Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

MEMORANDUM OF TRANSFER – EXEMPTION – STAMP DUTY – RPGT – PERFECTION OF TRANSFER – REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

Memorandum of Transfer (“MOT”)

  • MOT is a legal document prescribed by the National Land Code 1965, which is used to effect the transfer of the ownership of the property, once the individual title / strata title is issued, from the developer to the purchaser.
  • For an MOT to be legally effective, the document must be stamped and adjudicated at the Inland Revenue Board and the stamp duty paid.

Exemption on Stamp Duty

  • The government under its recent short-term economic recovery plan (“PENJANA”) has reintroduced the Home Ownership Campaign 2020 (“HOC 2020”) which offered significant reductions to the stamp duty payable for qualified home buyers.
  • Under HOC 2020, Malaysian home buyers who sign and stamp their Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) from 1st June 2020 to 31st December 2021 may receive full stamp duty exemption on their MOTs and loan agreements depending on property value.
  • Take note: this is only applicable to residential properties that fall within the range from RM300k to RM2.5 mil.
  • Take note: stamp duty of MOT will only be exempted for the first RM1 mil of the property.
  • For the remaining, RM3 will be imposed for every RM100.
  • If you buy property within RM1 mil, you will be exempted from stamp duty for both MOT and loan agreements.

Exemption on RPGT

  • When you are selling a property, you are required to pay Real Property Gain Tax (“RPGT”) based on the gains from the disposal of the property:-
Disposal Malaysians Foreigners Companies
1st year 30% 30% 30%
2nd year 30% 30% 30%
3rd year 30% 30% 30%
4th year 20% 30% 20%
5th year 15% 30% 15%
6th year and thereafter 5% 10% 10%
  • In PENJANA plan, RPGT has been exempted for the disposal of properties. However, it must fall under the following requirements:-
  • This exemption is only applicable to residential property.
  • The transaction shall be carried out from 1st June 2020 to 31st December 2021.
  • This exemption is only limited to the disposal of three units of residential homes per individual.

Stamp Duty Exemptions for Transfers between Loved Ones

  • Transfers of ownership between family members and loved ones would come under “love and affection”
  • Love and affection transaction is subject to certain exemptions on the stamp duty.
  • This is only applicable to transfers between husband and wife, and parent and child.
  • Transfers between spouses will be exempted from stamp duty, while between parent and child, there is a 50% exemption.

 Perfection of Transfer (“POT”)

  • POT is the process of the changing of the name on the title from the developer’s name to the current owner’s name.
  • Most of the time, the property title is still under a Master Title when a person buys an under-construction house from the developer.
  • Generally, Master Title refers to the whole piece of land, which including building lots or parcel lots that haven’t divided into individual building lot or parcel lot. In other words, all properties will be put together in one big plan.
  • Therefore, it is the developer’s responsibility to subdivide the big plan into an individual share of the property and submit it to the Land Office for their approval.
  • Upon approval by the Land Office, each unit of property will now has its Individual or Strata Title and the previous Master Title will be revoked to the Land Office.
  • When an Individual Title or Strata Title has been issued at a later date, a POT process is required to complete ownership procedure from developer to the purchaser.

Perfection of Charge (“POC”)

  • If the purchaser obtains a loan to purchase the property, the purchaser shall charge the property to the bank by way of POC.
  • Charge is a common form of security registered in favour of the financial institution in exchange for the granting of a loan facility to the purchaser in financing the purchase of property.

Why do you have to appoint a conveyancing lawyer to do POT and POC?

  • To act on your behalf to communicate with developer’s solicitor as well as to transact with the various government agencies.
  • A property transaction has a complex legal procedure, a conveyancing lawyer would be able to guide, prepare and explain at every step to you
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们