Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 August 2025 | Story Dr Annelize Oosthuizen | Photo Supplied
AnnelizeOosthuizen
Dr Annelize Oosthuizen, Subject Head of Taxation in the School of Accountancy, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Dr Annelize Oosthuizen, Subject Head of Taxation in the School of Accountancy, University of the Free State 

 


 

With the two-pot retirement system having been effective from 1 September 2024, it is important to demystify certain aspects to prevent an unpleasant surprise when you retire. Although there are other complex rules, this article was simplified and does not deal with exceptions. It also does not deal with members of a provident fund who were 55 years of age or older on 1 March 2021. Furthermore, reference to retirement funds is to a pension fund, provident fund or a retirement annuity fund (a discussion on preservation funds is therefore excluded).

 

Three, not two pots

Firstly, there are effectively three pots and not two.

  • The first pot is referred to as the vested component. You will only have this component if you were a member of a retirement fund prior to 1 September 2024. This component consists of the member’s interest (balance) in the retirement fund on 31 August 2024 (the day before the implementation of the two-pot system) after being reduced with the amount of the seed capital that was transferred to the savings pot (see below).  This seed capital amount was calculated as the lesser of 10% of the value of the member’s interest in the fund on 31 August 2024 or R30 000. No further contributions will be allocated to this component from 1 September 2024. Upon retirement, one-third of the funds in this component can be taken in the form of a lump sum. The balance will be transferred to the retirement component below and will be paid out in the form of monthly annuities. 
  • The second pot is the savings component. The opening balance of the savings component is the seed capital that was transferred from the vested component above. Thereafter, from 1 September 2024, one third of your monthly contributions to the retirement fund are allocated to this component.
  • The third pot is the retirement component. From 1 September 2024, two-thirds of your monthly contributions to the retirement fund are allocated to this component. The funds in this component can only be accessed upon retirement (i.e. after reaching your retirement age, which is stipulated in the fund rules). Furthermore, upon retirement, the money in this pot is only paid out in the form of monthly annuities (i.e. monthly pensions) and no lump sum can be taken from this pot unless its total value is R165 000 or less.

Withdrawals are taxed unfavourably

Secondly, withdrawing from the savings component before retirement has adverse tax implications.

  • From 1 September 2024 onwards, one is allowed to make an annual withdrawal (minimum of R2 000) from the savings component even if you have not yet reached your retirement age and although you are still employed. It is, however, important to remember that such withdrawals are taxed very unfavourably since they are taxed by using the normal progressive tax tables that apply to your other income such as salary. If you wait for your retirement and only withdraw from this savings component upon retirement, the first R550 000 will be tax-free and withdrawals above R550 000 will be taxed at rates much lower than the current progressive tax rates applicable to other income.
  • Upon retirement, only the money in the savings component is allowed to be taken as a lump sum.  If you therefore withdraw all the money from this pot annually prior to retirement, you will not have any funds available to access as a lump sum on retirement and will only have access to the monthly annuities payable from your retirement component.

Less funds available

Lastly, for those members who have a vested component (i.e. who became members of the retirement fund before 1 September 2024), the old rules still apply to the funds in that component. Therefore, upon retirement, you will still be able to take one third of the value of your vested component as a lump sum. The balance will be transferred to the retirement pot and will be paid out in the form of monthly annuities.

To summarise, even though it might appear lucrative to withdraw from your savings component annually, it is advised that you refrain from doing it unless you really need the funds to fulfill basic needs. Withdrawing prior to retirement has the following adverse consequences:

  • Money withdrawn from the savings component is taxed at higher rates than what would have applied had you reached your retirement age and retired. You will therefore not make use of the R550 000 tax-free option.
  • You will have less funds available to pay out as a lump sum on retirement. As a simple calculation, had you not withdrawn R30 000 in a single year, conservatively calculated at a rate of 5%, this R30 000 would have grown to R79 599 (R139 829 if a rate of 8% is used) calculated over 20 years that can be withdrawn tax-free when utilising the R550 000 tax-free portion on retirement.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept