Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REVENUE LAW – INCOME TAX – TIME TAX BECOMES PAYABLE

What if you were appointed as a director and are a 20% shareholder of a company since 13th December 2005 after the first respondent stepped down and you have been served a notice of taxation on the 30th December 2015 that has been accumulated from the year 2001-2006 and you were liable for it. What would you do if you were in this position?  

  •  Generally, a director is defined as any individual who holds the role of director of a corporation under any name, and includes a person whose directors or orders the majority of directors of a corporation are used to follow, as well as an alternate or substitute director. However, based on various case law, it would be unreasonable for one to be held liable to pay taxes from 2001-2006. It is most likely that the court will find you liable to tax only for the year of assessment 2006 (YA 2006) and could not be liable for the balance of the YAs before you became the director.

Q. What are the statues that will be referred to by the judges in court?

  •  First of all, section 75A of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) discusses the circumstances under which a director may be held jointly and severally accountable for a corporation’s tax liabilities. Based on the interpretation given above, would entail that no matter when a person becomes a director of a corporation, that person could be held accountable for the firm’s tax or debt for the YAs preceding their appointment as a director. This view would be unworkable, ineffective and unjust.
  •  Moving on, because the notices of assessment for the taxes for YAs 2001 to 2006 that were served on the first defendant and not the second defendant, and according to section 99(1) of ITA the prescribed time had expired through no fault of the second director because the notices were not served on to him.

Q. What are the criteria to be a director?

  •  Section 75A(2)(b) of the ITA, as it stood at the time, required a director to own more than 50% of a company’s shares before being liable to pay tax owed by the firm; the figure was only reduced to 20% in 2014. When the second defendant became a director, the statutory provision defined a director as someone who owned more than 50% of the company’s ordinary share capital during the period in which the tax was due. As a result, the second respondent was not a “director” of the company for the purposes of section 75A(2)(b) during the period in which the tax was liable to be paid by the company and could not be held liable under the provisions of the current version of section 75A(2)(b) of the ITA, because amendments to that section do not apply retroactively.

Q. What is the limitation period for taxes to be claimed? 

  •  The appellant sought to recover the tax through civil proceedings under section 106(1) of the ITA, which is subject to a six-year statute of limitations because the cause of action is listed in section 6(1)(d) of the Limitation Act 1953. Issuing notices in 2015 to claim the tax due and payable from 2001 to 2006 was simply too late under the statute of limitations.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami