandum and then walk
away? What exactly was it that the ANC
wanted to “defend”?
The SACP in the Western Cape warned
it would react by leading marches to the
private homes of DA leaders. How did the
jump from party HQ to private homes happen? The SACP called the DA leader’s
home a “lush residence”. The reality is that
Zille and her family have lived in the same
modest suburban home for several decades
– not the kind of residence senior ANC
leaders would want to be seen dead in.
The ANC condemned the DA’s planned
march as a “publicity stunt”, “political
opportunism” and “grandstanding”. Of
course, it is all of those things. But that’s
what political parties do when they want to
canvass votes from the electorate. Building
a house for a poor family near the ANC
leader’s villa was all three of the above, as
was rushing to Mothotlung to cash in on
the backlash to police brutality. Promising
six million jobs when you know full well
you cannot even create 10 percent of that
was opportunism, as was saying an opposition leader concerned with the integrity
of education results believes blacks are too
stupid to pass matric.
Most political actions and statements by
political parties in the run-up to an election
are hyperbolic and aimed at bolstering the
commitment of supporters and swaying
those who had not yet made up their minds
who to vote for. After four general elections
since our political settlement, the
electorate is beginning to realise this.
I think Julius Malema and his Economic Freedom Fighters have upped the
ante, though. Parties now feel the need to
demonstrate their militancy, the new political currency of the past year or so. But no
party can keep up with Malema’s unsubtle
but brilliant strategies to grab the headlines. The media have unfortunately played
along, even blaming the DA and especially
Mamphela Ramphele’s AgangSA of being
inactive because they don’t do or say sensational things that grab the headlines.
This is merely encouraging slogan politics
and a discourse of insults and threats.
The DA, Agang and parties like Cope
should resist the temptation to try to compete with the cheap populism of some of
their opponents. It could perhaps score
them a few votes, but it downgrades their
brand in the long term. They should be
energetic and innovative in their efforts to
communicate with voters, but not contribute to the raising of the already unhealthy political temperature in the country.
South Africans should be far more
intolerant of political intolerance. While
many may agree that the DA’s plans to
march on Luthuli House were ill-advised,
we should focus on the ANC’s threats of a
violent reaction to that and the violence
with which ANC supporters confronted
Malema and his groups at Nkandla.
Political demonstrations in public
spaces and on public roads and streets may
never be met with violence of even threats
of violence.
South Africans of all political persuasions should remember that elections are
a central pillar of democracy and should
guard against election campaigns damaging it.