GST Tax Consultancy Sdn Bhd

02/06/2026

38. The Audit & Tax Brief: MFRS 9 Expected Credit Loss (ECL) Model: A Step-by-Step Guide with Numerical Examples

MFRS 9 Financial Instruments introduced a forward-looking Expected Credit Loss (ECL) model, replacing the incurred loss model under MFRS 139.

The primary objective of the ECL model is to recognise expected credit losses earlier, reflecting a more timely and realistic assessment of credit risk.

This model requires entities to estimate the probability of default, the loss given default, and the exposure at default over the lifetime of a financial instrument.

The Three-Stage Approach

The MFRS 9 ECL model uses a three-stage approach that dictates how credit losses are measured and recognised based on changes in credit risk since initial recognition.

MFRS 9 预期信用损失 (ECL) 模型——别被措手不及！

你有没有过那种心沉下来的感觉，当你的朋友借了钱然后突然 安静 了？或者你最喜欢的 nasi lemak 摊位突然关门了？

朋友们，那就是意料之外的损失！”

在金融世界里，意料之外的损失可能打击很大。

这就是为什么我们有 MFRS 9 预期信用损失 (ECL) 模型！

它就像一个金融水晶球，试图在你那些 cabut (跑路) 的朋友真正跑路之前，预测谁可能会带走你的钱！”

听起来很复杂？别担心！今天，我们将一步一步地分解这个金融魔法，并用一些简单的例子。

所以，拿起你的 teh tarik ，坐下来，让我们一起驶入 MFRS 9 ECL 的世界吧！”

31/05/2026

37. The Audit & Tax Brief: Conceptual Framework 2018 - Still Relevant in 2026?

Hey, ever wonder what holds up all those massive buildings in KLCC, or even your favourite mamak stall? It's not just bricks and mortar, right?

It's the foundation, the blueprint!"

Well, guess what?

Financial reporting has its own blueprint, its own solid foundation.

And today, we're asking the big question: Is the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting 2018 still the boss, still the sifu, in Malaysia for 2026?

2018年财务报告概念框架——2026年是否依然适用？

嘿，你有没有想过，KLCC那些宏伟的建筑，甚至是你们最喜欢的 mamak 档，到底是什么支撑着它们？

不只是砖头和水泥，对吧？

是 地基，是 蓝图！”

那么，你猜怎么着？财务报告也有它自己的蓝图，它自己的坚实基础。

今天，我们要问一个大问题：2018年财务报告概念框架

28/05/2026

25/05/2026

✌️36. The Audit & Tax Brief: Investment Property

Have you ever walked past a row of shophouses in SS2, or maybe a fancy condo in Bukit Bintang, and wondered… if you owned one of those, how would you account for it?

Is it just a building, or is it a money-making machine?"

Well, if you’re renting it out to make some sweet, sweet rental income or just waiting for its value to shoot up like a rocket, then my friend, you’re not just a property owner—you’re an investor!

And I’m about to tell you something that will definitely help you understand the game.

你有没有走过SS2的一排店屋，或者武吉免登的一间豪华公寓，然后想过……如果你拥有其中一间，你会怎么核算它？

它只是一栋建筑，还是一个赚钱机器？

如果你把它租出去赚取甜美的租金收入，或者只是等着它的价值像火箭一样飙升，那么我的朋友，你不仅仅是一个业主——你是一个投资者！

我接下来要告诉你的东西，肯定对你理解这个游戏有帮助。

25/05/2026

Pemungut Duti Setem v Lee Koy Eng & Another Appeal, decided by the Federal Court, Putrajaya on 7 July 2022.

This case concerned stamp duty on a property transfer using Form 14A, but the Federal Court's decision mainly addressed an important procedural question: can this type of stamp duty case go to the Federal Court?

1. What is this case about?
This case started from a family estate matter.

A man passed away without a will.

He left behind five properties.

His widow and two children were the beneficiaries.

Later, under a family arrangement, the two children agreed to transfer the five properties to their mother.

To transfer the properties, the administrators had to sign Form 14A, the standard land transfer form.

Then came the stamp duty issue.

The Collector of Stamp Duties assessed the transfer as subject to ad valorem duty, meaning stamp duty based on the property's value.

The taxpayer disagreed and argued that only a fixed stamp duty, such as RM10, should apply.

So the simple question behind the dispute was:
Should the stamp duty on the Form 14A transfer be a fixed sum or based on the market value of the properties?

2. Fixed sum vs ad valorem — what does it mean?
For the public, this is the easiest way to understand it:
Fixed sum duty means the stamp duty is a small fixed amount, regardless of the property value.

Ad valorem duty means the stamp duty is calculated based on the property value. The higher the property value, the higher the stamp duty.

So the difference can be huge.

For example, if a document is charged RM10, the cost is small.

But if ad valorem duty applies to properties worth millions, the stamp duty can become very substantial.

That is why classification matters.

3. Why was there a dispute?
The Collector treated the transfer as a release or renunciation by way of gift, which attracted ad valorem duty under the Stamp Act 1949.

The taxpayer said the transfer arose from estate distribution and should be treated differently, attracting only fixed duty.

So the dispute was not merely about paperwork. It was about the legal character of the transfer.

Was it simply part of estate administration?

Or was it effectively a transfer by gift or renunciation?

That legal classification affects the stamp duty payable.

4. What did the Federal Court actually decide in this judgment?
This is important.

In this judgment, the Federal Court did not finally decide the substantive stamp duty question of fixed sum versus ad valorem.

Instead, the Federal Court focused on a preliminary issue:
When a stamp duty dispute is brought to the High Court by way of “case stated” under section 39 of the Stamp Act 1949, is the High Court exercising original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction?

This matters because if the High Court was exercising original jurisdiction, the matter may be appealable to the Federal Court, subject to leave.

The Federal Court held that this type of case-stated proceeding does not operate like a normal full appeal.

The High Court’s role is limited.

It does not conduct a full trial.

It does not hear witnesses. It does not re-examine all facts. It only answers the legal question posed to it.

Therefore, the Federal Court held that the High Court was exercising original jurisdiction, not normal appellate jurisdiction.

Because of that, the case could proceed to the Federal Court after leave was granted.

5. What is “case stated” in simple words?
A “case stated” is like asking the court a specific legal question.

It is not the same as a normal appeal where the court may review the whole matter broadly.

Imagine the Collector says:
“Here are the facts. Here is the legal question. Court, please answer this question.”

The High Court then answers that legal question.

It does not restart the whole case from zero.

In this case, the question was essentially whether stamp duty on the Form 14A should be assessed under one item or another item in the First Schedule of the Stamp Act 1949.

6. Why is this case important?
This case is important because it clarifies the route for stamp duty disputes.

It tells taxpayers, lawyers and businesses that when a stamp duty matter goes to the High Court by way of case stated, the High Court is not acting like a normal appeal court.

The High Court is answering a legal question.

That means the matter may still be taken to the Federal Court, provided the legal requirements for leave are satisfied.

This is important because stamp duty disputes can involve large sums of money, especially where property transfers are involved.

7. What should the public learn from this?
The public should understand that stamp duty is not just a simple “chop and pay” matter.

The way a document is classified can change the amount of duty payable.

A transfer of property within a family, estate or business restructuring may look simple on the surface, but the legal effect of the document can produce very different stamp duty outcomes.

The key issue is not only what the parties intended emotionally or commercially but also how the law characterises the instrument.

8. Practical advice to businesses and families
Before signing property transfer documents, family arrangement documents, settlement agreements, restructuring documents or trust-related instruments, get proper stamp duty advice first.

Do not assume that because the transfer is “within family”, “not for profit”, or “just estate distribution”, the stamp duty must automatically be nominal.

The Collector may look at the legal effect of the document and assess ad valorem duty.

Good documentation, proper legal drafting and early stamp duty planning can prevent expensive surprises later. 📌

Valuable quote for businesses
“Stamp duty is not decided by what we casually call the transaction; it is decided by the legal character of the instrument. In tax and duty matters, wording, structure and substance can change the cost.”

Pemungut Duti Setem v Lee Koy Eng & Another Appeal

此案由联邦法院于2022年7月7日作出判决。

这个案件涉及 Form 14A 房地产转让文件 的印花税问题，但这份判决主要处理的是一个重要程序问题：这类印花税案件是否可以上诉到联邦法院？

1. 这个案件在讲什么？
这个案件源自一个家庭遗产安排。

一名男子去世时没有留下遗嘱。

他留下五项房地产。他的遗孀和两个孩子是受益人。

后来，根据家庭安排，两个孩子同意把这五项房地产转给母亲。

为了完成房地产转让，遗产管理人需要签署 Form 14A，也就是土地转让表格。

接下来就出现印花税问题。

印花税征收官认为，这项转让应该缴付 ad valorem stamp duty，也就是根据房地产价值计算的印花税。

纳税人不同意，认为只应该缴付 fixed stamp duty，也就是固定金额印花税，例如 RM10。

所以，背后的简单问题是：
这份 Form 14A 转让文件，应该缴付固定金额印花税，还是根据房地产价值缴付从价印花税？

2. Fixed sum 和 ad valorem 是什么意思？
对公众来说，可以这样理解：
Fixed sum duty 是固定金额印花税，不管房地产价值多少，印花税都是一个小额固定数目。

Ad valorem duty 是从价印花税，根据房地产价值计算。房地产价值越高，印花税越高。

所以，两者差别可能非常大。

如果文件只征收 RM10，成本很低。

但如果按几百万令吉的房地产价值计算印花税，金额可能就很可观。

这就是为什么文件分类非常重要。

3. 为什么会有争议？
印花税征收官认为，这项转让属于 release or renunciation by way of gift，也就是通过赠与方式作出的放弃或让与，因此应根据《1949年印花税法令》征收从价印花税。

纳税人则认为，这只是遗产分配安排的一部分，应该以不同方式处理，只需缴付固定印花税。

所以，这不是单纯的表格问题，而是关于这项转让的法律性质。

它只是遗产行政安排？

还是实质上是一种赠与或放弃权益？

这个法律分类，会直接影响需要缴付多少印花税。

4. 联邦法院在这份判决中真正裁定了什么？
这一点很重要。

在这份判决中，联邦法院并没有最终裁定实质问题，也就是究竟应缴付固定金额印花税，还是从价印花税。

联邦法院主要处理的是一个初步程序问题：
当印花税争议根据《1949年印花税法令》第39条，以 case stated 的方式提交高庭时，高庭是在行使原有司法管辖权，还是上诉司法管辖权？

这个问题很重要，因为如果高庭是在行使原有司法管辖权，那么在获得准许后，案件可能可以继续上诉到联邦法院。

联邦法院认为，这类 case stated 程序，不是普通意义上的完整上诉。

高庭的角色是有限的。

高庭不会重新审讯，不会听取证人证供，也不会重新调查所有事实。高庭只是回答被提出的法律问题。

因此，联邦法院裁定，高庭是在行使 原有司法管辖权，而不是普通上诉司法管辖权。

所以，在获得上诉准许后，案件可以继续到联邦法院审理。

5. 什么是 case stated？
简单说，case stated 就是把一个特定法律问题交给法院回答。

它不是普通上诉，不是让法院重新审完整个案件。

可以想象成，印花税征收官把事实和问题列出来，然后问法院：
“法院，请回答这个法律问题。”

高庭接着回答这个法律问题。

它不是把整个案件从头再审一次。

在这个案件中，问题本质上是：Form 14A 的印花税，应该根据《印花税法令》第一附表的哪一个项目来评估。

6. 为什么这个案件重要？
这个案件重要，因为它厘清了印花税争议的上诉路线。

它告诉纳税人、律师和企业：当印花税案件通过 case stated 方式进入高庭时，高庭不是在扮演普通上诉法院的角色。

高庭是在回答一个法律问题。

这也意味着，在符合法律条件并获得准许的情况下，案件可以继续上到联邦法院。

这对涉及房地产转让的案件尤其重要，因为印花税金额可能非常大。

7. 公众应该学到什么？
公众应明白，印花税不是简单的“盖章付钱”而已。

一份文件如何被法律分类，可能大大改变应缴付的印花税金额。
家庭内部转让、遗产安排、公司重组、和解协议或信托相关文件，表面上看起来简单，但文件的法律效果可能导致完全不同的印花税结果。

重点不只是当事人自己怎么想，而是法律如何看待这份文件。

8. 给企业和家庭的实用建议
在签署房地产转让文件、家庭安排协议、和解协议、企业重组文件或信托相关文件之前，应先取得专业的印花税意见。

不要以为这是“家人之间转让”、“没有赚钱”或“只是遗产分配”，印花税就一定只是象征式金额。

印花税征收官可能会根据文件的法律效果，征收从价印花税。

良好的文件草拟、清楚的法律结构和提前的印花税规划，可以避免日后出现昂贵的惊喜。📌

给企业的金句
“印花税看的不是我们口头上怎样称呼交易，而是文件在法律上的真正性质。

税务与印花税世界里，文字、结构和实质，都会改变成本。”

25/05/2026

Court of Appeal decision in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia v Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd, where the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier High Court decision and ruled in favour of LHDN

1. What is this case about?
This case is about a property developer that paid money to the Selangor housing authority, LPHS, so that it could be exempted from building low-cost housing in its property development project.

The amount involved was about RM6.23 million.

The company treated this payment as a business expense and claimed it as a tax deduction under section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967.

LHDN disagreed.

LHDN said the payment was not an ordinary business expense.

Instead, it was a capital payment because it gave the developer a special advantage: the developer no longer had to build low-cost housing and could instead build more profitable free-market housing.

2. What happened before the Court of Appeal?
At first, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax decided in favour of LHDN.

Then, the High Court decided in favour of the taxpayer.

But later, LHDN appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed LHDN’s appeal, set aside the High Court decision, and reinstated the decision in favour of LHDN.

3. The big question
The main question was:
Is a contribution paid to the State Authority to be exempted from the building low-cost housing deductible as a business expense?

The Court of Appeal’s answer was:

No, not in this case.

4. Why did the Court of Appeal say it was not deductible?
The Court said the payment was not part of the ordinary day-to-day cost of running the property development business.

The project originally had a low-cost housing requirement.

That requirement was part of the State’s policy to provide affordable housing.

By paying the exemption sum, the developer was not merely removing an obstacle to continue business.

Instead, it was removing a social housing obligation so that the project could become more profitable.

In simple terms:
The payment was not made because the business could not continue.

The payment was made so the business could enjoy higher profit margins.

That difference is very important.

5. “Obstacle to business” vs “obstacle to bigger profit”
This is the most important lesson from the case.

The Court made a practical distinction:
If a payment is necessary for the business to continue, it may be a deductible business expense.

But if a payment is made mainly to improve the business position, increase profit margin, or obtain a special long-term advantage, it may be capital in nature and not deductible.

In this case, the Court said the developer could still carry on the project without paying the exemption sum.

It could have built the low-cost housing, re-planned the project, or accepted a lower profit margin.

So the payment was not necessary to earn income. It was paid to secure a better, more profitable position.

6. Why was it treated as capital?
The Court viewed the payment as a one-off capital outlay.

It was not a recurring business cost such as salaries, utilities, rent, repairs, or normal project operating expenses.

Instead, it was a one-time payment that changed the project's character and economics.

The company obtained an enduring advantage: it was freed from the low-cost housing requirement and could build more profitable units.

Therefore, the Court said the payment was capital in nature.

7. Why did the Court disagree with the High Court?
The High Court had earlier viewed the payment as part of the cost of continuing the business and generating income.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and said the High Court had taken too broad an approach.

The Court of Appeal said we cannot simply ask, “Did the payment help the business make a profit?”

Because almost every business payment is made with the hope of making a profit.

The better question is:
What was the true purpose of the payment?

Was it an ordinary expense to operate the business, or was it a one-off payment to obtain a special advantage?

The Court of Appeal found that it was the second one.

8. What about the time-bar issue?
The taxpayer argued that LHDN was too late to raise the assessments.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

The Court said the taxpayer had wrongly claimed the exemption sum as a deduction.

This was treated as negligence for tax purposes.

As a result, LHDN was not barred by the usual time limit.

In simple words:
If a taxpayer negligently claims something wrongly, LHDN may still be able to reopen past years, even if those years are old.

9. What about the penalty?
LHDN had imposed a 45% penalty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the penalty.

The taxpayer argued that it acted in good faith.

However, the Court said that for a penalty under section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967, “good faith” is not automatically a defence.

The Court also noted that if the taxpayer was genuinely unsure, it could have sought clarification from LHDN instead of taking the risk and claiming the deduction.

10. What does this mean for businesses?
This case is very important for businesses, especially property developers and companies dealing with government approvals, exemptions, contributions, levies, or policy conditions.

The lesson is clear:
Do not assume that a payment to a government authority is deductible just because it is connected to your business.

The real tax question is:
🙋‍♂️ Was the payment part of normal business operations?
🙋‍♂️ Was it recurring?
🙋‍♂️ Was it necessary to earn income?
🙋‍♂️ Or was it a one-off payment to obtain a special advantage, avoid a policy requirement, improve profit margin, or change the commercial position of the project?

If it is the latter, LHDN may treat it as capital and disallow the deduction.

11. Practical advice to businesses
Businesses should be careful before claiming deductions for payments made to government bodies, local authorities, regulators, or State agencies.

Before making a claim, companies should prepare proper documentation, including board papers, approval letters, project feasibility studies, tax advice, correspondence with authorities, and the commercial rationale for the payment.

Where the amount is large or the issue is uncertain, businesses should seriously consider seeking formal tax advice or clarification from LHDN before filing the tax return.

Do not gamble first and explain later. In tax, the cost of a wrong position can be much higher than the tax saved.

Valuable quote for businesses
“A payment may help your business make more profit, but that alone does not make it tax-deductible.

In tax, purpose, evidence and substance matter more than labels.”

在 Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia v Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd 这个案件中，上诉庭推翻了高庭较早前有利于纳税人的判决，并裁定 LHDN 胜诉

1. 这个案件在讲什么？
这个案件是关于一家房地产发展商，向雪兰莪房屋机构 LPHS 支付一笔款项，以获得豁免，不需要在其发展项目中兴建低成本房屋。
涉及的金额约为 RM6.23 million。

公司把这笔款项当作业务费用，并根据《1967年所得税法令》第33(1)条申请税务扣除。

LHDN 不同意。

LHDN 认为，这笔款项不是普通业务费用，而是 资本性支出。

因为这笔钱让发展商取得一个特别优势：不用兴建低成本房屋，而可以兴建利润更高的自由市场房屋。

2. 上诉庭之前发生了什么？
最初，所得税特别专员裁定 LHDN 胜诉。

之后，高庭裁定纳税人胜诉。

后来，LHDN 上诉到上诉庭。

上诉庭批准 LHDN 的上诉，推翻高庭判决，并恢复所得税特别专员有利于 LHDN 的裁定。

3. 最大的问题

案件的核心问题是：
支付给州政府机构，以豁免兴建低成本房屋的贡献款，是否可以作为业务费用扣税？

上诉庭的答案是：
在这个案件的事实下，不可以。

4. 为什么上诉庭认为不能扣税？
上诉庭认为，这笔款项不是房地产发展业务日常经营中的普通支出。

这个项目原本就附带低成本房屋的要求。

这个要求属于州政府提供可负担房屋政策的一部分。

发展商支付豁免费，并不是单纯为了让业务继续进行，而是为了摆脱社会房屋责任，使项目可以变得更赚钱。

简单说：
这笔钱不是因为不付就不能做生意。

这笔钱是为了让生意赚更多。

这个分别非常重要。

5. “业务障碍” 与 “更高利润障碍”的分别
这是这个案件最重要的讯息。

上诉庭作出一个很实际的区分：
如果一笔款项是必要的，因为不支付，业务就不能继续，它可能是可扣税的业务费用。

但是，如果一笔款项主要是为了改善业务位置、增加利润率，或取得一种特别及长期的商业优势，它就可能是资本性质，不能扣税。

在这个案件中，上诉庭认为，发展商即使不支付豁免费，也仍然可以继续进行项目。

它可以兴建低成本房屋、重新规划项目，或接受较低利润率。

所以，这笔款项不是为了赚取收入所必须支付的费用，而是为了取得更有利、更赚钱的位置。

6. 为什么它被视为资本支出？

上诉庭认为，这笔款项是一次性的资本支出。

它不是薪金、水电费、租金、维修费或一般项目营运费用那类经常性业务成本。

相反，它是一笔一次性付款，改变了项目的商业性质和盈利结构。

公司取得了一个长期优势：摆脱低成本房屋要求，并可兴建利润更高的房屋单位。

因此，上诉庭认为这笔款项属于资本性质。

7. 为什么上诉庭不同意高庭？
高庭较早前认为，这笔款项是公司继续经营和产生收入的一部分成本。

但上诉庭不同意，并认为高庭的看法太宽。

上诉庭指出，不能只是问：
“这笔付款有没有帮助公司赚钱？”

因为几乎所有商业付款，最终都是希望帮助公司赚钱。

更正确的问题应该是：
这笔付款的真正目的是什么？

它是日常经营中的普通费用，还是一次性付款，以取得特别优势？
上诉庭认为，这个案件属于后者。

8. 关于追税时限
纳税人也主张，LHDN 已经过了法定时限，不能再发出评估。

上诉庭不同意。

上诉庭认为，纳税人错误地把豁免费当作扣除，这在税务上构成疏忽。因此，LHDN 不受一般时限限制。

简单说：
如果纳税人因疏忽而错误申报扣除，即使相关课税年度已经很久，LHDN 仍可能有权重开评估。

9. 关于罚款
LHDN 征收了 45%罚款。

上诉庭维持这项罚款。

纳税人认为自己是善意行事。

但是，上诉庭指出，在《1967年所得税法令》第113(2)条下，“善意”并不自动成为抗辩理由。

上诉庭也指出，如果纳税人真的不确定，应当向 LHDN 寻求澄清，而不是自行承担风险，先把款项当作扣除。

10. 这个案件对企业有什么意义？
这个案件对企业非常重要，尤其是房地产发展商，以及经常面对政府批准、豁免、贡献款、征费或政策条件的公司。

重点是：
不要以为一笔钱支付给政府机构，而且与业务有关，就一定可以扣税。

真正的税务问题是：
🙋‍♂️ 这笔款项是否属于日常业务经营成本？
🙋‍♂️ 是否经常发生？
🙋‍♂️ 是否为了赚取收入而必须支付？
🙋‍♂️ 还是它是一笔一次性付款，用来取得特别优势、避开政策要求、提高利润率，或改变项目的商业位置？

如果是后者，LHDN 很可能把它视为资本支出，并拒绝扣除。

11. 给企业的实用建议
企业在申请扣除支付给政府机构、地方政府、监管单位或州政府机构的款项前，必须谨慎。

在申报扣除之前，公司应准备完整文件，包括董事会议文件、批准信、项目可行性研究、税务意见、与政府部门的往来信件，以及付款背后的商业理由。

如果金额重大，或税务处理不明确，企业应认真考虑在提交税务申报前，先取得正式税务意见，或向 LHDN 寻求澄清。

不要先赌一把，出事后才解释。在税务上，错误立场的代价，往往比当初省下的税更高。

给企业的金句
“一笔付款可以帮助企业赚更多钱，但这并不代表它一定可以扣税。税务看重的，不是名称，而是目的、证据与实质。”

25/05/2026

Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri, decided by the High Court of Malaya on 20 September 2022

What is this case about?
This case is about a property developer that made a contribution to the Selangor State Government/LPHS to be exempted from building low-cost, medium-low-cost, and medium-cost housing for its housing project.

The company then claimed the payment as a tax deduction.
The Inland Revenue Board disagreed.

IRB said the payment should not be deductible.

IRB also raised additional assessments and imposed penalties.

So the main question was:
Can this contribution be deducted under section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967?
Background
Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd was a property developer.

For its housing project in Puchong, Selangor, it was originally required to build certain lower-cost housing units.

However, the company applied for an exemption and paid a contribution to the State Authority.

Why did the company do this?
Because the project site had practical development difficulties, including issues with slope and rock formations.

Building the lower-cost units would be commercially difficult and costly.

The company took the business decision to pay the contribution so that the project could continue and generate income.

What did IRB say?
IRB’s position was that the payment was not deductible because:
The payment was made to get an exemption from the State Authority.

It was not directly incurred to produce income.

It was capital in nature.

IRB also imposed a 45% penalty for certain years of assessment.

What did the High Court decide?
The High Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal.

The Court held that the payment was deductible under section 33(1) because it was closely connected to the company’s business of property development.

The payment was made so that the company could continue the housing project and earn income from selling the units.

In simple words:
The payment was not a random donation.

It was part of the business reality of carrying on the project.

Why was the payment deductible?
The Court looked at the purpose of the payment.

The payment was made to remove a business obstacle.

Without the exemption, the project would have faced serious commercial difficulty.

By paying the contribution, the company could continue its property development business.

The Court said that an expense is not disqualified simply because it helps the company make more profit.

Businesses spend money to make profit.

That alone does not make the expense non-deductible.

Was it capital or revenue in nature?
This was important.

A capital expense is usually something that creates a long-term asset or enduring advantage.

A revenue expense is usually part of the ordinary cost of running the business.

The Court found that this payment did not create a new capital asset.

The company already had the project.

The payment helped the company proceed with the development and sell the units, which were its stock-in-trade.

For a property developer, houses and units built for sale are like trading stock.

Therefore, a payment connected to developing and selling those units may be treated as a revenue expense, depending on the facts.

What about section 44(6)?
The Court also noted that if the payment was viewed as a contribution or gift to the State Government, it could fall under section 44(6) of the Income Tax Act 1967, which allows certain gifts of money to a State Government or local authority to be deducted.

This was an additional supporting point.

What about public policy?
One argument was that allowing this deduction might encourage developers not to build low-cost housing.

The Court did not accept that as a reason to deny the deduction.

The Court’s approach was practical: if Parliament wants to prohibit a deduction, the law must clearly say so.

A deduction should not be denied merely because of a general policy concern, especially where the payment itself was allowed under the State Government’s exemption mechanism.

What about the time limit?
The Court also found that the assessments and additional assessments were raised beyond the permitted time limit.

IRB could only go beyond the normal time limit if it could prove fraud, wilful default or negligence.

In this case, the Court found that IRB failed to prove the required negligence connected to the assessment.

In simple words:
The tax authority cannot reopen old tax years just because it disagrees with a deduction.
It must prove a valid legal reason to go beyond the time limit.

What about the penalty?
The Court also found that the penalty was not justified.

The taxpayer had cooperated during the audit, provided documents and explained the reason for the payment.

The Court viewed the matter as a technical tax issue, not a tax evasion case.

Where a taxpayer acts in good faith, makes full disclosure and takes a reasonable tax position, a penalty should not be imposed automatically.

Key lessons for the public
This case teaches us that tax deduction is not judged by the label of the payment alone.

Calling something a “contribution” does not automatically mean it is non-deductible.

The real question is the following:
📍Why was the payment made?
📍Was it made for business purpose?
📍Was it connected to producing income?
📍Did it help the business continue its operations?
📍Did it create a new capital asset, or was it part of the ordinary business cost?

For this case, the Court accepted that the payment was sufficiently connected to the company’s property development business.

Important advice to businesses

Businesses should not assume that every payment to a government authority is automatically deductible or non-deductible.

The facts matter.

Companies should keep proper documents showing the commercial reason for the payment, such as approval letters, board papers, project feasibility studies, correspondence with authorities, tax computations and audit explanations.

When claiming a deduction, the company should be able to tell a clear story:
📍Why was this payment necessary for the business?
📍How was it connected to income generation?
📍What documents support the claim?

Valuable quote for businesses
“Tax deduction is not about the name of the payment; it is about the purpose, evidence and business reality behind the payment.”

⚠️⚠️ Afterword:
The LHDN contested the ruling and appealed the case to the Court of Appeal. In late 2023/early 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s judgment and ruled in favour of the LHDN.

Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri: 此案由马来亚高庭于2022年9月20日作出判决

这个案件在讲什么？

这个案件是关于一家房地产发展商，向 雪兰莪州政府 / LPHS 支付一笔“贡献款”，以获得豁免，不需要在其房屋发展项目中兴建低成本、中低成本及中等成本房屋。

公司过后把这笔款项作为税务扣除。

但是，内陆税收局不同意。

税收局认为这笔款项不能扣税，并向公司发出额外评估和罚款。

所以，案件的核心问题是：
这笔支付给州政府以取得豁免的贡献款，是否可以根据《1967年所得税法令》第33(1)条扣税？

背景
Ehsan Armada Sdn Bhd 是一家房地产发展公司。

它在雪兰莪蒲种进行一个房屋发展项目，原本需要兴建一些较低价位的房屋单位。

不过，公司后来申请豁免，并向州政府支付一笔贡献款。

公司为什么这样做？

因为该发展地段面对实际工程困难，包括斜坡和岩石形成等问题。

如果继续兴建低成本房屋，成本会很高，项目也会面对商业上的困难。

因此，公司作出商业决定，支付贡献款，让项目可以继续发展并产生收入。

税收局怎么说？

税收局认为，这笔款项不能扣税，理由是：
📍这笔款项是为了取得州政府豁免。
📍它不是直接为了产生收入而支出。
📍它属于资本性质的支出。

税收局也对某些课税年度征收45%的罚款。

高庭怎样判？
高庭批准了纳税人的上诉。

法院认为，这笔款项可以根据 第33(1)条 扣税，因为它与公司的房地产发展业务有密切关系。

公司支付这笔款项，是为了让房屋项目能够继续进行，并通过销售房屋单位来赚取收入。

简单说：
这不是一笔无关业务的随意捐款，而是公司为了继续经营项目所产生的实际商业支出。

为什么可以扣税？
法院关注的是这笔付款的真正目的。

这笔款项是为了移除一个商业障碍。

如果没有豁免，公司项目会面对严重的商业困难。

通过支付贡献款，公司可以继续进行房地产发展业务。

法院也指出，一项支出不会因为它帮助公司赚取更多利润，就自动变成不可扣税。

做生意本来就是花钱赚钱。单单因为支出有助于盈利，并不代表它不能扣税。

它是资本支出还是收益支出？
这是案件中的重要问题。

资本支出通常是指创造长期资产或长期利益的支出。

收益支出则通常是企业日常经营过程中产生的成本。

法院认为，这笔款项并没有创造新的资本资产。

公司原本已经有这个发展项目。

该款项只是帮助公司继续发展和销售房屋单位，而这些房屋单位是公司的“存货”。

对于房地产发展商而言，兴建来出售的房屋单位，本质上就是交易存货。

因此，与发展和销售这些单位有关的支出，在特定事实下，可以被视为收益支出。

第44(6)条又是什么？

法院也提到，如果这笔款项被视为支付给州政府的贡献或赠款，它也可能落在《1967年所得税法令》第44(6)条之下。

该条文允许某些支付给州政府或地方政府的金钱赠款作为扣除。
这是法院的额外支持理由。

关于公共政策的问题
有人可能会说，如果允许这类扣除，会不会鼓励发展商不要兴建低成本房屋？

法院没有接受这个理由。

法院的立场很实际：如果国会要禁止某项扣除，法律必须清楚写明。

不能只是基于一般政策忧虑，就否定一项扣除，尤其是该付款本身是在州政府所允许的豁免机制下作出的。

关于追税时限
法院也认为，有关评估和额外评估已经超过法律允许的时限。

税收局如果要超过一般时限追税，必须证明纳税人涉及欺诈、故意失责或疏忽。

在这个案件中，法院认为税收局没有证明与该评估有关的疏忽。

简单说：
税收局不能只是因为不同意某项扣除，就随意重开很久以前的课税年度。它必须有法律上充分的理由。

关于罚款
法院也认为，罚款是不合理的。

纳税人在审税过程中有合作，提供文件，也解释了付款的原因。法院认为，这个案件属于技术性税务争议，不是逃税案件。

如果纳税人是善意行事、充分披露资料，并采取一个合理的税务立场，罚款不应该自动征收。

公众应明白的重点
这个案件告诉我们，税务扣除不能单看付款的名称。

一笔款项被称为“贡献款”，并不代表它一定不能扣税。

真正要问的是：
📍这笔钱为什么支付？
📍是不是为了业务目的？
📍是否与产生收入有关？
📍是否帮助企业继续经营？
📍它有没有创造新的资本资产，还是只是经营过程中的成本？

在这个案件里，法院接受这笔款项与公司的房地产发展业务有足够密切的关系。

给企业的重要建议
企业不要以为所有支付给政府机构的款项，一定可以扣税，或一定不能扣税。

关键在于事实。

公司必须保留完整文件，证明付款背后的商业理由，例如批准信、董事会议记录、项目可行性分析、与政府部门的往来文件、税务计算和审税解释。

当公司要主张扣税时，必须能够讲清楚一个故事：
📍为什么这笔付款对业务是必要的？
📍它如何与产生收入有关？
📍有什么文件可以支持这个主张？

给企业的金句
“税务扣除看的不是付款名称，而是付款背后的目的、证据与商业现实。”

⚠️⚠️ 后记：
LHDN 不服气，把案子告到了上诉庭（Court of Appeal）。结果在 2023年底/2024年初，上诉庭推翻了高庭的判决，判 LHDN 胜诉。

25/05/2026

资料依据：Dato' Hj Sheikh Mohamad Shalahuddin Ayubi SM Amin v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Imegresen & Ors [2022] MLRHU 627

这个案件在讲什么？

简单说，这是一个关于：
公司拖欠关税和销售税，已经辞职的董事还要不要负责？政府能不能因此限制他出国？

案件中的申请人曾经是 Naza Kia Sdn Bhd 的董事。

他后来在 2013年辞任董事。

不过，公司涉及的拖欠税款，是发生在他仍然担任董事期间，即 2001年1月至2002年9月。

后来，关税局向他追讨欠税，并要求移民局对他实施出境限制。

申请人不满，认为自己已经不是董事，不应该再被追税，也不应该被限制出国。

于是，他向法院申请司法复核，希望推翻这个决定。

法院怎样判？

法院驳回了他的申请。

法院认为，重点不是他现在是不是董事，而是：
欠税产生的时候，他是不是董事。

如果欠税发生在他担任董事期间，那么即使他后来辞职，也不一定可以完全摆脱责任。

法院认为，根据 1967年关税法第22C条 和 1972年销售税法第26条，董事可以与公司一起承担“共同及个别责任”。

什么是“共同及个别责任”？

用很简单的话说：
政府可以向公司追讨，也可以向董事追讨，甚至可以直接向其中一方追讨全部欠税。

这不是说政府只能先追公司，追不到才追董事。

法律允许政府选择向谁追讨。

所以，董事不能简单地说：
“这不是我的债，是公司的债。”

在某些税务法律下，公司欠税，董事也可能被牵连。

辞职是不是就没事了？
不是。

这个案件最重要的讯息就是：
辞职不等于免责。

如果税务责任是在你担任董事期间产生的，后来辞职，并不会自动把过去的责任删除。

这就好像你在任期间签下的责任，不会因为你离开公司后就自动消失。法律看的是责任产生的时间，而不是你被追讨时的身份。

为什么可以限制出境？
法院也认为，关税局根据 1967年关税法第17A条 和 1972年销售税法第27A条，可以在有欠税未缴的情况下，请求移民局限制有关人士离开马来西亚。

换句话说，如果当局认为某人欠税且可能离境，法律允许当局采取出境限制措施，直到税款被缴清，或提供令当局满意的担保。

在这个案件里，法院认为出境限制是依法作出的，因此是有效和合法的。
这个案件给公众的重点提醒
第一，做董事不是挂名那么简单。

很多人以为董事只是签文件、出席会议、拿名片。实际上，董事身份可能带来真实的法律和税务责任。

第二，公司税务问题不是“公司自己的事”。

在某些法律下，如果公司拖欠关税、销售税、EPF、所得税等，董事或前董事都可能被追讨。

第三，辞职不是万能保护伞。

如果责任是在你任内产生的，辞职后仍然可能被追究。

第四，税务欠款可能影响个人行动自由。

拖欠税务不只是罚款或利息问题，也可能导致出境限制，影响商务、旅游、家庭安排和个人声誉。

给企业和董事的实用建议
企业不要等到税务问题爆发才处理。

董事应定期了解公司的税务合规情况，包括关税、销售税、服务税、所得税、PCB、EPF、SOCSO 等。

即使财务工作交给管理层或会计部，董事也不能完全置身事外。

对于董事而言，最安全的做法是：
保留董事会议记录、税务付款记录、与税务机关沟通的文件、分期付款安排、以及自己曾经提出关注或反对意见的证据。

因为当事情发生时，记忆不值钱，文件才值钱。📌

一句话总结
离开公司，不等于离开责任；签上董事名字，就要看清背后的法律重量。

给企业的金句
“做生意看的是数字，做董事看的不只是数字，而是数字背后的责任。”

Director’s Tax Liability — Outstanding Taxes of the Company
What is this case about?

In simple terms, this case is about one important question:
If a company owes taxes, can a former director still be personally liable after resignation?

The applicant was once a director of Naza Kia Sdn Bhd.

He resigned as director in 2013.

However, the unpaid taxes related to the period January 2001 to September 2002, when he was still a director of the company.

Later, the Royal Malaysian Customs Department pursued him for the unpaid customs duty and sales tax.

A travel restriction was also imposed against him.

The applicant argued that he was no longer a director, so he should not be responsible for the company’s tax debts.

He also challenged the travel ban through judicial review.

What did the Court decide?

The Court dismissed his application.

The Court’s main point was simple:
The issue is not whether he was still a director when Customs pursued him.

The important question is whether he was a director when the tax liability arose.

Since the unpaid taxes related to the period when he was still a director, the Court held that he remained liable.

What does “joint and several liability” mean?

This is a very important concept.

In simple terms, joint and several liability means the authorities may recover the full amount from the company, the director, or both.

It does not mean the authorities must first recover from the company before going after the director.

So, a director cannot simply say:
“This is the company’s debt, not my personal problem.”

In certain tax laws, when the company owes taxes, the director may also be personally exposed.

Does resignation remove the risk?

No.

This case clearly shows that:
Resignation does not automatically erase past responsibility.

If the tax liability arose during your period as a director, you may still be responsible even after you leave the company.

In other words, leaving the company does not necessarily mean leaving the liability behind.

Why was a travel ban allowed?

The Court also held that the travel restriction was valid.

Under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1967 and the Sales Tax Act 1972, the Customs authority may request the Immigration Department to stop a person from leaving Malaysia if there are unpaid taxes and the authority believes that the person may leave without settling the amount.

In this case, the Court found that the travel ban was lawful.

Key lessons for the public

First, being a director is not just a title.

It comes with real legal and financial responsibilities.

Second, company tax debts may become a personal problem for directors.

In some situations, directors and former directors can be pursued for unpaid taxes.

Third, resignation is not a magic shield.

If the liability arose during your time as a director, you may still be exposed.

Fourth, tax debts can affect personal freedom.

It is not only about penalties or interest.

It may also lead to travel restrictions, which can affect business trips, family travel, reputation, and personal plans.

Practical advice to businesses and directors
Businesses should not wait until tax issues become serious before taking action.

Directors should regularly monitor the company’s tax compliance, including customs duty, sales tax, service tax, income tax, PCB, EPF, SOCSO and other statutory obligations.

Even if accounting and tax matters are handled by management or the finance team, directors should not ignore them entirely.

Directors should also keep proper records, such as board minutes, tax payment records, correspondence with tax authorities, instalment payment arrangements, and evidence showing that they had raised concerns or objections when necessary.

When problems arise, memory is weak. Documents are strong. 📌

Takeaway
Leaving the company does not always mean leaving the liability. Once you accept the title of director, you must understand the responsibilities that come with it.

Valuable quote for businesses
“Business owners look at numbers, but directors must look beyond numbers — because behind every number, there may be a legal responsibility.”