While there is no need to reduce the transaction agreement to the letter, as oral comparisons are equally binding, we encourage the parties to enter into a written settlement agreement to ensure that the terms of the resolution are properly recorded and effective. Oral agreements are often subject to the old saying,`she-speaking saying, and in circumstances where the consequences of an agreement could be significant, all risks are greatly reduced by the conclusion of a written settlement agreement. An employer based in South Africa is legally required to withhold payments of sums that constitute remuneration and must therefore deprive PAYE of a CCMA arbitration award, an employment tribunal order or a transaction amount received by a worker in connection with an unfair labour practice or unfair dismissal. This article does not address transaction agreements made to settle layoffs due to operational requirements or reciprocal termination agreements concluded during a reduction review, as these comparisons fall under another tax regime. Despite the Tribunal`s conclusion as it stands  that the payment of R90 million R90 million by the subject did not constitute an “expense” in the settlement of the claim under the arbitration proceeding, as provided for in point 11 a), Gamble J nevertheless took into account (as a precautionary measure) and found that such “expenses” had in any case not been made in the production of revenues.  summarizes Gamble J`s conclusion as follows: parties to a labour dispute that is settled by mutual agreement, including an agreement whereby an employer party pays a compensatory amount to a salaried party, should ensure that all parties are on the same side with respect to the actual after-tax amount paid to the part of the work. Litigation parties can often opt for an out-of-court settlement, unlike a lengthy litigation, where the outcome is uncertain and legal costs are high. At some level, an out-of-court settlement should be of benefit to both parties. However, when the parties are SELLERS of VAT, it is often the party that receives the compensation, which has a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth, when VAT has not been taken into account in the agreement on the amount of compensation to be paid.
It follows that, when a party to the dispute agrees to waive its right to sue another party against compensation, the compensation is an identifiable payment that is reciprocal and is directly related to the delinquening party`s right to take legal action against the opposing party. When the right is abandoned by a seller as part of or as part of the promotion of his business, the compensation received is a consideration for the taxable benefit of a service.