Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty on Residential Property Effective from 8 December 2011


Dear Valued Clients and Readers

On 7 December 2011, the Government has announced the implementation of additional buyer’s stamp duty (“ABSD“) to be paid by certain profiles of people who buy or acquire residential properties (including residential land).  The new measure will take effect from 8 December 2011.

Who are the Affected Buyers?

a) Foreigners, companies, partnership and societies

b) Singapore Permanent Residents (“PR“) who already own 1 or more residential properties, whether owned wholly, partially, or jointly with others

c) Singapore Citizens (“SC“) who already own 2 or more residential properties, whether owned wholly, partially, or jointly with others

The new ABSD is payable by affected buyers at fixed rates on the actual price paid or market value of the property whichever is the higher.  The ABSD rate will be 10% for (a), and 3% for (b) and (c), on the total price or market value of the property.

Please note that Buyer’s stamp duty (“BSD“) will continue to be payable by all property buyers at unchanged rates.

When is the Effective Date of Implementation of ABSD?

ABSD will apply to Contracts or Agreements (whichever is earlier), or Documents of Transfer*, dated on or after 8 December 2011.

Where an Option To Purchase has been granted on or before 7 December 2011 and exercised on or before 28 December 2011, ABSD will be remitted upon application.

*Where Contracts or Agreements are not applicable

Summary of BSD and ABSD

page5image3128
Transaction
On and before 7 Dec 2011
page5image8064

On or after 8 Dec 2011
BSD* rates on the total purchase price or market value (whichever is higher)
BSD* rates on the total purchase price or market value (whichever is higher)

page5image16016

ABSD† rates on the total purchase price or market value (whichever is higher)
Foreigners and non- individuals (corporate entities) buying any residential property
1% on first $180,0002% on next $180,0003% for the remainder
1% on first $180,0002% on next $180,0003% for the remainder

page5image26392page5image26936

+10%

page5image30120

PRs owning one and buying the second and subsequent residential property

page5image32376page5image32648

+3%

page5image35536

SCs owning two and buying the third and subsequent residential property

page5image37768page5image38040

+3%
PRs buying the first residential property
1% on first $180,0002% on next $180,0003% for the remainder
page5image46648

1% on first $180,0002% on next $180,0003% for the remainder

page5image49472page5image49744page5image50448

page5image51680

NIL

page5image52944

SCs buying the first and/ or second residential property

Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore has issued the relevant E-Tax Guide on ABSD here.

We trust that the above information is useful to you.

As always, we are pleased to assist you or your company in resolving any potential tax issues.  Please contact us at jack.wong@whm-consulting.com if you would like to discuss any of your/ your company’s concern on tax issues.

Best regards
Jack HM Wong
Founder and Lead Business & Tax Advisor
WHM Consulting Pte Ltd
E-mail: jack.wong@whm-consulting.com

Advertisements

Revised E-tax Guide on Section 10(25) of the Income Tax Act


Dear Valued Clients and Readers

On 6 December 2011, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore has issued the revised E-tax Guide on Section 10(25) of the Income Tax Act.

For Singapore tax purposes, income tax is imposed on both Singapore-sourced income and foreign-sourced income received in Singapore under Section 10(1).  Section 10(25) provides certain guidance as to when foreign-sourced income is considered received in Singapore and hence is subject to income tax in Singapore.

  • any amount from any income derived from outside Singapore which is remitted to, transmitted or brought into Singapore;
  • any amount from any income derived from outside Singapore which is applied in or towards satisfaction of any debt incurred in respect of a trade or business carried on in Singapore;
  • any amount from any income derived from outside Singapore which is applied to purchase any movable property which is brought into Singapore.

The purpose of issuing the revised E-tax Guide by IRAS is to clarify that foreign income is considered received in Singapore when it is applied to discharge any indebtedness or liabilities incurred for the purpose of any trade or business carried on in Singapore.

The revised E-tax guide can be found here.

We trust that the above information is useful to you.

As always, we are pleased to assist you or your company in resolving any potential tax issues.  Please contact us at jack.wong@whm-consulting.com if you would like to discuss any of your/ your company’s concern on tax issues.

Best regards
Jack HM Wong
Founder and Lead Business & Tax Advisor
WHM Consulting Pte Ltd
E-mail: jack.wong@whm-consulting.com

Consultation on Capital Allowances for Assets Used by Persons Other than the Taxpayer in a manufacturing outsourcing arrangement


Dear Valued Clients and Readers

Following the Income Tax Board of Review’s decision in the case of ATG vs. CIT [2011] SGITBR, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS“) will apply the proposed guidelines below to determine whether capital allowances (“CA“) can be allowed if the plant and machinery (“P&M“) is used by a subcontractor in a manufacturing outsourcing arrangement between the taxpayer and the subcontractor.

Based on our understanding, the proposed guidelines provide that where a taxpayer outsources part of his manufacturing process to another person and provides his assets for use by the person (for instance, a subcontractor) in an outsourcing arrangement, CA can be allowed to the taxpayer in respect of the qualifying P&M if the three conditions below are satisfied.

(i)         The taxpayer incurs the capital expenditure on the plant and machinery (P&M); and

(ii)        The P&M is used for the purpose of the taxpayer’s trade, i.e. to manufacture goods for the taxpayer; and

(iii)       The taxpayer maintains the P&M and bears the cost of maintenance, repairs and depreciation.

In respect of condition (i), IRAS states that  CA can only be given to a company that incurred the expenditure for the relevant P&M. For the purpose of claiming the CA, the P&M should be reflected as the taxpayer’s assets in his balance sheet.

WHM Consulting – In our view, this condition is considered reasonable.  In any case, under the prevailing Financial Reporting Standards in Singapore, an outright purchase of an asset by the company or an asset that is subject to a finance lease arrangement where the company in question is the lessee, will be required to be capitalized in the company’s balance sheet. 

In respect of condition (ii), IRAS states that in cases where the P&M is used by a third party in a manufacturing outsourcing arrangement, CA will be given if it can be shown that the P&M is used for the purpose of the taxpayer’s trade (regardless of whether the arrangement is a toll or buy-sell arrangement). The taxpayer should be able to justify the commercial reasons of the outsourcing arrangement and how the taxpayer benefits from the arrangement. For example, in a typical buy-sell subcontracting arrangement, title of the goods passes to the taxpayer for resale after its subcontractor has processed the goods, using the taxpayer’s P&M. The arrangement resulted in cost savings for the taxpayer as the subcontractor would have charged a higher price for the goods if he had to acquire the same P&M. This would clearly show the business purpose of the arrangement.  However,  IRAS also states that there may be instances where the P&M is used largely for the purpose of the subcontractor’s trade instead of the taxpayer’s, for which CA may arguably be denied. For example, if the subcontractor has the right to exploit the P&M for his own business while manufacturing goods for the taxpayer. IRAS is prepared to treat this condition as being satisfied if the taxpayer can show that the arrangement results in reasonable incremental benefits for the taxpayer’s trade e.g. greater cost reductions, compared to the case where the subcontractor is not allowed to exploit the assets for his trade.  In such instances, CA can be allowed to the taxpayer if the other two conditions are met.

WHM Consulting – While IRAS demands a cost-and-benefit explanation by taxpayer before CA can be granted, it is our view that in practice, it is unclear as to what kind of documentary evidence IRAS will accept.  In providing cost and benefit analysis, in particular in the situation where the P&M is largely used by the subcontractor’s trade instead of taxpayer’s, the taxpayer may need to tap on certain business information of the subcontractor.  Unless both taxpayer and the subcontractor are related parties, it is our view that the subcontractor may be reluctant to share certain business information with taxpayer to enable the latter to provide a satisfactory explanation of the cost-and-benefit analysis to IRAS.   

As regards condition (iii),  IRAS expects the asset owner to be ultimately responsible for the maintenance of the P&M as any prudent asset owner would maintain oversight of the use of his assets.  As the owner is responsible for the maintenance of the P&M, IRAS does not expect the subcontractor to charge depreciation costs to the taxpayer either via fees or through embedding the depreciation charge in the fees or price of the goods sold to the asset owner.

WHM Consulting – In our view, this condition is consistent with condition (i).  If taxpayer is the entity capitalizing the asset in its balance sheet, then accounting depreciation should be accounted for by taxpayer and subcontractor should not charge a fee taking into account the depreciation cost of the assets using in the arrangement. 

IRAS is currently soliciting feedback from Accredited Tax Advisors and Professionals of Singapore Institute of Accredited Tax Professionals (“SIATP“) and it is hoped that the proposed guidelines will be fine-tuned to provide clearer application of the rules to taxpayers and tax advisors.

As always, we are pleased to assist you or your company in resolving any potential tax issues.  Please contact us at jack.wong@whm-consulting.com if you would like to discuss any of your/ your company’s concern on tax issues.

Best regards
Jack HM Wong
Founder and Lead Business & Tax Advisor
WHM Consulting Pte Ltd
E-mail: jack.wong@whm-consulting.com

New Protocols between Singapore and Qatar and between Singapore and Mexico


Dear Valued Clients and Readers

On 2 December 2011, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore reported that the protocols to the standing agreements for the avoidance of double taxation (DTAs) between Singapore and Qatar, as well as Singapore and Mexico, will enter into force on 1 January 2012.  These protocols incorporate the internationally agreed Standard for the exchange of information for tax purposes upon request into the standing DTAs.

The full text of the protocol between Singapore and Qatar is availble here. The full text of the protocol between Singapore and Mexico is availble here.

As always, we are pleased to assist you or your company in resolving any potential tax issues.  Please contact us at jack.wong@whm-consulting.com if you would like to discuss any of your/ your company’s concern on tax issues.

Best regards
Jack HM Wong
Founder and Lead Business & Tax Advisor
WHM Consulting Pte Ltd
E-mail: jack.wong@whm-consulting.com

Supreme Court Note: AQP v Comptroller of Income Tax [2011] SGHC 229


Dear Valued Clients and Readers

In the case AQP v. Comptroller of Income Tax, the Singapore High Court held that defalcation losses incurred by an employee exercising overriding power or control in the taxpayer firm were not deductible under s 14(1) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court also clarified that a genuine mistake of law could fall within the meaning of the phrase “error or mistake” under s 93A(1).

The following is the Supreme Court Note to assist readers to understand the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court.

In this case, the managing director (“the Ex-MD”) of the appellant taxpayer had defalcated the appellant’s funds and caused the appellant to incur a loss of $12,272,917. The Ex-MD had made out false purchase orders to the appellant’s suppliers, and falsely claimed to have made loans to the appellant’s customers, before drawing from the appellant’s funds under the pretext of reimbursement. The appellant omitted to include a deduction for the loss incurred and only lodged a claim for relief under s 93A(1) five years later. The Comptroller of Income Tax and the Income Tax Board of Review rejected the appellant’s claim for relief.

In the judgment, the High Court recognised that the crux of the dispute with regard to the tax-deductibility of defalcation losses centred around the correct understanding of the seminal English case of Curtis (HM Inspector of Taxes) v J & G Oldfield, Limited (1925) 9 TC 319 (“the Curtis test”). Having surveyed the relevant cases of various Commonwealth jurisdictions, the High Court came to the conclusion that the correct understanding of the Curtis test was as follows: Did the defalcator possess an overriding power or control in the taxpayer firm (i.e. in a position to do exactly what he liked), and was the defalcation committed in the exercise of such power or control? If so, the losses which resulted from such defalcations were not deductible for income tax purposes.

Having formulated the test, the High Court defended its viability on the policy ground of deterring firms from not providing adequate checks on employees who had possessed overriding power or control (i.e. directors). The fact that the appellant’s business was successful when the Ex-MD had overriding power or control was held to be irrelevant. The High Court also clarified that what mattered was whether the taxpayer factually did give the defalcator unjustified overriding power or control.

In the present case, the Ex-MD was held to have possessed an overriding power or control in the appellant as there was total trust reposed in him and he did not have to tell anyone about his usage of the appellant’s funds. His defalcations were also committed in the exercise of such overriding power or control, as evident in the blatant way in which he had siphoned funds from the appellant without restraint. The loss incurred by the appellant from the Ex-MD’s defalcation therefore did not qualify for deduction under s 14(1).

Having dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the point of deductibility, the High Court then proceeded to hold in obiter that the phrase “error or mistake” under s 93A(1) was wide enough to cover a genuine mistake of law (i.e. a mistake as to what was thought to be established law) made by the taxpayer whilst computing its taxable income. However, the High Court also observed that s 93A(3) appears to have the effect of qualifying the granting of relief to a taxpayer who was operating under a mistake of law, assuming that the Comptroller had also been mistaken as to “the basis on which the liability of the [taxpayer] ought to have been computed” at the material time.

As always, we are pleased to assist you or your company in resolving any potential tax issues.  Please contact us at jack.wong@whm-consulting.com if you would like to discuss any of your/ your company’s concern on tax issues.

Best regards
Jack HM Wong
Founder and Lead Business & Tax Advisor
WHM Consulting Pte Ltd
E-mail: jack.wong@whm-consulting.com

Your One-Stop Advisor on Your Burning Business & Tax Issues

%d bloggers like this: