Januari 19, 2022
land, liable, RPGT, shares

REAL PROPERTY GAINS TAX – SALE OF SHARES OF COMPANY THAT OWNS LAND

My wife and I are shareholders of Company X Sdn Bhd that owns a piece of land in Penang (“Penang Land”). The Penang Land was bought in 2004 for RM10 mil. My wife and I have sold the shares of the company to my friend, Mr. A in 2018. We are required to pay real property gain tax (“RPGT”) if we sell the Penang Land to Mr. A. But we are not selling the land but shares of Company X Sdn Bhd. Are we still required to pay RPGT?

Depends.

It depends on whether Company X Sdn Bhd is a “real property company”.
Para 34A, Schedule 2 of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 (“RPGTA”) provides that acquisition of “real property company” shall be deemed to be acquisition of the chargeable asset i.e. the Penang Land which will be required to pay RPGT.
Para 34A was an amendment to catch individuals who use companies to acquire land and then dispose of the shares in the company as a scheme to avoid payment of RPGT.

Q: What is a “real property company”?

A “real property company” is a company that owns land which value is more than 75% of the value of its total tangible assets.
If the Penang Land’s value is 75% or more than the total tangible assets of Company X Sdn Bhd, then Company X Sdn Bhd is a “real property company”.

Q: Would there be any difference if Company X Sdn Bhd is a property development company and the purchase of the shares by Mr. A is because Mr. A wants to invest in a property development company. In another words, Mr. A’s intention is not to buy the Penang Land per se.

The application of Para 34A, Schedule 2 RPGTA is irrespective of the intention or objective of a person who acquires or disposes the shares in the company. As long as the company falls within the definition of “real property company”, Para 34A applies.

Q: What is a “chargeable asset”?

Real property owned by the company which is taxable or chargeable.

Sorotan Terkini

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.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

PROPERTY LAW – CLAIMING OWNERSHIP: COURT UPHOLDS LEGAL TITLE AND DISMISSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami