Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH