Zero GST for basic goods?

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.

1. What would be the effect of implementing a zero percent Goods and Services tax for basic commodities?
2. 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.

Taxman overruled again!!

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

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

$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.

Company director jailed for GST fraud

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.

Lessons from Raffles Town Club's appeal

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

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

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

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.

Top chefs in hot soup?

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

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/-.

Tax Deferment Scheme

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

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!

Gold farmers?

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

KPMG - Press Release - Sep 2008 - Summary

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

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.

Cross border billings

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...

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.

GST-inclusive price

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

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.