Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REVENUE LAW- INCOME TAX- ALLOWANCE

Rule 3 of the Income Tax (Allowance for Increased Export) Rules 1999:

  1. Allowance for increased exports

‘Subject to rules 4 and 5, where a manufacturing company or a company engaged in agriculture, resident in Malaysia, exports manufactured products or agricultural produce in the basis period for a year of assessment, there shall be given to the company an allowance to be determined in the manner as prescribed in Rule 4:

Provided that an exemption on exports manufactured products is only given to manufacturer.’

I am an owner of a durian plantation and I own a warehouse where I store and pack my durians before they are exported to Thailand and other countries. My export sale has increased as I am now working with more retailers. Am I eligible for an “increased export allowance”? I have heard that I can claim an industrial building allowance for the warehouse where I store the durians.

Q: What is an “increased export allowance”?

A: It is the tax exemption that is awarded to a company when they have an increase in export sales.

Q: What is an “industrial building allowance”?

A: It is the allowance given to the owner of the industrial building that is associated with the business of the company.

Q: What is an “industrial building”?

A: Para 37C, 63, and 64 of Schedule 3 of the Income Tax Act 1967 have made it clear that your building must be one that is used for the purposes of a business and the housing of machinery or plant.

Q: Am I eligible for “increased export allowance” and “industrial building allowance”?

A: Since you have planted the durian trees yourself and you export the durians to other countries, you are eligible for the “increased export allowance,” provided that you are a Malaysian citizen. You have used the warehouse for storage and packaging purposes of the durian before they are exported. Therefore, you can claim the “industrial building allowance.”

I have purchased the plants from others and I export them to other sellers in different countries. I own a factory where I check and pack the plants before they are exported.

Q: Am I eligible for the increased export allowance and industrial building allowance?

A: Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules states that a company must be associated with agriculture to be entitled to the export allowance, and since you have purchased the plants from others, you are not entitled to the allowance. However, since you are using the factory to check and pack the plants, you can claim the industrial building allowance.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us