087 822 1639
Skip to content 087 822 1639
Why a loan account can affect business value, accrual and settlement
In a high-net-worth divorce involving a private company, attention often goes first to the shares.
What percentage does a spouse own? What is the company worth? What is the value of that shareholding?
Those questions matter, but they may tell only part of the story.
A business owner may also have a substantial shareholder loan account. The company may owe the shareholder millions of rand independently of the value of the shares themselves. In other cases, the position is reversed and the shareholder may owe money to the company.
The distinction matters because a shareholder loan is not simply part of the shareholding. It is a separate claim or liability that must be identified, valued and reconciled with the share valuation.
A loan account can therefore affect:
It also creates an important valuation risk: has the loan account been treated separately and correctly, or has the same economic value been counted twice?
For business owners, their spouses and professional advisers, a shareholder loan should therefore never be dismissed as a minor accounting entry without understanding what it actually represents.
A private company is a legal entity separate from its shareholders. SARS similarly describes a private company as having a legal existence separate from its owners. See SARS: Private Companies.
During the life of a business, money frequently moves between a shareholder and the company:
The accounting records then reflect the resulting balance as a shareholder loan account.
The direction of the debt is critical.
If the company owes the shareholder, the shareholder may have a personal claim against the company. That claim may constitute an asset in the shareholder’s estate.
If the shareholder owes the company, the position is reversed. The debt may be a liability in the shareholder’s personal estate and an asset in the company.
Those two positions should never be conflated in a divorce asset schedule.
Owning shares in a company and being owed money by that company are conceptually different.
The shares represent an ownership interest.
A credit shareholder loan represents a debt claim against the company.
South African authority illustrates that the two can require separate treatment. In B v B (45681/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 321, the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court reviewed an arbitration award arising from alleged fraudulent non-disclosure of assets in an accrual matter. The underlying dispute included a materially increased shareholder loan account that had not been properly disclosed. The case is useful as an illustration of how a shareholder loan can materially affect the financial analysis in an accrual dispute, but it should be understood as a High Court review of a private arbitration award, not as a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment.
Similarly, B F v R F concerned an antenuptial contract that expressly referred to shares and loan accounts in specified companies, and the court had to determine how the excluded interests and subsequent increases should be treated for accrual purposes.
For divorce purposes, it may therefore be inadequate simply to record:
Business interest: R20 million.
A proper analysis may require separate identification of:
the value of the shareholding; and
the shareholder loan position.
Whether those figures should ultimately be added together depends on how the business valuation has been constructed.
That is where the risk of double counting arises.
Assume a spouse owns all the shares in a private company.
The company is valued at R20 million. Its financial statements also reflect a R5 million loan owing to that shareholder.
It does not automatically follow that the shareholder’s total business-related interest is R25 million.
The answer depends on what the R20 million valuation represents.
A valuer may begin with the value of the operating business and then adjust for debt and cash to reach equity value. A shareholder loan may already have been treated as debt in that calculation.
If so, the loan claim may need to be considered separately in the shareholder’s personal estate.
But if the final valuation already includes the economic value of that loan account, simply adding it again could result in the same value being counted twice.
The opposite error is also possible: a loan account may be ignored entirely even though it was excluded from the share valuation.
A proper valuation should therefore explain:
A single headline valuation without this reconciliation can be misleading.
A company’s accounting records may show that it owes its shareholder R8 million.
That does not necessarily mean the shareholder can recover R8 million immediately.
The practical value of the loan depends on the legal terms of the claim and the financial position of the company.
Relevant questions may include:
A financially strained company may owe a shareholder a substantial amount while having little capacity to repay it in the short term.
Conversely, a profitable and cash-generative company may be able to settle the account relatively quickly.
Three figures may therefore differ:
the accounting balance;
the legally enforceable claim; and
the amount realistically recoverable.
That distinction becomes especially important when a divorce settlement assumes that the loan account is available to fund an immediate payment.
Where spouses are married out of community of property subject to the accrual system, the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 determines how the growth in their respective estates is compared at dissolution.
Section 3 provides for a claim based on the difference between the respective accruals, while section 4 regulates how accrual is determined.
A shareholder loan may therefore matter because it can form part of the net value of a spouse’s estate.
But its treatment cannot be considered independently of the antenuptial contract.
The loan account may:
The wording and history both matter.
The decision in B F v R F is particularly relevant.
The ANC excluded specified shares and loan accounts associated with two companies. The dispute concerned whether the exclusion covered only interests existing when the marriage began or also later increases in those interests.
The majority held that only the assets held at commencement, including the then-existing credit balances of the loan accounts, fell within the exclusion. The differences between the loan-account balances at commencement and dissolution remained subject to accrual sharing.
That does not mean every ANC containing the words “shares and loan accounts” will produce the same result.
The outcome depends on the particular wording and the statutory framework.
The broader lesson is that an ANC should not be read superficially.
Where business interests are involved, the legal review should identify:
For a high-net-worth divorce, the ANC should therefore be read together with historical company records rather than looking only at the current shareholding.
Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 requires a spouse to furnish full particulars of the value of their estate when it is necessary to determine accrual.
The timing and procedural basis of that disclosure matter.
In D.M v D.M (2021/043212) [2025] ZAGPJHC 31, the Gauteng Local Division considered a request for compliance with section 7 in pending divorce proceedings. The court recognised a strong default assumption in favour of disclosure where the information is necessary to determine accrual and ordered the respondent to comply with the section 7 notice.
The case is useful because it confirms that section 7 disclosure is tied to the determination of accrual and must be approached within the proper statutory and procedural framework. It should not be treated as an unrestricted right to financial information in every marital dispute.
That distinction is important.
In a pending divorce where accrual must be determined, shareholder-loan records may be highly relevant. But disclosure rights should still be exercised within the applicable statutory and procedural framework.
Depending on the case, relevant records may include:
The question should not merely be:
What balance appears in the latest financial statements?
It should also be:
How did the balance arise, how has it moved, and is the recorded claim legally and economically real?
Loan-account balances can legitimately change during divorce proceedings.
A balance may reduce because it has been repaid. It may also change because the claim has been:
None of those events is automatically improper.
The timing, documentation and commercial explanation nevertheless matter.
J.E.R (Nee O) v B.E.S – Appeal (A16/2023; 15871/16) [2023] ZAWCHC 291 illustrates why. The matter was an appeal concerning spousal maintenance and the respondent’s means, not an accrual dispute. In assessing the financial evidence, however, the Western Cape High Court considered loan-account cessions, undervaluations and restructurings across related business entities. On the evidence before it, the court found that the conduct in question had been used to diminish the respondent’s estate. The case is therefore relevant as an example of how loan-account transactions can affect the court’s assessment of a party’s true financial position, rather than as authority on the calculation of accrual itself.
The case should not be read as suggesting that every movement in a shareholder loan is suspicious, nor should it be treated as an accrual authority.
Its significance is narrower and more useful: material changes to loan accounts should be capable of explanation and reconciliation where they affect the financial picture presented in the divorce.
Further investigation may be justified where there are:
These features do not prove wrongdoing.
They indicate that the underlying transaction should be understood before the loan-account balance is accepted at face value.
A shareholder loan may be valuable without being liquid.
That distinction is central.
A settlement should not assume:
Shareholder loan: R10 million
Therefore: R10 million in available cash.
The company may not be able to repay the loan immediately without:
The correct enquiry is:
Section 10 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 permits a court, in appropriate circumstances, to defer satisfaction of an accrual claim on conditions.
For an asset-rich but cash-poor estate, that may be highly relevant.
But deferred payment transfers risk to the receiving spouse. The structure may therefore need appropriate interest, security and default protection.
The parties may sometimes consider transferring or ceding a shareholder loan instead of requiring an equivalent cash payment.
That can be useful, but it is not automatically equivalent to receiving cash.
A R5 million loan account may be worth materially less in practical terms if it is:
Before accepting a loan account as settlement value, the receiving spouse should understand:
Headline value is only one part of the analysis.
Tax Needs Separate Advice
The tax consequences of shareholder loans depend on the underlying transaction.
Repayment, cession, waiver, capitalisation or settlement may produce different tax consequences depending on the parties and structure involved.
SARS publishes binding private rulings dealing with transactions involving the settlement and restructuring of shareholder loans. Those rulings are transaction-specific rather than universal rules, which reinforces the need for tax advice on the actual structure proposed.
A divorce agreement should therefore not prescribe the repayment, waiver, transfer or restructuring of a material shareholder loan without considering the tax consequences.
This article does not attempt to provide transaction-specific tax advice.
An accrual claim ordinarily arises when the marriage is dissolved.
South African law nevertheless recognises that the underlying contingent interest may require protection before dissolution in appropriate circumstances.
The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 contains a mechanism for immediate division of accrual where the statutory requirements are met.
This is exceptional relief.
Normal commercial activity, changes in business value or ordinary movement in a loan account do not automatically justify intervention.
Where there is credible evidence of deliberate dissipation or serious prejudice, however, substantial unexplained movements in loan accounts may form part of the wider financial evidence that requires urgent legal assessment.
Shareholder loans often cross professional disciplines.
The family lawyer considers their treatment under the matrimonial property regime and settlement.
The forensic accountant may need to reconstruct how the account arose and changed.
The business valuer must reconcile the loan with the share valuation and avoid double counting.
The company accountant can explain the underlying books and journals.
The tax adviser may need to assess repayment, cession, capitalisation or waiver.
The corporate lawyer may need to consider shareholder agreements, financing arrangements, security and transfer restrictions.
This is one reason why a high-net-worth divorce involving a private company should not be reduced to a single business valuation number.
Where a shareholder loan appears in a private-company divorce, establish early:
These questions should form part of the broader asset, liability and liquidity analysis.
Shareholder loans sit at the intersection of ownership, debt, valuation, accrual, disclosure and liquidity.
A loan account can be an asset separate from the shares.
Its accounting balance may differ from its realistic economic value.
An ANC may exclude some or all of the relevant value depending on its wording and the history of the asset.
The loan may already have been incorporated into the business valuation, creating a double-counting risk.
And even where the loan is valuable and legally enforceable, the company may not have the cash to repay it immediately.
The right questions are therefore not simply:
What does the loan account say?
They are:
Who owns the claim?
How did it arise?
What is it genuinely worth?
How does the ANC treat it?
How has the business valuation treated it?
Can that value realistically be delivered through the divorce settlement?
Those questions can materially alter the financial analysis in a high-net-worth divorce involving a private company.
Where a divorce involves private-company shares, shareholder loan accounts, business interests or other substantial assets, early investigation can help identify valuation, disclosure, accrual and liquidity issues before settlement positions become fixed.
Martin Vermaak Attorneys advises on complex South African divorce matters involving businesses and substantial assets.
——————————————————
This article provides general information about South African family-law and business-asset issues. It does not constitute legal, tax, accounting or valuation advice. The treatment of a shareholder loan depends on the underlying documents, the matrimonial property regime, the antenuptial contract, the company’s financial position and the particular transaction. Appropriate professional advice should be obtained before a settlement is concluded.
Author: Martin Vermaak
Legal reviewer: Michelle Soutter
Final reviewer: Martin Vermaak
Jurisdiction: South Africa
Publication status: Approved for publication
Publication date: 17 August 2026
Last legally reviewed: 17 August 2026
Review trigger: Relevant amendment to the Matrimonial Property Act or Companies Act; material change in SARS guidance affecting shareholder-loan transactions; or material appellate authority concerning accrual, business valuation or shareholder loan accounts.
Copyright © 2026 Martin Vermaak Attorneys. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Policy
BannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator