Tax with Edgar

Unusual treatment for UnUsUal Entertainment

2011-12-30T19:58:00.000+08:00

multi million dollars from entertaining you

What is the law?
GST-registered businesses must charge GST output tax on the sale of their goods and services at the prevailing GST rate and account accurately to IRAS.

What happened?

IRAS found out that UnUsUal Entertainment ("UnUsUal") had wrongly declared or "under declared" its output tax for 2005 and 2006. UnUsUal had not included the GST collected on tickets sales for both years as output tax in its GST returns.

How did IRAS find out?
This is the interesting part. IRAS found that sales figures submitted by UnUsUal for income tax purposes did not tally with the sales figures reported for output tax for 2005 and 2006. For example, the sales revenue declared for 2005 income tax was $9,136,361.00, against the $2,810,668.00 declared as total sales in their GST returns in the same year.

The conviction demonstrates the effectiveness of inter-departmental sharing of information.

What is the side issue?
The GST submission and income tax computation was done by its tax agent. The case also reminded us that it was clearly stated that the responsibility of accounting for GST on ticket sales lies with taxpayer. However, UnUsUal failed to check the GST returns prepared by its tax agent, which resulted in incorrect tax returns.

What is the penalty?

UnUsUal was found guilty of wrongly stating the output tax in its Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns, resulting in an underpayment of $502,922.27 in GST. UEPL was ordered to pay a penalty of $601,632.72 and a fine of $10,000.

UEPL pleaded guilty to four charges of under-declaration of GST without reasonable excuse. Four remaining charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.

Adapted from IRAS Media Release.

Cloud computing costs are now PIC-able

2011-10-26T13:15:00.003+08:00

On Deepavali Day, I received a very pleasant surprise.

I just read that Cloud Computing Costs are not only tax-deductible (which we know) as business expenses, they now qualify for additional deduction under Productivity & Innovation Credit.

An example cited in ST's news article - "word processing that exist online rather than on individual computers". A $100 expense would qualify for up to $400 deduction against your income (subject to meeting other terms and conditions.)

Christmas present?

Important terms and conditions to note before we jump for joy are:-
1. spent on qualifying expenditure and are entitled to PIC during the time period concerned
2. active business operations in Singapore
3. at least 3 local employees at the VERY last month of the qualifying time period

(Who are the 3 employees? INCLUDING Singaporeans & PRs but EXCLUDING sole proprietors, partners under contract for service and shareholders who are directors of company)

Zero GST for basic goods?

2011-07-12T02:12:00.001+08:00

food n price to be paid

On Jul 8, 2011, Dr Mukul Asher, my ex-lecturer of welfare economics in NUS back in 1980s, was asked to answer the questions as follows.

What would be the effect of implementing a zero percent Goods and Services tax for basic commodities?
Would it help to lower the cost of living for lower income families in Singapore?

Firstly, he uniquely used the term "basic commodities" while the article is entitled "... basic goods". I generally interpreted "basic commodities" as totally unprocessed or barely prossessed raw materials. Consequently, he said GST's orientation would change to tax on value added at manufacturing, wholesale and retail levels. Example - No GST is to be applied on $5 of carrot and $4 of flour imported. When the carrot and flour became a $25 carrot cake, GST is to be applied on $16 value added. He opined that this system would increase cost of administering the tax by authority and compliance costs by businesses. He didn't elaborate as to how it could be so. Alternatively we could consider the Australian's where its GST free supplies include health, education, childcare, religious services, certain foods etc.

Secondly, he concluded that GST revenue would drop due to exemption of basic commodities and prompting higher GST rate. Currently we apply GST on almost on goods and services with government sending cheques with GST rebates to selected individuals to offset regressive tax burdens (a system I am in favour with). So when we compare the two methods in totality, will there be a significant change in collection? Which is more efficient and effective?

Thirdly, Dr Asher applied the basic economic concepts of substitution effect on demand and price when he said households would switch demand from "GSTed" items to "non-GSTed" basic commodities leading to an increase in prices of the latter. This also assume supply of basic commodities would generally be unresponsive. Too simplistic an assumption?

As Dr Asher is a professor of public policy at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, I am sure he has done much more in depth studies and thinking on the issues but the article is too simplistic with conclusions only given cursory elaboration.

Reference - ASHER, Mukul, "Zero GST for basic goods? Bad idea.", The Straits Times, July 8, 2011.

When do your business need to register for GST under new rules?

2011-01-05T16:44:00.003+08:00

Under the new GST - Time of Supply Rules effective Jan 1, 2011, there is no more prospective and retrospective test that we used to do.

Under the new law, the time of supply for most transactions will be triggered by the earlier of the following two events:-
a) when payment in respect of the supply is received; and
b) when invoice in respect of the supply is issued.

Consequently the rules to determine when a business need to register for GST would have to change too.

Suppose Company performed and completed only 2 transactions in the year 2011. Each transaction is $600,000.

One transaction has been invoiced and paid. The other transaction, while completed, has NOT been invoiced nor paid as at Dec 31, 2011.

The value of supply made in 2011 under the new rules is only $600,000/-. Therefore company's liability to register has not yet arisen on Jan 1, 2012.

Simplifying GST accounting from today

2011-01-01T00:01:00.001+08:00

The output GST recognition rule will be simplified from today to allow most businesses to account for GST when a tax invoice to account for GST when a tax invoice is issued or when payment is received, whichever is earlier,

Taxman overruled again!!

2010-12-18T16:57:00.002+08:00

The Court of Appeal overrules IRAS again, twice over the last two months.

What is the issue?
Are portable dormitories considered "plants" as per plaintiff being in the business of providing dormitory services or "buildings" as per IRAS?

At a total cost of $2.6 million, the plaintiff had built and operated 6 blocks of three-storey container-like as temporary workers' accommodation and administrative use within an industrial estate. Each block was made of "steel beams held by nuts and bolts while panels were inserted within this steel framework to form walls. "The floor was made of timber and each dormitory was topped with a metal roof".

Decision and Basis
IRAS has been told by the Court of Appeal to treat such portable dormitories as "plants".

The three-judge court led by CJ Chan Sek Keong overruled the earlier decisions of Income Tax Review Board and the High Court and defined such assets as "plant" on the following criteria:-

built on prefabricated materials
could be dismantled and moved elsewhere within 90 days' notice

The Court of Appeal concluded that the definition of plant would depend on "its exact operational role in the taxpayer's business, its characteristics and the precise factual matrix and context concerned".

Leung Yew Kwong and Tan Shao Tong from WongPartnership, lawyers for the Plaintiff, had argued that their client's business of providing dormitory service involved moving and reusing such assets in other sites in the future. [The same team from the same law firm won in the Nov 2010's case.]

IRAS' lawyers, Irving Aw and Quek Hui Ling, had relied on past rulings of similar situations. They cited a specific example where circus tents functioned as premises and would not qualify as plants.

To the plaintiff, the decision could now claim for tax relief and secure "a tax savings of at least $500,000 based on 2004 tax rates".

In my humble opinion, it is a difficult issue for IRAS as acknowledged by Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang. The law does not provide the definition of "plant" (as such words from my tax lecturer still echo in my head after years) and the three-judge court had to dwell on its precise definition in arriving at the decision.

Source - K.C. Vijayan, "Court of Appeal overrules taxman", The Straits Times, Dec 18, 2010.

Court overrules tax authority

2010-11-07T00:15:00.003+08:00

can you pick up customers in yellow box?

What is the issue in dispute?
The company is in the business of leasing aircrafts. The company has subsidiary firms in Cayman Island. The subsidiary firms bought aircrafts with loans pegged to floating interest rates. The aircrafts are rented out to airlines on fixed rental rates.

The subsidiary firms are supposed to use the rental proceeds to service the interest obligations. Often, the firms face revenue shortfall to meet those obligations.

The Singapore parent then entered into interest rate swap arrangements with banks in Singapore to hedge against the risk of floating interest rates on behalf of its subsidiaries. During the 17-month period from October 2006, the Singapore parent company made payments to its subsidiaries overseas as part of interest rate swap arrangements.

IRAS's position

IRAS has taken the position that these interest payments overseas are subject to withholding tax under provisions dealing with loans borne by the parent firm.
The Comptroller argued that such broad interpretation of the relevant section for such payments to be taxable has been accepted by tax advisers, practitioners and businesses in the past.

P/S - The name of legal counsel representing IRAS was not mentioned by K.C. Vijayan, the ST law correspondent.

The Singapore parent's position

The tax authority has taken a too broad an interpretation of the law.
Such braod interpretation may actually discourage foreign investors from doing business in Singapore.

P/S - Leung Yew Kwong / Tan Shao Tong from WongPartnership represented the plaintiff.

High Court - Justice Andrew Ang
The Court ruled in favour of the Singapore parent on the following grounds:-

interest rate swap payments are not subject to withholding tax under s12(6)(a) of Income Tax Act
the payments were not in relation to any loan borne by the firm here
IRAS has taken a too broad an interpretation of the law
past acceptances by tax advisers, practitioners etc should not be cited to justify an interpretation of the law

The ruling would mean that the Comptroller of Income would have to make substantial refund and pay costs to the Singapore company. The costs to IRAS could go higher when business entities which were involved in similar situations and had paid the taxes may now seek a review with IRAS given the ruling.

Reference - K.C Vijayan, "Court overrules taxman, orders refund for firm", Straits Times, Nov 6, 2010.

Biggest GST fraud in Singapore

2010-08-15T02:17:00.000+08:00

$5,695,823.65 being the tax undercharged.
Then multiply that amount by 3 to arrive at $17,087,470.95 penalty payable.
In return for that "contribution", the person responsible gets 54 months of free food and free lodging in prison.

Who gets such "honours"?
The man is none other, Mr Mahesh Sukhram Daswani.
He was in the business of trading mobile phones. He subsequently found it more lucrative to "manage" (ie. forge) his business records very aggressively.

First;y, he under reported his sales ie. collected output GST from his customers and decided to keep a lot for himself.
Secondly, he kept himself busy with creating detailed but "fictitious" purchases. He probably used photoshop (just kidding) to digitally alter zero-rated suppliers' invoices to standard-rated. He then directed his staff to include those invoices in the quarterly claims.
Thirdly, he had to go create export documents to show that the mobile phones had been exported. Export sales, remember is zero-rated. I guess he was trying to show how he was able to dispose off millions of dollars of phone purchased.

The trickeries of Mahesh are not new but definitely not sustainable.

1. IRAS would definitely be paying attention to who have been issued millions of dollars of refund cheques. A request for audit of the respective taxpayers' books would be good practice.
2. In the press release, it was specifically highlighted that IRAS has used a lot of technologies to nab Mr Mahesh. Phrases such as "advanced computer forensics techniques", "computerised analysis programmes" and "specialised computer forensic tools" were deliberately informed to public. Perhaps IRAS colleagues have exchanged notes with their colleagues in Commercial Affairs Department.

The moral of the story (as always) - Please don't try to muck around with your GST returns.

Property tax today and 2011

2010-07-18T11:04:00.004+08:00

Marina Bay's construction from my car

On the 13th July in The Straits Times’ Forum, Ms Deanna Choo, Director (Corporate Communications) of IRAS responded to Mr Paul Chan’s misconceptions (3rd July) below:-

1) He thought IRAS estimates the annual value of properties based future market trends.
2) He also felt that increases in the annual value of a property based on market rentals were not right for owner-occupiers.

IRAS responded as followed:-
1) “The property tax is pegged to the annual value of the property, which is determined based on market rentals of similar properties prevailing at the time of assessment. It does not take into account any forecast or estimate of future movements in market rentals.”

2) Property tax is a tax on property ownership ie. regardless of whether the property is tenanted. Income tax is imposed levied on rental income from properties that are rented out.

IRAS is of the opinion that property tax calculated against current market rentals (as against transacted property prices) is relatively more stable to homeowners.

Question for IRAS – Can share with us on how you collect information on current market rentals?

Future changes
The Government introduced in Budget 2010 a progressive property tax schedule for owner-occupied residential properties from 1 Jan 2011.

Currently, home owners who are eligible for the owner-occupier concession pay property tax at a flat rate of 4% on the Annual Values of their properties. Owners of non owner-occupied residential properties and other properties are taxed at 10%.

Will you as a homeowner be expected to pay more or less on property tax?

Based on IRAS estimates, all HDB flat owners and the vast majority of residential property owners will enjoy an effective property tax rate lower than 4% of annual value under the new method. IRAS has done some calculations to demonstrate how and why most of us would be paying less property tax in e-Tax Guide cited below.

For owner-occupied properties,

If your annual property value is $6,000 or less, you pay nothing under existing and new 2011 law.
If your annual property value is $24,000, you would enjoy $240 tax savings.
If your annual property value is $80,000, you would pay $60 more than under current law.

Reference
IRAS e-Tax Guide - http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/uploadedFiles/Quick_Links/e-Tax_Guides/Property/e-Tax%20Guide.pdf
The Straits Times, July 13, 2010

Company director jailed for GST fraud

2010-06-26T09:39:00.005+08:00

What happened?
Tang Ee Boon (“Tang”), 32, the managing director of V-Teb Services Pte Ltd (“V-Teb”) was convicted of GST fraud amounting to $327,837.49 and was sentenced to 12 months' jail. Tang was brought to court for 21 charges of making inflated and false claims of GST refunds for the period 1 Jan 2004 to 30 Jun 2007.

Rule
GST-registered businesses can offset the GST they pay on their purchases (input tax) against the GST they collect from sales (output tax), and pay the net difference to IRAS. If a business incurs more GST on purchases (input tax) than it collects from sales (output tax), it can claim the difference as GST refund from IRAS.

What went wrong for Tang's ploy?
V-Teb provides cleaning services locally. By nature of his business, the company is not expected to claim GST refunds.

However, IRAS’ tax auditors noted a pattern of submitting increasing amounts of GST refund claims in the GST returns on a frequent basis. IRAS actually verifies the value of V-Teb’s taxable purchases with the alleged suppliers.

What did Tang get for his mischiefs?

Tang pleaded guilty to a total of 14 charges of evading GST,

comprising three charges of understating output tax,
eight charges of overstating input tax, and;
three charges of making false entries in V-Teb’s GST returns.

In addition to the jail term, the court also ordered Tang to pay a penalty of $983,512.47, which is three times the amount of GST undercharged.

Source - www.iras.gov.sg - Edgar basically paraphrase/paragrapg the original article.

What can I do with trade loss, unabsorbed capital allowance and donations?

2010-06-05T11:29:00.008+08:00

I have summarised the article by Mr Clement Tan Kai Guan entitled "Order of Claiming Qualifying Deductions - Maximising Tax Benefits" published in Singapore Accountant, June 2010.

Question - When a taxpayer incurs a trade loss for the current year and has current year unabsorbed Capital Allowances (CA) and approved donations, what options does he have with regard to the utilisation of these qualifying deductions?

Answer

1. Prior to YA2003, you can ONLY carry forward the current year unabsorbed CA, losses and donations for setoff against his future years' taxable profits.

2. With effect from YA2003, group relief option was introduced.
Loss making Singapore incorporated companies are allowed to transfer their current year qualifying deductions to other profitable member companies of the same group.

3. From YA2006, the carry-back clause was introduced.
Any person carrying on a trade, business, profession or vocation may carry back his current year unabsorbed CA and losses, subject to a maximum of $100,000, for setoff against his Assessable Income (AI) for the immediate preceding year of assessment.
Note - Donations cannot be carried back under the loss carry-back option.
(Edgar - In the case of carry-back, there is the possibility of tax refund by IRAS on tax paid on previous year's profit.)

4. In February 2009, the carry-back option was enhanced.
The amount allowed to be carried back is increased to to $200,000 and extending the period of
carry-back from the current 1-year period to a 3-year period.
The enhanced carry-back relief system is only applicable to unabsorbed CA and unabsorbed losses relating to the YA2009 and YA2010.

Rule - Which to apply first?
Group relief first, then carry-back and carry-forward.
CA first, then trade loss.

- Transferred out CA to group companies
- Then transferred out trade loss to group companies
- Lastly transferred out Approved Donations to group companies" height
- Assume Company A first, the Company B
- Any leftovers from Group Relief, then Carry-back.
- Any leftovers from Carry-back, then Carry forward.

Clement made a simple but interesting observation.
He asked us to ensure that the trade loss be used to offset profit before exemption in excess of $300,000 first, if possible. This is due to the partial exemption.

Example - For YA2009 (ie. 18% tax rate), we have Company A with $200,000 profit and Company B with $380,000 profit. Both companies have $80,000 trade loss carried forward. Compare tax payable before and after applying the trade loss of $80,000 for the two companies.

Company A to pay $10,350 after deducting trade loss or pays $17,550 without deducting trade loss. The trade loss of $80,000 would save $7,200 for Company A.
Company B to pay $26,550 after deducting trade loss or pays $40,950 without deducting trade loss. The trade loss of $80,000 would save $14,400 for Company B.

Moral of story - use the deductions for entity with profit in excess of $300,000 in the current year of assessment or keep for use in future years instead.

Lessons from Raffles Town Club's appeal

2010-04-25T17:28:00.005+08:00

nearing completion?

In yesterday's Today, it was reported that Raffles Town Club (RTC) has lost its arguments in the Court of Appeal on the following:-

failed to obtain tax deductions for the costs involved in leasing its land and in constructing the clubhouse on the ground that $108 million cost of acquiring the land from the State and the $91.4 million incurred in building the clubhouse were capital in nature and therefore
not eligible for tax deduction;
secondly, it failed to have its membership fees taxed over 30 years, the life span of the club (this is an interesting attempt in defining the timing of revenue recognition and consequently, timing of taxability);
thirdly, it failed to secure relief for YA2001 from the tax department for the $53.28 million in damages it had to pay members after it lost the 2005 class action suit filed by several thousand members who claimed the club had falsely led them to believe they were part of an exclusive establishment and;
lastly, it failed to secure tax deductibility for the $2.34 million that RTC paid for geomancy fees.

Consequently, RTC is liable to pay tax for the Years of Assessment 1998-2003 on the full amount of $526.14 million it collected from its 19,000-odd members who had paid $28,000 each to join.

I have quoted verbatim the learning points from Justice Phang's concluding remarks:-

"Where ordinary accounting principles run counter to the principles of tax law, they must yield to the latter for the purposes of computing gains and profits for tax."

"Accounting and tax have different objectives in mind. Financial accounting is intended to provide information regarding firm performance to the market place while taxable income is prescribed by the government to meet budgetary needs ... Regardless of how persuasive accounting evidence is, the prerogative still lies with the court to decide whether a particular item should be regarded as income that has accrued for the purposes of liability to tax."

He pointed out that while accounting treatment focuses on the balance sheet, "taxation requirements are centred on the profit and loss accounts, so that the distinctions between revenue and capital, which are vital for tax purposes, may be lost in the accounting treatment".

Concluding, he said: "I am also of the view that the present case turns on how well-established tax principles and tax law would apply rather than on the correct treatment of the items brought to tax."

Budget 2010 - Productivity and Innovation Credit

2010-03-03T00:20:00.005+08:00

It was announced in Budget 2010 that a Productivity and Innovation Credit (ie.“The Credit”) will be available for 5 years for Year of Assessment (YA) 2011 to YA 2015. The Credit will provide significant tax deductions for investments in a broad range of activities along the innovation value chain.

On such activities is investing in automation. Of course, IRAS defines "automation" as costs incurred to acquire "prescribed automation equipment" (e.g. laser printer, modem).

You would be entitled to 250% allowance for the first $300,000 of qualifying expenditure, 100% allowance for the balance expenditure.

Example: Laptop costs $2,000
Capital Allowance under the Credit = 250% x $2,000 = $5,000.

Taxpayer can either claim $5,000 as capital allowance in its tax return or opt to convert such capital allowances in respect of Laptop into a cash grant. The cash grant is computed at 7% of the capital allowance under the Credit ie. $350.

Question - Why the flexibility for you to choose to claim or to convert?
The simple answer is taxpayer should claim if it could help to save on paying 17% corporate tax and you should covert to cash if there is very little or no tax payable eg. for new company with exempt income.

Current Tax Trends

2010-02-14T15:56:00.003+08:00

Here are the current tax trends and their respective consequences as observed and explained by Lor Eng Min and Ang Lea Lea of Ernst & Young Solutions LLP:-

a) Increased information sharing among tax authorities of different countries
Businesses with operations over several countries would have to be careful in ensuring consistent information being given to the various tax authorities.
[Edgar - The same attitude should be adopted in providing information to various departments within a tax authority.]

b) Tax authorities sharpen their focus on large companies.
As many governments have incurred budget deficits in 2009, enhancing tax revenue collection could be a priority. By focusing on large companies, a significant portion of revenue could be collected very quickly while sending a signal to the rest of market to comply.
[Edgar - Given the advancement in technology and information availability, tax authority now has the ability to drill down and cross reference on companies, big and small.]

c) Shorter filing deadlines
In Singapore, the interval between filing of tax returns and the financial year end of company has been reduced substantially. If your company's year end is Dec 31, 2009, you are to submit your Form C in Nov 2010. [Edgar - Secondly, companies are encouraged to submit Estimated Chargeable Income. Failing which, the authority may present its own preliminary assessment and tax is payable within a month.]

d) Timely and voluntary disclosure requirements
Incentives in term of lighter penalty are explicitly stated to achieve the above.

e) Transfer pricing documentation and Advanced pricing arrangements
Given complex costing and pricing issues between entities in a group, the Group is encouraged to seek a formal understanding on any inter-company arrangement with tax authority.

Reference - Singapore Accountant, Jan 2010.

Gan Oh Boon and Tax Exemption Scheme

2010-01-01T13:40:00.001+08:00

A businessman, Gan Oh Boon, warmly embraced the idea from Chng Chor Tong, his auditor, of spreading the profits from his steel forming and rolling business over 6 new companies set up in 2004.

Law - The law exempts new companies from paying tax on the first $100,000 of chargeable income and partially exempted for the next $200,000.

Modus operandi
Company A signs management agreement with each of the 6 shell companies. The profit from Company A is evenly distributed to 6 companies by fictitious expenses (valued $1,6mio) with no work or services performed by the 6 shell companies for Company A.

The fictitious expenses were "correctly named" and comprised of commission fees, technical consultancy fees, marketing consultancy fees, engineering consultancy fees and management fees.

The said fees were for the work and services purportedly performed by the 6 shell companies. Even though these fees were reported as income by the respective shell company, the overall tax burden has been reduced substantially for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2005 to 2007.

What went wrong for Mr Gan in applying the law?
The tax exemption scheme under section 43(6A) of the Income Tax Act, which took effect from YA 2005, was introduced to support entrepreneurship and encourage growth of local enterprises.

But in my humble interpretation, the 6 shell companies are basically shells with no independent employees and resources carrying out its own economic activities.

You can't just create companies to distribute the profits around!!!

What are the punishments?

For the company, a fine of $24,000 and a penalty of $988,933.58.
For Mr Gan Oh Boon personally, 2 weeks of imprisonment and a total fine of $8,000.
In default of payment of the fine, the default sentence would be 6 weeks of imprisonment.
He was also ordered to pay a total penalty of $988,933.58. In default of payment of penalty, the total default sentence would be 34 months of imprisonment.

Windfall tax on bankers' bonuses

2009-12-17T21:11:00.004+08:00

was here last weekend

Britain and France have decided to impose a windfall tax on bankers' bonuses.

Under the new one-time tax, any bank operating in Britain must pay a tax of 50% on all discretionary bonuses of more than GBP25,000 (SGD$56,500) paid between now and April 5 next year. Banks attempting 'avoidance schemes' by postponing bonuses would face further, unspecified punishments. As the bonus payouts are mostly contracted, the banks are obliged to pay. Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman supports the idea.

So what could these fat cat bankers do?
Firstly, they can fly out of Europe to anywhere else such as Asia. They can then do whatever they are doing in Europe but do it in Singapore or Hong Kong instead.

Or secondly, they can stop calling themselves "bankers". The windfall tax is on bankers' bonuses and not cleaners'. Perhaps the bankers can call themselves cleaners and they get to keep their bonuses after deducting a nominal income tax. A small humiliation with full pockets.

Top chefs in hot soup?

2009-09-19T14:44:00.003+08:00

Some top hotels in Singapore are now without their respective chefs in their Chinese restaurants. They have been summoned to Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to "assist" in investigation of accepting bribes from a seafood provider.

What is the modus operandi?
Top chefs are king of their mountain ie. kitchen, in the hotels. They dictate what to buy and from who in the name of ensuring quality for their top Chinese restaurants. Suppliers have to show their appreciation for a more than amicable business relationship by showering them with "love" and "attention" in the form of gifts and money.

How did CPIB got a sniff of these violations?
CPIB was notified by Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). IRAS is investigating a seafood supplier on tax evasion. IRAS found some computer files with payout information in computers seized from the seafood supplier.

So the next time when you are eating sharkfins, fish maw, scallops in these expensive restaurants, you are not sure whether they are really "clean" or not.

Tax spies and top income bracket

2009-08-25T23:13:00.004+08:00

Mr Ooi Boon Jin, head of international executive services at KPMG, made this observation in today's BT. He said, "Our study has recorded a general decline in top personal income rates over the past seven years, but for 2010 we are seeing indications that a reversal may be on the way."

A reversal in falling tax rates in attempt to drive tax collections to pay for the trillions of stimulus packages implemented over the last 12 months.

In another development reported in today's BT, Mr Mochamad Tjiptardjo, the new tax chief since last month, said, "(Indonesia) must boost tax revenues significantly to meet the government's ambitious target in a country where tax evasion has been routine."

How does he plan to do it? Among the many initiatives, he intends to send "tax spies" to places to gather evidences of Indonesians have stowed their ill-gotten gains and evading taxes.

So if you are a high income earner, it is time you seriously review your tax residency status if you have not.

KPMG illustrated that a Singapore tax resident would pay top personal tax rate of 20% if and if their next chargeable income exceeds SGD$320,000 or USD217,317/-. If you are a Malaysia tax resident, you would have the honour of paying the top personal income tax rate of 27% at a significantly modest annual income of USD28,470/-.

Enhanced Loss Carry Back - Priority issue

2009-08-22T23:27:00.003+08:00

Rule - A company that has assessable income for a particular YA may be eligible to offset the income with losses carried forward from a prior YA as well as losses carried back from a subsequent YA.

Consider this scenario. There could be loss carried forward from YA2006 available to offset the
assessable income of $80,000 in YA 2007 in addition to the loss carried back from YA2009.

Question - What should the priority of offset be? Should it be carry forward first, then carry back, or vice versa?

Answer - Based on section 37E(1) and (17) of the Income Tax Act, the losses brought forward would be deducted first.

Transfer pricing in retro - 2006

2009-06-21T15:38:00.003+08:00

a portrait

Back in July 2006, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) organised its first transfer pricing conference in collaboration with several renowned tax and business consulting firms, including PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

Over 600 executives and tax practitioners attended the half-day forum titled: Transfer Pricing in Singapore – What you need to know.

It officially signalled IRAS's intention to focus resources in this area in the coming years. In future postings, I will attempt to provide the latest update on this front.

In 2006, Mr. See Jee Chang, IRAS’s Director for International Tax/Tax Policy & Ruling, highlighted two areas that require further clarification.

One area relates to the current practice of not requiring interest on intercompany loans.
The second relates to the common practice of charging a 5% profit mark-up for intercompany services.

At that preliminary stage, IRAS did not provide any detailed guidance but only signalled that related party loans involving foreign entities may be subject to adjustments.

With regard to intercompany services, IRAS mentioned that while a 5% mark-up may be accepted for routine services, the arm’s length principle may imply higher mark-ups for non-routine, value-added services.

Transfer pricing in taxation

2009-05-30T18:12:00.003+08:00

In management accounting, transfer pricing is a topic which addresses the issues with regard to determining a price for the transfer of goods and services between two divisions in a decentralised set-up.

In taxation, transfer pricing relates to the following areas:-

When entity A sells goods on credit to entity B and the receivable remains outstanding beyond the normal credit term - Entity A may be deemed to have provided interest-free funding to entity B.

Entity A and entity B are related. Entity B uses entity A's accounts department as its accounting resource. How much should entity A charge entity B? IRAS is prepared to accept a 5% mark-up on the basis that this has been a practice commonly adopted by related party service providers in Singapore as remuneration for providing routine support services. Other mark ups are acceptable. subject to arm's length principle.

In the third situation, entity A and entity B are utilising a service provided in a cost pooling arrangement. Issue here is the way the costs are allocated between the entities.

ACCA F6 - Discussion with Examiner

2009-03-27T18:04:00.003+08:00

Below is my interpretation of what was discussed in today's meeting with the Examiner.

Generally computation ie. greater than or equal to 60% of total marks.

Question 1
Only 21% has >15 marks based on sample.
There are more parts to this question.
And this change in question structure is apparently the main reason for the generally poor overall performance of F6 students.

Question 2
56% achieved more than 11 marks based on sample.
The peculiar exceptions below were the killers ie.
- spousal transfer
- tax concession on royalty income of an author
- accrued income concept
- unable to compute net rental income

Question 3
less than 1% achieved more than 11 marks (Shocking!!!!)
Limited Liability Partnership is almost a sure thing for the coming exam.
Students unable to appreciate that past relevant deductions > than contributed capital.

Question 4 - GST
Part (a) and (b) were on GST. Part (c) - not GST.
Examiner said at least 10 marks will be assigned to GST in the exam.
Students unable to address pre-commencement expenses.

Question 5
51% scored more than 11 marks.

Other comments
Students did well in June 2008 exam but did very badly for Dec 2008 exam.
Warning to students - Order of set-off must be correctly stated in the utilisation of Capital Allowances/Losses/Donations.
Budget 2009 will not be examined in June 2009 exam.
Try to find out about tax-on-tax, tax reimbursement and tax allowance for the coming exam.

ACCA P6 Meeting with the Examiner

2009-03-27T17:44:00.002+08:00

The following is my interpretation of what was discussed in the meeting the Examiner this afternoon.

What was done well?
- Knowledge - particularly in personal income tax, recent tax changes and withholding tax (but lacking in mitigation of liability under witholding tax).
- Approach & structure - students are observed to be attempting the more "approachable" questions in Part B first, then Part A. (Statistically from a worldwide basis, questions should be attempted in the order as per numbered ==> otherwise perform badly)

What was not done well?
Students failed to plan their time and answers. How?
Massive download of unnecessary info into the answers.
Don't produce rote answers.
Don't do unnecessary calculations.
Unable to structure answers to "advisory" questions.
Students should "tailor" their answer to the requirements of each question.
Poor performance on GST in all three sittings under the new syllabus to date. (wink! wink! study harder in this area)

What to focus on?
Need to know the technical details under F6 being foundation knowledge to P6.
Answer all parts of the questions. Address each paragraph in the question.
Focus on command words.
"What you intend to write must be to earn marks"

Other comment
Do the students have enough questions to practice? The old Paper 3.2 is different from current P6.
When the question asked for "a five-year period", students only need to do one calculation for 5 years and NOT five single-year calculations.
P6 questions are on multi-tax type basis.

In the last sitting, there was someone who scored "zero" mark despite having written pages after pages. Why? The person spent the time copying the exam questions word for word twice into the answer script.

Students do not seem to under the meaning of "business undertaking".

Tax cases are examinable. But the participants had a very vigorous discussion on where to get the details of the tax cases.

Tax Deferment Scheme

2009-02-28T23:44:00.003+08:00

What is the Scheme about?
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) allows taxpayers with GIRO arrangement to defer income tax instalments for 3 months, from May 2009 to July 2009.

I thought IRAS was in the same helpful mode as per Budget just presented earlier ie. delaying its collection of current tax payable due to IRAS.

But which 3 months are we talking about? May, Jun and July 2009!!! For these months, we are actually paying tax in ADVANCE ie. for YA2009. They are actually not due until we receive our Assessment after we report our income on April 15.

So IRAS, are you really helping us to alleviate our financial burden? I don't think so.

Bottomline - You are not defering tax on money I owe you but rather you are defering on tax I am not due to pay you.

Singapore Budget 2009 - My budget chats

2009-01-30T12:51:00.000+08:00

Dear Friends,

Happy 'Niu' Year to you.

The Singapore Budget 2009 has been touted as bold. I do agree with this labelling to a big extent.

I have placed my comment at AccountingWithEdgar blog. My latest entry is my views on Dr Basant Kapur's idea to roll back GST to stimulate Consumption.

So please have a read through and share with me your views and comment too.

Gongxi to you!

Suggestion to IRAS

2009-01-13T20:24:00.002+08:00

where was i?

There is a significant difference in value placed on a gardener and a household servant in the computation of taxable benefits granted to an employee.

Current laws

For a gardener, it is $35 per month or actual wages paid by employer, whichever is lower.
Whereas for a household servant, it is based on the actual wages paid by employer.

Refer - www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page03.aspx?id=3638

Perhaps the "discrepancy" could be due to:-

the gardener's thingy has been around since the British colonial days where expatriates stayed in bungalows with gardens groomed by gardeners getting $35 salary
the household servant is a more recent phenomenon
or is it that gardeners are part-timers who come around once a while to touch up on your garden

Whatever it is, I am just trying to cheekily explain the "discrepancy" in IRAS' valuation of a gardener as compared to a household servant.

So can I advise expatriate employees (if there is any left) to ask their employers to hire "gardeners" who can do household chores to effectively lower your taxable employment income? :)

Your IR8A

2008-12-28T19:41:00.007+08:00

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) encourages all employers to join the Auto-Inclusion Scheme for Employment Income. It is a scheme where employers submit their employees’ income information to IRAS electronically.

The employment income information will be shown on the employees’ electronic tax return and automatically included in their income tax assessments.

Well if things go according to plan as above, all parties involved ie. employer, employee, IRAS and the mother Earth will be all happy.

But what happen when there has been an error or omission in the employer's submission?

For any omission/error in the Form IR8A, the penalties for any tax understated are imposed on the employer for a failure to report.

However, penalties may also be separately imposed on the employee for failure to report in his personal tax return. You can't argue with IRAS that the mistake was committed by your employer.

Remember you are the person who finally submit the return!

Gold farmers?

2008-12-18T19:57:00.004+08:00

Who are they?
Players who repetitiously slay virtual monsters in online games in order to earn virtual "gold" and "equipment". Such winnings could be sold for real money offline.

Some of them could do so well at this that they are able to hire "employees" to run errands such as buying lunches/drinks and collecting money from buyers from all over Singapore.

Are the taxman interested in the income?
Definitely yes. Korea National Tax Service taxes these farmers up to 40% on their profits. China authority arrived in Oct 2007. Singapore's IRAS said such income is definitely taxable.

But I wonder who in Singapore with this vocation has actually declared and paid taxes on their income? If you had, please share with the details.

Why is it taxable?
Under Tax 101, we learned the "badges of trade". Of the six badges, these two would nail the farmers ie.

frequency or number of similar transactions by an individual
the essence of a profit seeking motive

Now I got to go check on my children playing on their computer games!!

Source - yesterday's ST pp 2

What is a business' commencement date?

2008-12-12T19:33:00.003+08:00

I am duly notified today that IRAS has issued a directive in an attempt to define a business' commencement date.

What is the definition of the business' commencement date?
It is only when the business has established its profit-making structure and started its
first commercial activity that it can be regarded as having commenced operation.

What is profit-making structure?
No specific definition. It depends on the nature of the business. IRAS has however provided several examples in the directive.

If you were runnning a supermarket, it commences business when it opens its door and offers its goods for sale to the public. It is definitely not the date of opening ceremony.

For a manufacturing entity, it is the date the entity is in a position to start its first commercial production.

The start date for a hotel is simpler. It is the day it receives the certificate of registration.

A property developer seems to be getting a rough deal. The business commences when it buys its first piece of land or building for sale.

For a set up to provide professional service, it is deemed to have started business when it is ready to commence marketing activities. So if you are still in the midst of hiring staff and putting your office together, you have not started your business yet.

In case of doubt, you can always write in to IRAS for assistance.

KPMG - Press Release - Sep 2008 - Summary

2008-11-23T15:22:00.003+08:00

Mr Owi Kek Hean, Head of Tax Services at KPMG in Singapore highlighted the following key trends.

Firstly, indirect tax rates on the whole have not changed, while corporate tax rates have been
pushed steadily down.

Secondly, more and more governments are introducing indirect tax systems. There are currently
135 countries with these systems in place and more in the pipeline.

Thirdly, there is a steady expansion of the transactions that these taxes are applied to, and a new focus from tax authorities on efficient collection of indirect taxes through corporate tax
departments.

Fourthly - Enforcement is on the rise.
If your business is making GST supplies of S$1 billion or more, you are entitled to access its GST
Compliance Assurance Programme. This programme involves visits by specialist revenue authority officers to large businesses to assist with issues of GST accounting, record keeping and reporting.

Interesting facts on Asia Pacific countries:-
Corporate tax rates - Highest - Japan with 40%, Lowest - Macau 12%
Indirect tax rates - Highest - Pakistan 20%, Lowest - Japan 5% (Sweden - 25%)

Windfall Tax on IPP reversed

2008-09-14T22:40:00.004+08:00

wedding in progress

On Friday's BT, I was duly surprised by the news that Malaysia's tax department has decided to scrap the windfall tax on its Indepedent Power Producers that it announced only a few months ago. [Click here for background - http://taxwithedgar.blogspot.com/2008/07/tax-on-your-windfall.html]

Don't pop the champagne yet. The windfall tax will however be replaced by a one-off payment.

Either way, the Government will still get the IPP's monies. Renaming it to "one-off" would satisfy the rating agencies.

Another "one-off payment" next year? We will wait and see.

UOLD case and S33A of Stamp Duties Act

2008-09-10T11:06:00.003+08:00

Ion in the making

Who are the parties involved?
UOL Development (Novena) Pte Ltd vs Commissioner of Stamp Duties

What are the facts of the case?
In 2005, 53 owners at Minbu Road sold their respective properties on an enbloc basis to UOL Development after a tender. UOL Development's lawyers subsequently sent separate letters of acceptance to each owner. UOL Development was effectively trying to treat this as 53 separate purchases instead of as an en bloc purchase.

The intended outcome was to reduce the stamp duties payable by UOL Development as the rate of stamp duties is progressively structured.

To illustrate
I assume each property is $1 million and the en bloc price is $53 millions.
The stamp duties payable for $53 mio en bloc price would be $1,584,600.
The stamp duties payable for $1 mio x 53 transactions would be $1,303,800.
A saving of about $280,000!!!

Decision of the Court
The Court ruled against UOL Development for reason that the original intention and contract was for a Sale & Purchase on an en bloc basis.

The Court also said that there was NO "sound commercial basis" for 53 separate contracts and the arrangement was "so contrived that it was clearly intended to reduce or avoid tax liabilities".

Reference - Lim Gek Khim, "Tax Planning - When does it become tax avoidance?", Singapore Accountant, Sep/Oct 2008.

Tax Planning or Tax Avoidance?

2008-09-07T10:40:00.005+08:00

F1 in Singapore soon but Look at the mess!

As we consult with our clients on structuring a business and its activities, we often have to check ourselves as to whether we are helping the client to manage its tax exposure efficiently as compared to facilitating the client in avoiding tax.

What is it that so difficult, you may ask. Just go and find out the definition of tax planning and tax avoidance and; just follow the letters of the law.

Dr Richard Hu, the then Minister of Finance back in 1999, attempted to give some meat to the meaning of tax avoidance in the second reading of the bill to adopt Section 33A of the Stamp Duties Act. He said,

tax avoidance schemes are purely tax driven, with little or no commercial value or rationale.
tax planning are activities/ schemes structured to be tax efficient in accordance with the relevant tax laws.

But am I any wiser after the reading that? I don't think so.

As we push the boundary of tax planning, are we edging closer to tax avoidance?

In my next posting, I will cite a real case for discussion.

Source - Lim Gek Khim, "Tax Planning - When does it become tax avoidance", Singapore Accountant, Sep/Oct 2008.

What is your personal effective tax rate?

2008-08-05T23:12:00.002+08:00

For those who have submitted your income tax return in April, have you received your notice of assessment yet? Can share with us your tax payable :)

In Feb 2008, Mr Sum Yee Loong of Deloitte & Touche presented the following statistics.

If you are an employee married with two children and earns a gross annual remuneration of $100,000, your effective tax is only 3.98%. The other countries cited:-
- Hong Kong 5.15%
-USA 5.35%
- Malaysia 19.26%
- China 20.84%
- India 31.88%

However, if you are an employee married with two children and earns a gross annual remuneration of $200,000, your effective tax would more than doubled to 9.13%. The other countries cited:-
- Hong Kong 11.08%
-USA 14.46%
- Malaysia 23.54%
- China 26.91%
- India 32.94%

Conclusion
While the change in effective tax rate is very high for Singapore for the two income brackets studied, Singapore still offer the lowest effective tax rates for your personal income.

What is your effective tax rate?

R&D Tax Allowance (RDTA)

2008-08-03T22:38:00.003+08:00

New allowance is deductible from Chargeable Income effective YA2009 - YA2013.

It is capped at 50% of the first $300,000 of Chargeable Income.

RDTA Computation

Chageable income
Less - RDTA set off
----------------------------
X
Less - Partial Exemption
----------------------------
Net Chargeable Income (A)
====================

RDTA = 50% of A
Max - $150,000

Basic guidelines of how RDTA works
1. Compute RDTA for Year 1
2. Year 1 RDTA is available for setoff against net Chargeable Income for Year 2, 3 and 4
3. Any unutilised RDTA would be "lost" after 3 years
4. The setoff amount is the lower of RDTA OR incremental R&D expenditure by company for the year.

What is "incremental" R&D expenditure?

Example
R&D expenditure for YA2009
Less - R&D expenditure for YA2008
--------------------------------------
Incremental R&D expenditure
==========================

S14D R&D

2008-08-03T22:23:00.003+08:00

R&D expenditure now qualify for 150% deduction with effect from YA2009 - YA2013.

The R&D may not be related to the existing business / trade.

Mr Sum Yee Loong (assuming I heard him correctly) thus advised that if you want to start a new business with some R&D activities, you should it as a division in the existing business first.

You may push the division out as a separate business later.

Cross border billings

2008-07-28T14:28:00.004+08:00

stealing in progress?

Have you been doing cross border billings? Of course, you have not. I hope...

For those who are not familiar with it, here is the explanation. Imagine you have a company in China and also a company in Hong Kong. For businesses secured and completed in China, the billing ie. the invoice is issued from the Hong Kong company.

Why?

Apparently many SMEs, with the above set up, are taking advantage of the 9% discrepancy between the corporate tax rates of two countries (Hong Kong 16.5% and China 25%).

They have been booking their mainland's revenue in the lower tax region in Hong Kong.

So can we do the same between Singapore and regional countries? You better not as apparently Chinese and Hong Kong authorities are said to be working together to clamp down on such arrangement.

Tax on your Windfall...

2008-07-06T22:31:00.002+08:00

Last month, the Malaysian government decided to implement the provision under the Windfall Profit Levy Act 1998 ie. impose a 30 per cent levy on returns on assets above the 9 per cent threshold of the Independent Power Producers' (IPPs) audited accounts.

Apparently, the law would effectively mean a higher corporate tax rate on profits made by companies.

While at this moment, the impact is limited to IPPs. But should the government's fiscal conditions worsen, will this "martial law" be suddenly applied on other sectors that too are doing well.

Such laws confuse investors. They blur visibility in investing in a country. While the law has been around since 1998 (apparently), it was not implemented.

Sec 10(2)(c) Place of Residence provided by the Employer

2008-06-08T11:46:00.003+08:00

This is an undoubtedly a taxable benefit. The only doubt here is how to compute the quantum of taxable benefit.

Benefit is applicable to employees. Not applicable to directors who are employees too.

What is the Rule?
The taxable value of the accommodation is the lower of:-

10% of the gains or profits from employment LESS any rent paid by the employee; OR;
the annual value of the premises.

Illustration

Annual value - $38,000

Rent paid by employee - $700 x 12 months = $8,400

Remuneration from employment - $150,000

Which of the following presentation is correct?

Option A

Lower of:-

(10% x $150,000) = $15,000 or
$38,000

The lower amount being $15,000 ==> taxable benefit would be $15,000 less $8,400 = $6,600.

Option B

Lower of:-

(10% x $150,000) less $8,400 = $6,600 OR;
$38,000

Thus the taxable benefit would be $6,600.

Which do you think is the correct presentation though both give you the same answer?

GST on Donation

2008-06-05T12:27:00.000+08:00

In BT dated June 4, 2008, Wong Sze Teen and Yeo Kai Eng also discusses the implication of GST on donations.

What is the Rule?
Generally, no GST on CASH donations if the amount involved is small and no tangible benefits granted to Donor.

But when Donors are entitled to some form of benefits ie. chance of a lucky draw to win a trip to Timbuktu, technically speaking such donations attract GST.

IRAS Concessionary Exemption is granted to certain benefits if:-
- the benefit is given as part of acknowledging the donation made and;
- the benefit has no resale value.

Thus certain acts by the Recipients, which are technically speaking, benefits to the Donors, are exempted. Eg. Donors could be invited to and honoured at a Gala Dinner held in conjuction to the Charity.

What if your GST-registered business gave a donation in kind?
Donor has to account for output GST on deemed supply except if:-
- less than $200 and;
- is not part of a series of gifts.

The GST trap of Sponsorship, Grant and Donation

2008-06-04T12:00:00.005+08:00

such beautiful mature bamboo

In BT today, Wong Sze Teen and Yeo Kai Eng, GST experts from Ernst & Young, wrote an article on the implication of GST on sponsorship, government grants and donation.

I will cover issues on sponsorship and grants first.

Situation
Company X gives $1,000,000 to Company Y as sponsorship for a certain event that Company B is organising. Assuming both are GST-registered.

What is the Rule?
IRAS said sponsorship will not attract GST if company X:-
- did it voluntarily without any obligation and;
- did not receive any tangible benefits in return.

Failing which, company Y would have to issue a GST-tax invoice to company X.

For what amount should the invoice be issued on?
Answer - It depends on the market value of the benefits company Y would have to give to company X.

If market value of benefits < $1,000,000 eg. $800,000, company Y would have to issue an invoice for $800,000 inclusive of GST. Thus company Y would have to account for output GST of $52,236.45 to IRAS. Company X could then account for input GST of the same amount.

Any difficulty?
Firstly, when is a benefit given is considered a benefit given?
Secondly, company Y would have to determine the market value the benefits granted.

Government Grants
Generally and simply said - Attracts no GST to both the Giver and Recipient.

GST-inclusive price

2008-05-18T10:40:00.004+08:00

I have been paying attention to the numerous huge advertisements by the many industry players in the red hot lasik market in Singapore. Prices of lasik is definitely on a downtrend and possibility of hitting sub-$1,000 per eye for standard lasik is very real. (someone told me the limit has been breached already)

In today's national paper, I notice a lasik provider has now included the GST-inclusive price of $2,341.16 into the advert albeit in a smaller font size.

In the heat of competition, perhaps many have forgotten the small detail of the need to place GST-inclusive prices.

What is the Law?

According to reg 77(1) of GST regulations, "where a taxable person publicly displays or advertises the price of any supply of goods and services he makes, or intends to make, it has to be the "GST-inclusive" price.

Any exception to this law must be approved by IRAS.

Edgar says...

While such taxable persons may not be sufficiently in tune with all details, I wonder whether the advertising agents or media owners should play a role in removing such "printing errors or omissions".

Cake or biscuit = GBP3.5m error

2008-05-05T23:04:00.004+08:00

Situation

Under UK tax rules, most traditional bakery products such as bread, cakes, flapjacks and Jaffa Cakes are free of Value Added Tax (VAT).

But the tax is payable on some other items eg. cereal bars, shortbread and partly-coated or wholly-coated biscuits.

The confusion arose when the Authority is not sure when a CAKE is not a bread or when a BREAD is actually a cake etc etc etc....

Customers of Marks & Spencer in UK, who had been paying VAT for the last 20 years for a product called "teacakes" realised recently that VAT should not have been applied on the product. How come? The authorities have accepted the product was actually a cake, which does not command VAT!!! A mistake realised after 20 years.

Conclusion

This incident serves to explain why the Government has chosen not to heed calls from some quarters to apply a lower GST rate on necessities.

Ms Ong Bee Lian, the Bookkeeper

2008-04-23T20:56:00.005+08:00

Ms Ong Bee Lian, the precedent partner of Ongserve Management, a firm providing bookkeeping and secretarial service, had wilfully with intent to evade tax, consistently understated the profits of the Firm for the Years of Assessment 1998 to 2000 and 2002. The total amount understated was $156,000.

Her Modus Operandi, not much but here it is.
Evidence dug up by IRAS shows that Ms Ong has wilfully and intentionally falsified and claimed fictitious management fee expenses in the accounts of the Firm for the Years of Assessment 1998 to 2000 and 2002. Aiya...

So what has happened to her?
She will be accorded government's food and lodging for 2 weeks ie. imprisonment plus order to pay a penalty of 3 times the amount of tax undercharged.

How to finance Development Expenditure?

2008-03-27T22:11:00.000+08:00

What is Development Expenditure (DE)?

According to Ministry of Finance, DE refers to expenses that represents a longer term investment and result in the formation of a capitalisable asset of the Government.

How is DE financed currently?

Based on FY2007 Budget, $7.1 billion of total DE of $13.1 billion (ie. 54%) is financed out of current revenues, mainly taxes.

How should DE be financed according to Mr Basant Kapur?

Mr Kapur said most DE should be financed by borrowing. Exception - DE on military hardware which should be financed out of taxes.

What are the basis of Mr Basant Kapur's position?

DE, as in any investments, would generate a return over time. The return should be measured by the incremental GDP contributed by the DEs. The interest servicing and loan capital repayment should be paid out of taxes on the incremental GDP.

Using current tax revenues to pay for future returns may have negative repercussions. Mr Kapur argued that the 2% GST increase may thus not be necessary if the DE were to be financed through borrowing, from internal sources or otherwise. The GST increase has resulted in higher than expected tax revenue which may curb consumption and fuel inflation.

In summary, we should not impose cost to the present when we are investing today for future benefits based on economists' "efficiency argument".

Who is Mr Basant Kapur?

He is a Professor of Economics and Director, Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, NUS.

Reference - Basant Kapur, "Better to borrow than raise GST", Straits Times, 29 Feb 2008.

Destroying records and selling computer...

2008-03-23T10:23:00.001+08:00

Png Yeow Leng, 35, pleaded guilty to 6 charges under GST Act when he faked transactions to claim $42,000 in tax rebates over 9 months to March 2005.

Nothing amazing about this so far.

The interesting thing is that he has the honour of being the first person in 14 years to be convicted of not keeping proper business records.

When the IRAS officers first attempted to commence investigation into his business dealings, he closed his shop, burnt its records and sold his computer to a karung guni man.

Under section 46(1) and (2) of the GST Act, a GST trader is required to keep business and accounting records, copies of all tax invoices and receipts issued by him and tax invoices received by him and to preserve such records for a period of not less than 7 years.

From 1 Jan 2007, you have to keep your records for 5 years.

Failure to do so is an offence. Under section 46(6), the offence is punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

SRS enhancements

2008-03-12T00:30:00.004+08:00

things people watch together

Old rule - Workers only can top up their own accounts.
New rule - From Oct 1, 2008, employers can top up the SRS accounts for their employees and enjoy tax exemptions.

So if you know that an employee of yours is going to contribute to SRS, why don't the company do it on behalf of the employee?

Old rule - Currently, members are given 10 years to withdraw their SRS savings from the retirement age of 62.
New rule - It will start only when a SRS member makes his or her first withdrawal.

Other features:-

50% of the amount taken out of SRS account during that 10-year period is taxable.

Top-ups will still be capped at $11,475 for Singaporeans and PRs and; $26,775 for foreigners.

Section 94A of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act

2008-03-09T21:01:00.009+08:00

two lonely petals

A piece of legislation, passed in Feb last year, has sharply upped the ante for filing late returns. The harsh new penalty kicks in for those who fail to file tax returns for two years or longer. There could also be a fine of up to $1,000.

The new Act has been giving sleepless nights to many, especially this fellow called Joe Ang. He felt so bad that he wrote a letter to IRAS.

"Dear Honourable Tax Officer of IRAS,

I have had many sleepless nights over the last two years for the tax owing. Please see the attached cheque of $100.

Good night.

Your humble taxpayer, Joe Ang.

P/S - If I still can't sleep, I will send the rest of the monies."

I will attribute the above adapted joke to Mr Sum Yee Loong who has kindly shared it with us during his budget review presentation on 27 Feb 2008. Cheers.

Mr Tharman explains...

2008-03-01T21:14:00.003+08:00

Singapore achieved S$6.4 billion Budget surplus in fiscal year 2007 (equivalent to 2.7% of GDP) against S$0.7 billion deficit forecasted. The variance is a humongous SGD $7.1 billion between actual and budgeted.

The Finance Ministry has been urged to improve its fiscal marksmanship. Mr Tharman attempted to explain the variance in Parliament on Feb 27, 2008.

At the time of the Budget last year, the finance ministry estimated 2006 stamp duties to be $1.5 billion and hence projected the same level for 2007 on the basis that 2006 was itself already an exceptional year for property.

After the budget was released, the data showed a significant increase in stamp duty collection for Jan-Mar FY2006 to $2 billion, not $1.5 billion figure used at the time of preparing the Budget. Eventually, the property market accounted for more than $3.5 billion in extra revenues, lifting the budget surplus for FY2007 to $6.4 billion.

Well Mr Tharman has explained SGD$2 billion of the SGD$7.1 billion variance, how about the rest of the variance?

There was also uncertainty on whether the buoyancy in luxury projects would filter through to the rest of the property market. They did not expect the surge in the volume of transactions.

Singapore is a very open economy and thus very expose to external factors, positively and negatively.

I wonder we can quote Mr Tharman when we miss our business targets and hope our bosses will still see us positively by saying, "We cannot expect too much prescience in the budget planning process."

Our bosses may respond, "Mr Tharman is running the country's finances while you are just running a department's/section's finances."

For the record, there had been six instances of over-projection in the Budget positions in the last 10 years.

Reference - Chen Hui Fen, Govt uses 'realistic' assumptions instead of 'optimistic' ones, Business Times, 27 Feb 2008.

Hong Kong pushes the ante in its budget

2008-03-01T19:37:00.005+08:00

HK slashes taxes and doles out the goodies, with greater generosity than Singapore's, funded by its record budget surplus achieved in 2007.

Singapore achieved S$6.4 billion Budget surplus (equivalent to 2.7 per cent of GDP) while Hong Kong's record FY2007 HK$115.6 billion (S$20.7 billion) surplus - 7.2 per cent of GDP.

Both governments to give out tax rebates. 20% tax rebate, up to $2,000 for Singapore. For HK, 75% tax rebate on salaries and corporate tax, up to a ceiling of HK$25,000.
While Singapore holds its corporate and income tax rates steady, HK has decided to cut its headline corporate rate by 1% to 16.5% (Singapore - 18%). For income tax, HK's top tier rate is 15% compared to 20% in Singapore. That is HK's way of sharpening its competitive edge in the international arena.
In promoting entrepreneurship in its already highly entrepreneurial society, HK is waiving business registration fees for a year. Singapore has decided to develop its competitiveness for its future by placing its chips on specific targeted areas:-

seeding Research and Development culture in all business entities in Singapore if possible, with tax grants and relaxation of restriction to perform R&D related to your existing business and;
targeted incentives for specific financial and maritime industries, and tech start-ups.

4. While HK has decided to scrap its 40% tax on its wine and beer duty all together, Singapore has instead decided to moderate its liquor duties by charging duties based on its alcohol content.

5. On Green front, HK is ahead of Singapore with tax concessions for environmentally-friendly vehicles and even machinery. We were just lamenting the lack of concrete intention ie. $, by Singapore on this front.

6. For the lower income group in both economies,

HK will do the following:-

mandatory pension payments - to inject cash of up to HK$6,000.
extra month's payment under Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA).
The elderly were also given additional funding of HK$60 million a year for day care, residential and infirmary places.
Old Age Allowance recipients will also receive a one-off grant of HK$3,000, costing the government HK$1.5 billion.
set aside HK$50 billion for health care financing in the ageing society.
subsidy of HK$1,800 for electricity charges per household, costing the government HK$4.3 billion.

Singapore will do the following:-

Singapore is disbursing some S$1.8 billion of 'growth dividends' to all Singaporeans still holding on to their shares.
Another S$1 billion in benefits under a GST offset package unveiled earlier when the consumption tax rate was raised by two percentage points.

Reference
Anna Teo, A tale of the Budgets of two cities, Business Times, 29 Feb 2008.
Jane Moir, HK slashes taxes, doles out the goodies, Business Times, 28 Feb 2008.

GST for Gold trading could be different

2008-02-21T10:19:00.004+08:00

Under normal circumstances, GST is to be accounted for at the earliest of the following events:-

date when goods are delivered or made available to your customer;
date when payment is received; or
date of issuance of invoice.

But when it comes to trading of gold where the prices are dependent on fluctuations in the market for a period of 90 days.

The law allows that the invoice to be issued on the 90th day with the price determined by (assuming the seller has not received any payment),

buyer/seller; or
otherwise based on the open market value prevailing on that day.

This method of accounting is only peculier to sales of gold jewellery.

GST - Residential Building Project

2008-02-07T13:46:00.000+08:00

There is no doubt that you have to charge GST for construction services done for both residential and commercial properties.

Zero-rated if it is done on properties outside Singapore.

Situation

You are the GST-registered sub-contractor appointed to do the tiling and flooring works for a project eg. total value is $20,000 (excluding GST).

Your GST-registered main contractor will supply you the tiles eg. valued at $8,000 (excluding GST).

How could you do the billing?

Solutions

Option 1 - Invoice the main contractor on the net value ie. ($20,000 less $12,000) $8,000 + $560 GST.

Option 2 - Invoice main contractor for the total value of contract ie $20,000 + $1,400 GST. Main contractor would then invoice you for the tiles supplied ie. $12,000 + $840 GST.

P/S - Adapted from article in ST Feb 6, 2008.

Malaysia's new single-tier corporate tax system...

2007-12-30T13:40:00.000+08:00

....is now in sync with Singapore's system.

Under Malaysia's old two-tier imputation system, profits earned by companies were firstly taxed at corporate rate and subsequently tax at individual level when received as dividend distributed.

Singapore's old two-tier imputation system while similar but slightly different from our neighbour's ie. profits earned by companies were firstly taxed at corporate rate. The after-tax dividend received by individuals were then "re-grossed" and subject to the individual's tax rate.

Now both Singapore and Malaysia will pay out exempt dividend ie. after corporate tax rate, to shareholders.

Yeo Hiap Seng multi million dollars tax saga continues

2007-12-27T20:56:00.000+08:00

this is not as clear as black and light brown

Back in Apr 2007, I became aware of the ongoing ding-donging between YHS and IRAS on a "simple" definition issue that may result in YHS paying IRAS millions of dollars.

http://taxwithedgar.blogspot.com/2007/04/revaluation-surplus-and-tax-issues-with.html

What is the ding-donging about?
In 2000, IRAS wants to treat $108.2 million of the revaluation surplus of $128.8 million as a taxable gain. The tax payable by YHS would be $23.3 million.

YHS has insisted that the $108.2 million is capital in nature and thus not taxable.

What is today's news about?
Apparently, the statutory time limit for assessing profits on the Sterling project for YA 2001 expires at the end of this month. So IRAS has issued a "protective assessment" on the tax payable to avoid the situation of the "claim" becoming a legal-no-show (ie. YHS can no longer be legally obliged to answer/pay).

YHS's responses
- YHS applied for a "standover without penalty" of the tax raised by the protective assessment. IRAS granted the request.
- YHS will make a tax provision of $23.3 million and consequently issued a profit warning.

For most of the taxpayers, you pay first if you wish to object to the assessment. If you don't, you got fined. For YHS, standover without penalty was granted.

Friends, this series of "tactical" moves of creating the revaluation reserve prior to converting the land from factory use to condominium property developments, subsequently objecting to the tax assessment and dragging it over the last 6 years should be documented and reviewed in MBA/tax classes.

Property tax too will be increased for bigger HDB flats

2007-11-17T16:54:00.000+08:00

What happened?
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will be revising the Annual Values (AVs) of most properties, including HDB flats.

The AVs of all properties are subject to annual reviews by IRAS to ensure that they reflect prevailing market rentable values for property tax computation. This year, most AVs will be revised upwards.

What are the property tax rates?
The property tax rate is currently set at 10% of the AV of the property. For owner-occupied residential properties, the owners enjoy a concessionary tax rate of 4%.

What is the impact to you?
From Jan 1, 2008, if you are a property owner in the more centralised and popular areas like Bishan, Bukit Merah and Marine Parade, you would have higher AV increases, compared to other areas.

The average AV increase in percentage terms for the flat types are: 20% for 1-room and 2-room flats, 25% for 3-room flats, 18% for 4-room flats, 20% for 5-room flats and 18% for executive flats.

However, the increase in AVs does not translate to a proportionate increase in property tax actually payable, due to the property tax rebates that have been granted by the Government.

As part of GST Offset Package announced in Budget 2007, an additional property tax rebate of up to $100 per year in 2008 and 2009 to be handed out. Thus 90% of all HDB flat owners will not pay more property tax in 2008 even after the AVs of their flats will be increased in 2008.

In summary,

All 1-room and 2-room flats will pay zero property tax room flats.

3-room flats - 60% (compared to 13% in 2007) will pay zero property tax and 40% will be paying less tax than in 2007.

For 4-room, 5-room and executive flats, about 15% will pay more property tax but the increase in property tax is less than $40 (or about $3 per month).

Do you DARE to go to trial on tax evasion?

2007-10-26T00:51:00.000+08:00

If you have been charged by IRAS for tax evasion, would you accept the accept the charges and submit yourself to whatever punishments befitting OR would you seek your justice in court? What did Mr Looi, our famour curry puff entrepreneur do under similar circumstances?

For income tax offences

Section 96 and Section 96A provide for statutory presumption which relieves the prosecution from having to prove an intention to evade tax, the very hallmark of tax evasion.

Where a false statement is found to have been made in the taxpayer's return, accounts or records, this is considered proof of an intention to evade tax.

You can try to challenge the presumption by having the burden of to disproving the presumption in trial.

For GST violations,

The advantage is also with IRAS, the plaintiff / prosecution. The defence ie. the alleged violators, would have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Concluding remark

To date, very few persons charged with tax evasion have been brave enough or not foolish enough to seek justice in court.

As for our Mr Looi, he pleaded guilty with any legal representation.

Mr Sharma, a partner of KhattarWong rallied the authority to level out the playing field ie. BOTH prosecution and defence are required to prove their case in court.

Tax evasion under Section 96 and 96A

2007-10-16T00:08:00.000+08:00

For most of us, we should not bother to know the crime and punishment one could get for evading tax. We only need to know the law will come down hard on you.

But given the recent hoo and haah of going tax violators in the now glamourous occupation of being a hawker, it would be appropriate for our students and members of accounting profession to remind our clients of the consequences of tax evasion.

What is tax evasion?

Income tax evasion requires both a wilful intent to evade tax as well as one of five forms of physical conduct, namely:-

omitting from a tax return, income that should be included
making a false statement or entry in a tax return
giving a false answer, whether verbally or in writing, to any question or request for information from the IRAS
preparing or maintaining false books of account or other records, or authorising the same, or falsifying any books of account or other records
making use of any art, fraud or contrivance or authorising the use of any art, fraud or contrivance.

Punishment

Since December 2003, apart from the offence of tax evasion in Section 96 of the Income Tax Act, an offence of serious fraudulent tax evasion has been enacted under Section 96A.

The newer offence carries a heavier penalty, a higher fine and an extended jail time, for essentially some of the same acts that used to constitute ordinary tax evasion.

A person convicted of tax evasion under Section 96 faces a penalty of three times the tax evaded, a fine of up to $10,000 and a term of imprisonment of up to three years or both fine and jail.

The last two types of physical conduct listed above have been taken out from Section 96 and reinstated as new offences.

Under Section 96, there is a minimum jail sentence of six months upon a conviction for three or more offences, including assisting another to evade tax.

Under Section 96A, a person found guilty and convicted of two or more offences, also faces at least six months in jail.

Final Remark - I have done a simple format above for you to do email broadcasts to your hawker clients if necessary.

Different ways of getting whack for tax violations

2007-10-13T01:37:00.000+08:00

S. Sharma, in today's BT, who is now a partner at the law firm KhattarWong (but was senior legal officer at IRAS), highlighted the difference in how prospective tax evaders are being investigated, examined and prosecuted, depending on whether it is income tax OR goods and services tax (GST) violation.

What is the difference?

For income tax violations,

The IRAS conducts its own investigation, obtains approval from internally to institute the prosecution and conducts the proceedings in court without any talking to the Attorney-General or any Deputy Public Prosecutor.

For GST violations,

Under Section 69 of the GST Act, a prosecution for GST evasion requires the sanction of the Public Prosecutor alone, and not the Comptroller of GST, unlike income tax evasion.

Why the difference in treatment?

Is it because GST monies are deemed to be state assets "stolen" by the tax violators? Whereas income taxes are "contributions" from tax payers for nation building.

As to Mr Sharma, the "why" is not important. He has requested the relevant authorities to harmonise the difference.

Donald Tsang's new term policy speech

2007-10-11T01:09:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, Mr Donald Tsang, Chief Executive of Hong Kong announced how he has decided to spend the HK$58.6 billion (US$7.55 billion) budget surplus accumulated in the last financial year and which is likely to be sustained after 6.3 per cent economic growth in the first half of 2007.

HK$5billion giveaway in the form of corporate tax and salary tax cut by 1 percentage point to 16.5 per cent and 15 per cent respectively in the fiscal year starting next April 2008
Rates for property owners totalling some HK$2.6 billion would be waived for the final quarter of the fiscal year
Plans to spend US$19 billion on infrastructure, including new links to China/Macau, potentially creating a quarter of a million jobs

Budget surplus may come and go. So the method of distribution should not be made permanent or difficult to reverse ie. in the form of tax cuts. Waiver of collection on a temporary basis in the waiver of property rates would have been more acceptable.

Are they trying to keep up with Singapore with direct tax cuts? The similarity ends there. Singapore raised its indirect tax rate from 5% to 7%. So where is Hong Kong's indirect tax?

Furthermore, from the economic standpoint, the economy does not need further stimulation with the tax cuts given the low unemployment situation in Hong Kong.

I am in favour of well-thought through infrastructural expenditures as they would be investments for the future of Hong Kong.

Mr Tsang, don't forget to tackle the issue of broadening the tax base which you gave up towards the end of your last term.

http://taxwithedgar.blogspot.com/2006/12/hong-kong-drops-sales-tax.html

We should be hawkers.

2007-10-08T00:35:00.000+08:00

Albeit an honest one.

Mr Looi San Cheng, 63 years old, made $1.06mio selling his famous Tip Top curry puffs from his stall in Ang Mo Kio Ave 8 over the 6 years.

Mr Looi has severely under reported his profits. He said he made $2,800 between 2001 and last year when he actually made $1.06mio.

So he now have the honour of being the first hawker to go to jail for tax evasion. He also have to pay out $487,000 for back taxes and penalty.

Saturday's article cited the citation by PM Lee on Tip Top's expansion into Harbin and Shenyang in China. I wonder this may have led to taxman's focus on Tip Top.

So all you other hawkers out there who are making millions, who have been under reporting your income and who have been recently highlighted in TV programmes, please come clean on your tax returns by emailing IRAS at iid@iras.gov.sg.

The Wongs of Cristofori Music School

2007-07-31T00:32:00.000+08:00

the void will be filled

There are two Wong brothers, Wong Jian Jong and Wong Jian Reng, who are partners of Cristofori Music School.

The first Wong was convicted on two charges of wilful tax evasion - for making false entries in his income tax returns, claiming he earned less than he did.

Jail term - two weeks and he will have to pay penalties cum taxes totalling $671,170.80 for offences committed from 1998 to 2003. He was in charge of finance, accounts and the filing of the partnership's income tax returns.

For similar offences committed in the same period, the second Wong , who was in charge of recruitment and administration, will pay $624,353.56.

In conclusion, under reporting your income is a bad bad thing to do and you will be punished. Both Wongs have to pay a total of $1.3 mio and one of them got to go to jail.

Sad days for the Wongs.

Water Conservation Tax - You kena tax twice!!!

2007-07-28T20:27:00.000+08:00

Karma Tsultrim Wangchuk highlighted in his/her letter to ST Forum today that we are being charged GST on Water Conservation Tax. Are we being tax on a tax? If it is, when? When have we been paying the Water Conservation Tax (WCT)?

I checked my latest PUB bill. There is an item called WCT valued at $3.54 ie. 30% of $11.82 worth of water I have used in the past month. GST of 7% is then applied on the total utilities costs and WCT. Wangchuk asked Ministry of Finance (MOF) to explain.

Ms Low Yin Leng of MOF justified the imposition of GST on WCT on the basis that:-

"WCT forms part of the total price of water" and;

"GST is charged on the final value of any goods or services consumed in Singapore".

Wangchuk disagrees on the following basis:-

WCT does not form the total price of water as the proceeds from WCT go to MOF's pocket and not PUB's pocket.

PUB must be already charging an economic viable and sustainable pricing for water it is supplying to its customers.

WCT is truly and effectively a tax with the purpose of encouraging a change in behaviour and/or redirecting flow of economic resources.

Wangchuk cited a correct practice of GST on purchase of new cars ie.

"GST is charged on the selling price LESS ARF, COE, Registration Fee and Road Tax" as these are charges imposed by the LTA on vehicle buyers and do not relate to the provision of goods and services.

This leads me to cite my own doubt.

Are the smokers paying GST on the Tobacco Tax included in the selling price of a cigarrete pack?

Not that I care or worry that smokers have been overpaying. We want some consistency. So if PUB and/or MOF has/have made a mistake, just say so, correct the error and move on. Don't try to explain your way deeper and deeper into the mess.

FRS39 Section 34A Assets on Capital account

2007-07-16T21:57:00.000+08:00

FRS39 deals with financial assets.

Inventories and fixed assets are outside the scope of the FRS.

FRS39 requires us to categorise and differentiate our assets ie. as to whether our assets are capital or revenue in nature.

Gains or losses related to capital assets will not be taxable nor deductible.

FRS39 Section 34A Impairment claims

2007-07-15T21:40:00.000+08:00

Old rule - General and specific provisions for bad and doubtful debts were not tax deductible.

New rule (since Mar 6, 2006)

Both individual and collective impairment must be recorded in the income statement and be eligible for tax deduction.
For specific provisions to be tax deductible - subject to detailed info being available. What info? Not define by IRAS.

Do on to yourself,

2007-07-02T09:29:00.000+08:00

... what you have been doing on to others.

Well I am referring to the decision by IRAS to pay interest to you should they fail to issue tax refunds to you within 30 days.

At what rate? Average prime rates.

Kudos to IRAS.

All borrowing costs are now deductible

2007-06-21T18:02:00.000+08:00

Current tax treatment

When is interest expense tax deductible?

Under section 14(1)(a), only interest expenses incurred on capital employed in acquiring income chargeable with tax is allowable against the income earned.

Only interest expenses, incurred on loans that are used to buy assets that make income that are taxable by IRAS, are therefore tax-deductible.

Thus if you used company's loan facilities to buy "Mona Lisa" for your own enjoyment, then the interest expenses are not tax deductible. But if you charge entrance fees on people who come and see the painting, it would deductible against the income you generated.

Are other borrowing costs tax deductible against chargeable income too?

Under current treatment, the answer is NO.

New tax treatment

What is the effective date?

From Year of Assessment 2008.

What has changed?

Besides interest expense, the other borrowing costs will also be granted tax deduction under section 14 (1) (a). Examples of such borrowing costs are listed below:-

Guarantee fees
Bank option fees
Discounts on notes and bonds
Premiums on redemption of notes or bonds
Prepayment fees/ early redemption fees
Extension fees
Increased costs due to any upward interest rate adjustments when
certain event occurs as specified in the loan agreement
Interest rate cap rate premiums
Interest rate swap payments
Conversion fees
Cancellation fees

Why the change?

The people, who are "sufferring" from paying the bankers so many types of fees in different names all these years, have successfully persuaded the Authority to accept theses expenses as tax deductible.

On what basis?

The Authority now accepts the argument that all fees payable to the bank to secure a loan facility are part of "interest rate" payable. Without charging all these "miscellaneous" fees, the banks would ask for a higher interest rate from the borrowers anyway.

Last words - So the next time you are going to pay anything to the bank, please make sure they name the fees as one of the above 11 acceptable names above.

GST Advance Ruling System (GST ARS)

2007-06-14T00:17:00.000+08:00

What is that?
When you seek guidance from Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax (“CGST”) in writing, CGST's reply in writing becomes an authority you can rely upon ie. legally binding.

The actual definition:-
An advance ruling is a written interpretation the CGST gives to a specific person, stating how specific provisions of the GST Act will apply for a particular business arrangement or a specific transaction.

You would not ask ARS to be applied on daily-bread-and-butter issues where they are sufficiently covered/explained under existing terms.

You would use ARS for complex business arrangement or a transaction that is never or not commonly done in Singapore before.

So what had CGST been doing in the past?
Just provide guidance that are not legally binding to entrepreneurs seeking affirmation that they are not breaking any laws or impact their bottomline estimation.

What is this applicable?
The new section 90A, together with a new Fifth Schedule, will be enacted and effective from 1 July 2007.

Any fees payable?
Of course, this is Singapore, you know. Albeit on a cost recovery basis.
From a fixed application fee, to possible hourly rate, any disbursements, fees payable for expertise needed but not available in IRAS etc etc.

HK estate duty abolition appears to boost funds

2007-05-26T18:34:00.000+08:00

Farmers looking for their balls.

On April 26, 2007, Jane Moir reported that the abolition of HK estate duty abolition appears to boost mutual fund sales by 72% to US$24.3b last year. Total assets under management of all authorised funds grew 36% to US$91 billion. Its registered hedge funds gres 60% to US$1.66 billion.

Is it conclusive that there a direct correlation between estate duty abolition and the sudden jump in mutual fund sales? If the correlation is real, should Singapore therefore give up its estate duty collection for the greater good of its financial sector?

The abolition of the tax in Feb 2005 (after 90 years) is estimated to cost Hong Kong HK$1.5 billion (SGD$300 million). [In Singapore, the tax contributed about SGD$80 million last year.]

Let us see how Financial Secretary Henry Tang justify the move to the Legislative Council.

He agreed that it is hard to say how much of the rise was sparked by the abolition of estate duty. But in the same breadth, he told the Legislative Council during a question and answer session,

'The industry generally agrees that the abolition of estate duty has generated a positive impact and is conducive to the long-term development of our asset management business and the financial sector as a whole. We also understand from the banking trade that many private banking clients have relocated their overseas assets back to Hong Kong after the abolition."

Lawmaker Jeffrey Lam Kin-Fung sought reassurance that policymakers are recovering the lost revenue elsewhere when he asked, "How did the general public benefit from the abolition?"

Mr Tang replied - "In 2006-07 our revenue from stamp duty in stock transactions increased by 80 per cent' to HK$15 billion."

Another law-maker, Alan Leong Kah-Sit, asked - "I would like to know how the Financial Secretary can prove that these growth figures are a result of estate duty (abolition)?"

Mr Tang replied - "We cannot ask every investor if they invested into Hong Kong because of the abolition of estate duty or other reasons. Of course, every now and then we meet members of the financial services sector and hear their views and suggestions."

My view
Could the charging bulls of mainland China bourses have contributed to the billions of dollars entering Hong Kong? I really doubt the abolition of the estate duty could fully explain the rapid growth in fund management industry in Hong Kong.

Should my restaurant register for GST?

2007-05-21T13:18:00.000+08:00

In a recent consultation with a new restaurant owner, he asked whether he should register for GST.

Here we are considering a voluntary registration ie. establishments with less than a million dollar turnover. The following discussion is strictly in the context of a restaurant business.

While GST registration relieves his restaurant from GST burden through recovery of GST incurred on business activities, it also require the restaurant to charge GST on their sales.

I advised him to review his suppliers of food items as they will constitute the bulk of costs and the percentage of total value of items with GST.

He also has to consider the impact of applying GST on his prices to customers. Are his customers price-sensitive? What is the impact to his bottomline if he decide to absorb the GST?

Thirdly, we have to consider the cost of compliance ie. preparation of GST returns every quarterly?

Revaluation surplus and tax issues with Yeo Hiap Seng

2007-04-14T21:13:00.000+08:00

What is the issue?
Yeo Hiap Seng (YHS) said the revaluation surpluses ($215.3mio) accumulated for several pieces of land it owned are not taxable gain and has not made any tax provision.

PricewaterhourseCoopers, its auditors, has signed off on the accounts for the year ended Dec 31, 2006 while highlighting the "discrepancy" in the audit report.

The Inland Revenue authority (IRAS) has, expressed its disagreement with that position. It is currently reviewing the information submitted by YHS.

Further Explanation
YHS has chosen to make no provisions for tax liability on revaluation surpluses of $128.8 million and $86.5 million, on its tax counsel's advice that they are capital accretion.

The Sterling / Gardenvista - condominium developments
Prior to obtaining the developer's licence in Apr 1997, I presume that YHS would be saying that it was holding the land as long term investment or for its own use given F&B as its main business.

Only after Apr 1997, YHS, with the developer's licence, is now officially in the property development business.

Thus any appreciation in the value of the lands it was holding prior to that date would go to Revaluation Reserve account. Thus YHS's position that $215.3mio revaluation surplus is deemed not taxable.

In 2004, however, the IRAS said some revaluation surpluses may not be considered capital accretion. In Feb 2006, IRAS repeated that part of YHS's $128.8 million surplus would not be considered capital accretion. It asked YHS for more information so that it could update its assessments. YHS made submissions to IRAS on June 9.

Why we should kill off "estate duty" asap?

2007-04-06T23:24:00.000+08:00

The reasons for abolishing the estate duty are:-

Together with income tax, GST and estate duty, it is a triple whammy for taxpayers. You are subject to tax from the first day of work till one's last day on earth.
We have a lopsided exemption limit of $600,000 for movable assets against exemption up to $9mio for residential property. This lopsidedness would ensnare many middle-income households to be liable for estate duty.
Will the existence of the estate duty discourage wealthy retirees to settle in Singapore? Maybe. Maybe not. If the tax revenue from this source is relatively insignificant, why risk it?

Why Govt's hesitation to remove the tax?

Allow me to speculate.
The Govt could be due to collect some real monies from the estates of tycoon Khoo Teck Puat and ex-OUB banker Lien Ying Chow. While last year's estate duty collection maybe a "mere peanut" amount of $80mio, the coming years of rapidly aging Singapore should "help" to raise the collection figures on this front.
Alternatively, the Govt could be too busy to dedicate resources to review this area that affect only a minority but the very rich few.

Loss Carry Back System

2007-03-21T13:01:00.000+08:00

What was then?
Companies can either carry forward their unutilised capital allowances (CAs) and trade losses to offset future incomes (i.e. loss carry-forward) or transfer these unutilised CAs and trade losses to offset profit in related companies as part of group relief.

What was wrong?
These schemes may not provide adequate or timely support to smaller businesses that run into cash flow problems, particularly during a cyclical downturn.

What is the solution?
Starting YA 2006, a one-year carry-back of current year unutilised CAs and trade losses will be introduced.

The main features of the scheme are:

a) Only current year unutilised CAs and trade losses will be allowed to be carried back for one YA immediately preceding the YA in which the CAs were granted or the trade losses incurred.

b) Up to $100,000 of current year unutilised CAs and trade losses can be carried back.

c) The carry-back system will be available to all businesses, including sole proprietors and partnerships.

d) The current requirements for carry-forward of unutilised CAs and trade losses will similarly apply when these amounts are carried back i.e. no substantial change in shareholding and nature of business.

A blanket exemption for estate duty?

2007-03-18T22:52:00.000+08:00

To minimise estate duty - invest in residential real estate given the exemption granted for value up to $9mio - was the advice given in last week's article.

This is a heavy weightage on property as an asset class. Why? To encourage home ownership? To encourage you to stay in Singapore or to discourage you from leaving? To hold up property prices? Don't think so.

Tan Peng Boon, in today's Sunday Times, suggested a blanket exemption of up to $9.6mio in term of all assets instead of the current sublimits applied on residential properties and other assets.

Perhaps this is a convenient compromise for the government to hold on to this tax for a few more years.

Till death do your money part as taxes?

2007-03-14T21:03:00.000+08:00

Insurance proceeds, as you probably know, are NOT automatically exempt from death duty.

While there is an exemption threshold for residential property of up to $9 million, any payouts from mortgage protection plans taken up on the properties will be taxed should the mortgagor or borrower and policy owner die.

I didn't know that until I read today's BT on "Of Death and Taxes".

I bought the standard MDTA ie. mortgage decreasing term assurance to cover my property loan exposure. The plan's death benefit would go to pay down any outstanding home loan. But didn't know it would be taxable.

So what are the possible solutions?
All the solutions except for (d) essentially try to play with this specific rule:-

"The exemption threshold for financial assets is $600,000.
Insurance policies structured as trust policies under Section 73 of the Convenyancing and Law of Property Act are automatically exempt BUT each policy will be subject to the $600,000 threshold."

Briefly they are:-
a) Enter into a "cross life" arrangement ie. you buy for me and I buy for you.
b) Assign the policy to the mortgagee bank.
c) Take a joint life policy.
d) Set up a trust. (Not advisable.)

So much for now.

QAF and S44A

2007-03-14T00:39:00.000+08:00

P/S - Singapore River on Sunday last.

QAF, the company best known for Gardenia bread, told its shareholders that they will receive 973 PSC shares and 284 Zhongguo Jilong shares as dividends for every 1,000 QAF shares held.

Advantages to shareholders
- Allow them to seek tax credits if the corporate tax is higher than personal income tax rate.
- Shareholders have the flexibility to sell the new shares received for cash.

Advantages to QAF
- goodwill with its shareholders
- no impact on its cashflow

Balancing your accounts.

2007-02-20T22:27:00.000+08:00

P/S Orchard Turn under construction.

1% reduction in corporate tax rate would cost $400mio a year.
1% increase in GST is expected to raise $750mio.

An 8% decline in compulsory road tax is to compensate you 50cts ERP increase in toll rate, more tolls to be operational and higher carpark charges. [I still lose. For a 2-litre car, 8% is about $120 per annum. $120 is meaningless. Btw, my car is only 1.6 litre.]

A 1.5% increase in employer's CPF is cushioned by a 2% cut in corporate tax rate and an increase in the partial exemption threshold from $100,000 to $300,000.

A 2% increase in GST is compensated by a comprehensive offset package to citizens with no change to personal income tax. [I still lose as I won't be able to get a single cent of the offset package.]

Borrowing costs other than interest

2007-02-20T22:21:00.000+08:00

There are many other costs associated with the act of borrowing other than interest costs. Example of such costs could be professional fees, arrangement fees, statutory fees etc.

While such costs may be considered capital expenditures, these costs are currently not tax deductible.

Recent budget annoucement has indicated a willingness to reconsider this area. Look out for more details from May 2007.

Incentives for Overseas Investment

2007-02-18T12:15:00.000+08:00

Why the need for Singapore companies to invest overseas?
In a very simple manner, to make more monies from a bigger market size.

There was a rallying call from the government under Goh's administration for Singapore companies to go overseas. I was working for one such company who took up that challenge.

We were overcame by lack of attitude preparation to operate in a foreign market and finally succumbed to the financial crisis in the late 1990s.

Recently, Mr David Sandison in his article in BT's "Tax alone cannot solve everything" raised the issue on overseas investment again. He said Singaporeans still need a push to get them out and about in the world, to take their businesses across borders and leave a footprint in the global sands.

Currently, incentives to venture abroad are virtually non-existent, and even less used, as they reward only failure through deductions for losses.

The interpretation of our tax schemes may be harsh. They were crafted to anticipate losses from early days of any investment.

Perhaps it is timely now to heed Mr Sandison's call to change the approach.

Let's talk about sex in the Boardrooms!

2007-02-11T23:47:00.000+08:00

Humans compressed over 2 streets.

"No no," my friends. I want to say, "Let's talk about TAX in the boardrooms."

Recently a student asked me some questions on how to apply GST on the transactions that she has to invoice.

Not sure where she is in her company's management hierarchy. The fact that she is asking questions should be a comforting plus to her boss. Incorrect GST application not only invite unnecessary attention from the authority but may incur financial loss in the form of fines, penalty and manhours to remedy. A 5%-mistake (and soon a 7%) will really eat into your margin. Customer goodwill may be eroded too.

The directors of a computer gaming developer startup were grilling me on the tax implications of some corporate moves that they are considering.

In the past, tax matters were considered private, too technical for the laymen - it was something the tax department or someone from the auditor's office dealt with, with the tax authorities.

What is the price of not talking about tax in the boardroom?

Without good tax management, you will not be considered a good boy ie. a company with good corporate governance; and
You will not have the strength & depth to venture overseas and hold yourself up to the sometimes different standards in other jurisdictions.

If you don't about tax in the boardroom, what do you guys actually talk about? [wink.. wink..]

HG Metal and its S44A balance

2007-01-20T12:27:00.000+08:00

Background
HG Metal, a listed company in Singapore, is a stockist and manufacturer of steel products. The company has a S44A balance of approximately $1.6mio.
It also wish to conserve funds to expand its capacity to meet growing demand.

Actions taken
To meet the contradiction in shareholders' need to take advantage of the S44A balance with dividend payout against the company's wish to conserve funds for investment, the company came out with the following initiatives:-

For the year ended 30 Sep 2006, the company has announced a special dividend of 4cts per share ie. 3.6cts (frankable) and 0.4cts (tax exempt).

A shareholder may seek a tax refund on the "frankable" portion. The refund would depend on the difference between the corporate tax rate of 20% and his personal tax rate.

HG Metal has also simultaneously annouced a 2-for-5 rights issue @20cts. Shareholders have the option to use part or all of the special dividend to take up the rights.

Happy New Year :)

2007-01-07T20:09:00.000+08:00

2
0
0
7% GST

I just want to be the first to pen this down :)

Our neighbours' tax monies

2007-01-04T00:02:00.000+08:00

China
Tax collections - SGD$745.5 billions (+21.9%)
Wow!!! So much? Who is paying all these monies?

Philippines
The VAT rate was increased from 10% to 12% in Feb 2006.
The government expects to collect SGD$10.3 billions (+21%) this year.
This is due to expanded tax base and higher VAT rate.
More roads and bridges can now be built. Pls do that.

Isetan Singapore and S44 tax credits

2006-12-30T13:00:00.000+08:00

"Minority investors want Isetan to pay out tax credits" as per today's ST on page 29.

With $61mio tax credits, the investors are asking for only $2 dividend from a maximum $7.50 for a full advantage on the credits.

Does Isetan has the monies?
As per Jun 2006 accounts, it is reported that it has a $100mio cash in its balance sheet. Then why not pay since cashflow is not an issue?

Has the cash been earmarked for investment?
No such info presented. It is reported that the answer lies with the higher tax rate on income received in Japan as compared to Singapore.

Isetan Tokyo, which owns 61% of Isetan Singapore, would have to pay a higher tax in Japan on dividends received from Singapore.

Moral of the story

Minority investors should not expect to receive much dividends from a company with this kind of tax complication.
If you are investing for dividend yield, then please do your homework.

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-24T13:44:00.000+08:00

Merry Christmas to you!

I think it will be an interesting year in 2007 for tax!

Section 44A balances

2006-12-17T00:41:00.000+08:00

P/s - Pic of a very majestic bldg to be converted into serviced apartments.

The one-tier corporate tax system will be fully implemented on Jan 1, 2008.

Under the "old two-tier" system, individual shareholders receiving section 44 dividends can claim a refund in part or all of the corporate tax paid.

Example
Under the "old" system, company pays $80 dividend nett of corporate tax rate of 20%. The gross dividend would be $100. $20 has been paid by the company to IRAS. The $20 is placed in the Section 44 account.

Let us assume the individual shareholder's personal income tax rate is 10%. $10 (ie. $100 x 10%) would be taken out of IRAS's Section 44 account as credit against the tax payable by that individual.

What is the difference?
Under the one-tier system, the $80 received by the individual would be treated as exempt income. No adjustment of $10 would be given. Effectively, the individual pays a tax rate of 20% for that income.

What to do?
Companies, with accumulated profits which qualify for Section 44 credits and have the liquidity to pay dividends, may consider paying dividends before end of 2007.

So think about it.

Year-end Corporate Tax Planning

2006-12-17T00:30:00.000+08:00

Mr Kang Choon Pin and Mr Russel Aubrey of Ernst & Young presented the following list of helpful tips to achieve some tax savings as 2006 draws to an end.

Bring forward your plans to buy plant and machinery.
Make accruals for expenses incurred.
Make provisions for doubtful debts.
Review your closing stock for obsolescene and damages.
Take advantage of lower effective tax rate for taxable income below $100,000.

Reference - Ernst & Young, You and the Taxman, Sep/Oct 2006.

GST in your F&B bill

2006-12-13T14:38:00.000+08:00

Dear friends,

When you makan at a restaurant, the restaurant will almost definitely hit you with a 10% service charge on actual F&B that you consumed.

Let us take a simple example.

2 steaks @$25 $50.00
A bottle of Cardonnay $40.00

subtotal (1) $90.00
10% service charge $9.00
subtotal (2) $99.00

How much is the GST payable?
Answer - 5% of ($90.00 + $9.00) = $4.95

Mrs Lee, Director of Corporate Communications, IRAS said GST is applied on the final value of goods or services (including any indirect taxes/duties) consumed in Singapore.

P/S - For those who have gone to a movie recently - can share how they calculate GST for your movie ticket?

Reference - Straits Times - Inbox - page 45, Nov 19, 2006.

Hong Kong drops sales tax

2006-12-06T22:04:00.000+08:00

What is proposed?
5% sales tax that would raise HKD3.8bio per annum.

Why the drop?
Politically inconvenience. Sadly it reflects very poor planning.

What is the current budget situation in HK?
1. About 1/3 of income earners pay tax. Very narrow tax base.
2. They have been living admist budget deficits.

I wonder how have they been funding their budgets year in year out.
More land sales? How much more land you can sell?
More Disneylands? Oops.. that is certainly a costly exercise.

Any alternatives?

More "sin" taxes ie. on cigarettes and liquors. Maybe it is a good outcome afterall.
Capital gains tax - very painful for Hong Kongers as "buying and selling" is a favourite past time activity there.
More taxes on car - another possible good outcome of no sales tax - it would help with the smog.

I hope Hong Kongers will take action to avoid borrowing from the future generations and spend today.

GST - It is unfair to me.

2006-11-17T21:07:00.000+08:00

Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a pay-as-you-consume tax.

So if I were to buy anything ie. anything until the day I die and buried, part of my cash is actually going to the government coffer.

Even if I were to buy from a non-GST registered retailers, he/she would charge a price that would cover the costs of its raw materials etc etc. As most of what we consumed are imported, GST is levied on these imports as they leave the ports.

All my expenses during my retirement will be funded by savings I am accumulating since I started work. These savings are derived from after-income-tax income.

Tax and tax on the same income?

Illustration
Let say my income tax bracket is 10% and GST is 7%. I assume I spend every cent of my disposable income after tax. Let's say, my annual income is $100,000.

$90,000 would be my after-income-tax income. 7% of $90,000 is $6,300.

I would have paid $16,300 in taxes for $100,000 income ie. 16.3%.

While this illustration is taking to the extreme, it serves to illustrate the importance of looking at your total tax burden over time.

I was looking forward to my retirement. But now I have to work harder as I have to protect my savings against normal inflation rate + a factor of GST.

So it now look that I will pay GST until all my funeral expenses are paid from my estate.

Bodyguard expenses not tax deductible

2006-11-15T00:26:00.000+08:00

What is the issue?
A company seeks the High Court's decision to allow the expenses for the body guards for a director as tax-deductible expenses.

Decision - The High Court ruled that the expenses are not tax-deductible.

On what ground?
The costs of hiring the bodyguard in this case are ruled not wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income. [Mr Goh Sher Wee’s voice on this line echoes in my empty head.] The company concerned is in the business of exhibiting motion pictures.

How much monies involved?
About $70,000 costs of body guards per annum. So at 20% corporate tax for example, that would translate to $14,000 in tax deductibles per annum. If the expenses were incurred back in 1970s till 2006, the amount involved would be substantial.

What defence has the appellant's counsel presented?

In 1972, there was a kidnap attempt. 4 men with guns. Shot the director in the arm. Director managed to escape.
CID recommended that the director be given the necessary protection.

Information I don’t know

When were the expenses incurred?
What has a 1972’s incident got to do with 2006?
What was the motive for attempted kidnap? Was it business-related?

Even if the director is a key man to the company, the company cannot be incurring expenses for director’s personal matters.

In my opinion, there maybe some grounds for appeal if one can prove that the kidnap attempt was a consequence of the director’s action in effecting his duties for the company. The company would then be obliged to act responsibly in return.

Similarly, the President of USA is well protected at the expense of the nation and certain banks may pay for the insurance of credit card debt collection employees.

To pay IRAS/GST for service?

2006-11-09T00:46:00.000+08:00

The front page of Business Times today presented a proposal for companies to pay for official GST help.

What is the pricing?
For advance GST guidance, $525 for each query of initial 4 hours plus $131.25 per subsequent hour. Please double the charges for express service.

Why charge?
My initial response is why. Are companies or their representative in the form of tax agent or untrained accounting staff abusing GST administration with excessive superfluous queries? Does this move contribute to higher business costs? How does GST administration justify the proposed pricing? Are there similar models operated by other government agencies or statutory boards or corporatised entities? What is/are the objectives and roles of IRAS in relation to the the "bigger picture"? How will the new pricing model contribute to that bigger picture?

Why don't charge?
I humbly drawed on my experience in the property development. The architect submits plans to the various government entities for guidance and approvals for the intended development. Relevant fees are payable. You have to pay for the use of Court facilities too. Should the same be acceptable for GST's official guidance?

There maybe some justifications.

Firstly, there is a need for a pricing mechanism to allocate resources efficiently as resources within IRAS/GST administration is finite too (just like everywhere else).

Secondly, the businesses of today are relatively complex as they traverse across national boundaries. Such business would require some level of certainty in the form of official guidance to avoid resource-sapping effort trying to recover from skirmishes with law. They want to focus on doing business. Thus the “small” sum payable for that peace of mind is definitely worthwhile.

Does it increase the costs of doing business in Singapore?
Some of these companies may be paying their tax agents for advice already. As the fees are applicable to advance (and not normal) queries, I presume such queries would only be relevant to bigger and complex companies. The fees thus would be relatively nominal.

Is there a possibility that IRAS/GST recycle official guidances? No two property development applications will ever be the same. So will 2 applications for GST guidances be similar?

Other implications
The fees, when applied, may implicitly provide a check and balance on the performance of the tax agents.

The application of the fees may also change the relationship between IRAS/GST and the enquirer. When a fee is paid for an official guidance, does it imply is a higher level of responsibility? How was it done before? Were there any official guidances given out in the past? Or does IRAS/GST wait until the actual occurrence of the transaction and relevant documents submitted for review before an official judgement is given?

KPIs of IRAS

2006-11-04T16:44:00.000+08:00

What are the key performance indices for IRAS? I will present its KPIs using the analogy of a company's financial statement.

The topline has grown by 11%. Total tax revenue collected for FY05-06 is $19.9bio. This is about $2bio more than FY04-05. This upward trend has been apparent over the last 5 years.
Its cost of sales ie. the cost to collect a $1 tax revenue, is 1 cent.
IRAS's revenue is now about 70% of the Group's (ie. Government's) total operating revenue of $28bio. This is higher than last two financial years' average of 65%.
Sectoral performance review of its topline. IRAS received $7.3bio (37%) from corporate tax, $4.3bio (22%) from income tax, $3.8bio (20%) from GST and last $1.8bio (9%) from property tax.
Other operating income ie. IRAS's collection of fines and penalties. The amount of penalties collected from GST violations amounted to $76.2mio (a drastic decline of 35%). The amoun of penalties collected from income tax violations amount to $61.4mio (an even bigger decline of 46%).
IRAS's online business is not going as plan. What online business? IRAS wishes to encourage more e-filings. The no. of e-filers among individuals declined to 785,000 from 885,000 in FY04-05 despite an increase in total no. of taxpayers from 1.3 people to 1.5 people.
IRAS's bottomline ie. operating surplus of $40mio is a significant 93% improvement over the previous year.

Recommendation - This company is a strong buy with significant growth expected in most sectors that it is in. All KPI measures indicate the company is more than ready for that growth with a small black mark noted on its "online business".

Are you earning >$1million income last year?

2006-11-04T16:20:00.000+08:00

If you did, you are one of the 1,738 who earned more than a million dollars last year out of a total 1.5 million tax payers. Then sincere congratulation to you is in order from the masses out there.

The bad news is that if you are earning exactly $1,000,001, I am sorry you do look quite bad in comparison to most of the other 1,737. Why? These 1,737 people earned about $3.5billion (minus a million from u) ie. averaging $2mio per person.

So you have to work harder!

All in all, Singapore should say thank you to 1,738 of you for paying about $500mio in income taxes (albeit only about 3% of total tax revenue).

From the sour grape here, please help me to join this real Million Dollar Club.

Cheers!

Exemption for Foreign Income

2006-09-18T00:08:00.000+08:00

Law
Dividends, branch profits and service fee income from overseas will be exempt from tax when remitted into Singapore.

Two conditions to be fulfilled:-

The country from which the income is received imposes a corporate tax rate of 15% or more and;
that some tax is actually imposed in that country.

Issue #1
Tax has to be paid in the country where the profits were earned.
It must be on a first-tier "subsidiary" level basis.

Issue #2
IRAS will need to examine and grant exemption only a case by case basis upon all conditions duly satisfied.

If total dividends paid do not exceed total cumulative taxed profits, then you should be all right on the assumption that taxed profits are deemed to have been distributed first. For a young company, it would be relatively easier to sort out the taxed income from untaxed income; and why they were untaxed.

However in circulars issued in May 2006 by IRAS, exemption for foreign income would still be applicable even if no tax suffered on those income given the following:-

utilisation of tax losses
existence of tax free capital gains

Conclusion

The exemption is a move in the right direction as observed by Mr Sandison. Especially when our neighbours in Malaysia and Hong Kong have already done this. Why is Singapore seems to be lagging behind in inplementing changes?

But are we still too careful in loosening the apron strings?

Reference - Singapore Tax Roundup - David Sandison, PricewaterhouseCoopers, The Directors' Bulletin, Second Quarter 2006