How does this ruling affect future tax assessments on foreign assets?

Question

Accepted Answer

High Court Ruling Clarifies Taxability of Foreign Assets and Potential Double Taxation

The High Court's decision to quash an additional tax assessment notice of RM313.8 million against Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid significantly impacts the understanding of tax assessments on foreign assets. The ruling establishes that the Income Tax Act 1967 primarily applies to income sourced within Malaysia or foreign income remitted into the country, and not merely the ownership of assets held abroad. This judgment addresses concerns of potential double taxation and clarifies the limitations on the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) authority in assessing such assets.
Foreign Assets Not Automatically Taxable Income

The court found that the Income Tax Act 1967 does not permit the market value of assets held overseas to be treated as taxable income solely based on their ownership. The specific assets in dispute were located abroad and were not considered income received in Malaysia by the applicant. This interpretation underscores that the situs of the income, and whether it has been remitted to Malaysia, are critical factors in determining taxability under the Act.
Prohibition Against Double Taxation Reinforced

A key aspect of the ruling was the identification of double taxation by the court. The additional tax assessment was deemed unlawful because the underlying share ownership involved had already been subject to assessment in a joint assessment for the same 2018 year. This reinforces the principle that taxpayers should not be subjected to taxation on the same income or asset multiple times.
Limitations on IRB's Assessment Powers and Record Keeping

The judgment also addressed the reasonableness of the IRB's demands for documentation. The court deemed it unreasonable for the IRB to request documents pertaining to assets acquired more than 20 years ago, given that the Income Tax Act 1967 legally obliges taxpayers to retain records for only seven years. The failure to provide documents that are no longer legally required to be kept was found to be an insufficient justification for issuing an additional assessment notice. Furthermore, if the IRB suspected undeclared income at the time assets were acquired in the 1990s, the assessment should have been made for that period, not retrospectively for 2018.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does this ruling affect future tax assessments on foreign assets?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends