REVENUE LAW – INCOME TAX

Smith is a director for Company X in the year of 2003. In 2022, the government claimed unpaid tax against Company X and Smith. The government claimed that Company X and Smith are jointly and severally liable for outstanding tax due by the company for the year of assessment (“YA”) 2001 – 2004.

Q: Is Smith responsible for the tax due by the company for YAs 2001-2004? 

A: Not entirely correct. Smith is only responsible for tax of the company after he became a director. And in this case, only for YA 2004. Although the Income Tax Act of 1967 (ITA) says directors can be held jointly and severally responsible for a company’s tax liabilities, it is impractical, ineffective, and unjust to impose this obligation before Smith became a director.

Q: Can Smith be liable for tax after 6 years?

A: No. Section 106(1) of the ITA says “(t)ax due and payable may be recovered by the Government by civil proceedings as a debt due to the Government.” However, s. 106(1) is still subject to the Limitations Act 1953. There is a six-year statute of limitation. The government can no longer claim unpaid tax due after 6 years. And in this case, the alleged unpaid tax was 17 years ago.

Recent Post

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION OF ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION

Explore the delicate balance between court proceedings and arbitration in our latest legal update, focusing on a pivotal case where a request to file a defense leads to a significant legal debate on the appropriate forum for dispute resolution. Gain insights from key cases that define when to push for arbitration over litigation.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – REDEFINING SPOUSAL SUPPORT – FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

A divorce case involving two insurance agents raises crucial questions about spousal maintenance for financially independent women and their shared responsibility in child support. The court will assess each party’s financial capacity and contributions, considering modern principles of gender equality and the ‘means and needs’ test under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »

TIME’S UP: NAVIGATING THE 12-YEAR LIMITATION

In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us