Over 40,000 tenants and owner-occupiers to receive more than $470 million worth of RSS payouts to support businesses with rental costs. From 26 November 2021, over 40,000 tenants and owner-occupiers will receive their third Rental Support Scheme payouts, totalling over $470 million.2 Minister for Finance Mr Lawrence Wong announced the third RSS payout on 20 October 2021 to support businesses with rental costs during the Stabilisation Phase from 27 September to 21 November 2021. Small and Medium Enterprises and eligible Non-Profit Organisations with an annual revenue not exceeding $100 million, which are tenants or owner-occupiers of qualifying commercial properties, will receive a cash payout equivalent to 1 month of their rent for the period of the Stabilisation Phase in the third RSS payout.3 The rental support will be provided directly to tenants without going through the landlords, as with the first and second RSS payouts disbursed on 6 August 2021 and 22 September 2021 respectively. This has allowed tenants to receive the RSS payouts from the Government promptly. Altogether, the three RSS payouts amount to more than $900 million of support for businesses’ rental costs.4 Eligible tenants and owner-occupiers will be notified by post of their RSS cash payout. They can also log in to myTax Portal from 26 November 2021 to view the electronic copy of their letter.Recipients of the second payout will be automatically given the third payout. 5 The third RSS payout will be disbursed automatically to tenants and owner-occupiers who had received the second payout. This simplified process enables businesses to receive their third RSS payout faster.Earlier payouts for tenants and owner-occupiers with PayNow or GIRO. 6 Eligible tenants and owner-occupiers with PayNow or existing GIRO arrangements with IRAS can expect to receive the RSS cash payouts from 26 November 2021. Those without these payment arrangements will receive cheques by 10 December 2021. More details on the RSS are available on the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore website at go.gov.sg/irasrss.7 SMEs and NPOs that are not eligible for the second payout but are eligible for the third payout should submit an application to IRAS . Applications will open on 10 December 2021 and close on 21 January 2022. Please visit the IRAS website at go.gov.sg/irasrss for more details. Eligibility for second payout: Tenants with a lease or license which was entered into before 20 July 2021, and in force anytime during 22 July 2021 to 18 August 2021, and stamped before 3 August 2021 where applicable. Eligibility for third payout: Tenants with a lease or license which was entered into before 24 September 2021, and in force anytime during 27 September 2021 to 21 November 2021, and stamped before 8 October 2021 where applicable.
We refer to Mr Ho Cheong Tong’s letter “Jobs Support Scheme. At a loss on being denied latest payout” .We recognise that many F&B businesses are affected by the COVID-19 situation, as well as the tightened safe management measures. Hence, the government has provided enhanced Jobs Support Scheme payments to help them through this period.To qualify for JSS support levels for F&B, the businesses will need to be classified under F&B-related SSICs and have a valid Food Shop License issued by the Singapore Food Agency before the relevant cut-off dates. Those that do not qualify but were significantly affected by the tightened measures can appeal to IRAS for a case-by-case review.We thank Mr Ho for the opportunity to clarify this, and have since reached out to him on his appeal.
Quek Lip Ngee and his company, Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd, have been convicted for serious fraudulent tax evasion. The Court sentenced Quek to 10 months and 2 weeks in jail and ordered to pay a penalty of $508,969, which is four times the amount of tax undercharged, on the two proceeded charges under Section 96A of the Income Tax Act for serious fraudulent tax evasion.Quek had, wilfully with intent to evade tax, prepared and authorised the preparation of false books of accounts and records, for purpose of claiming fictitious expenses. He created false invoices and expense records to support the claims of fictitious expenses in order to reduce the profits of his partnership business, Fanco Fan Marketing, in his Income Tax returns. By reducing the profits of the partnership and under-declaring his partnership income, he was seeking to pay less personal income tax. Consequently, Quek under-declared his share of his partnership income by $659,355 for the Years of Assessment 2012 and 2014, resulting in tax undercharged of $127,242.Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd was sentenced by the Court to pay a fine of $7,500 and a penalty of $50,252, which is four times the amount of tax undercharged, in July 2021. Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd had, wilfully with intent to evade tax, prepared false records to support the claiming of deductions of fictitious expenses of $72,840 in its tax returns for YA 2016, resulting in tax undercharged of $12,563.With the endorsement of the enhanced sentencing framework for tax evasions by the High Court on 9 June 2021, offenders will face a stiffer imprisonment sentence which takes into account the harm caused by the offender and his or her culpability, such as the quantum of tax evaded and modus operandi. The imprisonment term imposed for serious tax evasion under Section 96A of the Income Tax Act may span the full range of up to five years.IRAS takes a serious view of non-compliance and fraudulent tax evasion. There will be severe penalties for those who wilfully evade tax. The authority will not hesitate to bring offenders to court. Offenders may face a penalty of up to four times the amount of tax evaded for serious fraudulent tax evasion. Jail terms may also be imposed.Businesses or individuals are encouraged to immediately disclose any past tax mistakes. IRAS will treat such disclosures as mitigating factors when considering action to be taken. Those who wish to disclose past mistakes or report malpractices can write to:. A reward based on 15% of the tax recovered, capped at $100,000, would be given to informants if the information and/or documents provided lead to a recovery of t
Li Longyi , 46, former director of Wooleejeep Pte Ltd , has been ordered by the Court to pay fines and penalties totalling $124,058 after being convicted of omitting a total income of $348,276 in Wooleejeep’s Form C Income Tax Return for Year of Assessment 2011, failing to register Wooleejeep for Goods and Services Tax in 2009, and failing to keep business records between 2009 and 2012. Wooleejeep operated food stalls at food courts.Li faced one charge of omitting Wooleejeep’s actual income earned in its Form C Income Tax Return, resulting in a total of $49,207 in taxes undercharged for YA 2011. The Court imposed a fine of $3,000 and a penalty of $98,414 which is two times the amount of tax undercharged.For failing to register Wooleejeep for GST when the company’s revenue had exceeded the $1 million threshold by the end of quarter ending 30 September 2009, the Court ordered Li to pay a penalty of $1,500, which is 10% of the GST due, and a fine of $17,644.Li also faced one charge of failing to properly maintain records, including business and accounting records, food court statements and invoices from Wooleejeep’s suppliers or vendors, for a period of not less than 5 years. The Court ordered him to pay a total fine of $3,500.IRAS runs audit programmes across various industries to ensure tax compliance among individuals, businesses and the self-employed. Using data analytics and advanced statistical tools, IRAS is able to cross-check data and detect anomalies. This case was uncovered through one such audit programme.With the endorsement of the enhanced sentencing framework for tax evasion by the High Court on 9 June 2021, offenders will face a stiffer imprisonment sentence which takes into account the harm caused by the offender and his or her culpability, such as the quantum of tax evaded, the degree of planning and premeditation and sustained period of offending. The imprisonment term imposed for tax evasion under Section 96 of the Income Tax Act may span the full range of up to three years.All businesses, including individuals deriving income from their trade, profession or vocation, should closely monitor their income on a calendar year basis to assess if they need to register for GST.If their 12-month taxable turnover has exceeded $1 million at the end of the calendar year, they will be required to apply for GST registration within 30 days.Any business that fails to register for GST is still required to pay GST on all their past transactions from the date the business became liable for GST registration. GST is payable even if the amount was not collected from customers. In addition, failure to register for GST is an offence and businesses may be required to pay 10% of GST due as a penalty and fined up to $10,000.
Singapore and Cabo Verde have signed the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Singapore and the Government of the Republic of Cabo Verde for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance .The DTA was signed by Mr Alvin Tan, Minister of State, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth & Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore, and H.E. Rui Alberto de Figueiredo Soares, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and Regional Integration of the Republic of Cabo Verde.The DTA clarifies the taxing rights of both countries on all forms of income flows arising from cross-border business activities, and minimises the double taxation of such income. This will lower barriers to cross-border investment and boost trade and economic flows between the two countries. Key terms of the DTA can be found in the Annex.The full text of the DTA is available on the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore’s website here. The DTA will enter into force after ratification by both countries.- Period test of 183 days within any 12-month period for the furnishing of services, beyond which residents of a contracting state could trigger a taxable presence in the other contracting state
The Federal Republic of Germany has notified Singapore on 16 August 2021 that with effect from 1 January 2022, for income from capital gains for which Singapore has taxing rights pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the DTA , the Federal Republic of Germany will avoid double taxation on persons resident in Germany by applying the tax credit method set out in sub-paragraph of paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the DTA. Please refer to Income Tax Order 2021 made on 17 October 2021 for further details. For informational purposes, a footnote has been added to the Article 24 in the Singapore-Germany DTA, which may be accessed from the List of DTAs, Limited DTAs and EOI Arrangements page.
Up to 40% time-savings for companies and tax agents with simplified tax treatment for qualifying telecommuting assets under COVID-19 concession. Extended seamless filing solution to more tax professionals. Pre-filled companies’ email addresses for digitised notices. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore partnered with the tax community and government agencies to simplify Corporate Income Tax Filing 2021 for companies. With the new initiatives, companies and tax agents can further reduce the time they take to file CIT this year. Companies are to e-File their CIT Returns by 30 November 2021.Partners whom IRAS have worked with include the Singapore Chartered Tax Professionals , tax software providers and tax agents, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and the Government Technology Agency of Singapore . The new initiatives from these partnerships will bring greater convenience to more than 260,000 companies this filing season.Continual Efforts to Make Corporate Income Tax Filing Simpler and Easier. a) Partnership with SCTP: Up to 40% Time-Savings with Simplified Tax Treatment for Qualifying Telecommuting Assets Under COVID-19 Concession. The COVID-19 pandemic saw many employers purchasing work-related equipment for employees to work from home. In some cases, the employer would reimburse the employee for the purchase of the work-related equipment, with the ownership remaining with the employer. As these capital assets are for the employer’s trade, the employer may claim capital allowance on them. The current tax treatment requires the employer to compute the balancing allowance or charge based on the open market price of the asset if the asset is subsequently transferred to the employee .Feedback from the SCTP suggests that employers may face difficulties in determining the open market price for these assets at the point of transfer to the employees. IRAS has thus introduced a temporary measure to simplify the current tax treatment by deeming the open market price of qualifying assets 1 as follows:. Where the cost of the asset is less than or equal to $2,500, the open market price is deemed to be zero at the time of transfer;Where the cost of the asset exceeds $2,500, the open market price is deemed to be:. 50% of the original cost if the asset is transferred within the second Year of Assessment from the year of acquisition2;25% of original cost if the asset is transferred in the third YA; and. zero if the asset is transferred in the fourth or subsequent YA.The temporary measure applies to assets purchased in the YAs 2021 and 2022.With this temporary measure, companies can do away with determining the open mar
We refer to Mr Samuel Jacob’s letter “Why no penalty for property firms” regarding the prosecution of two property agents for their involvement in backdating an option to purchase a property to evade the higher additional buyer’s stamp duty .The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore will take action, including court prosecution where appropriate, against any party, whether individual or company, involved in committing any tax offence. In this instance, there was no evidence that the relevant property firms were involved in the offence.We thank Mr Jacob for the opportunity to clarify this.Kelly Wee Director Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Ong Chee Keong , 51, the sole proprietor of Hup Seng Lee Metal and Glamorzon Hair & Beauty Salon, has been convicted for reporting incorrect net Goods and Services Tax payable in his GST returns between 2010 and 2015 and making incorrect Income Tax returns for Year of Assessment 2013. The Court has ordered Ong to pay a total of $991,398 in penalties and fines for these tax offences.The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore uncovered the case through its audits, using data and statistical tools to cross-check and detect anomalies in the tax returns declared by taxpayers. IRAS investigations revealed that Ong had omitted certain sales and purchases in his GST F5/ F7 returns for 21 quarters ending between Mar 2010 and Dec 2015, resulting in $272,948 in GST undercharged. Ong had also omitted a total of over $4 million of income in his personal Income Tax returns for YAs 2011 to 2015. The under-declarations had resulted in $769,410 in taxes undercharged.Court SentencesThe Court ordered Ong to pay a fine of $10,500 and a penalty of $387,720, which is two times the amount of tax undercharged, for the 7 proceeded charges under Section 59 of the Goods and Services Tax Act of giving the incorrect information in his GST returns through negligence. The remaining 14 charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.Ong was also ordered to pay a fine of $3,000 and a penalty of $590,178 which is two times the amount of tax undercharged, for the 1 proceeded charge under Section 95 of the Income Tax Act of making incorrect returns in his personal Income Tax returns through negligence. The remaining 4 charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.Penalties for Non-ComplianceGiving Incorrect Information in GST Registration Form or Return Affecting Liability to Tax. Any business which without reasonable excuse or through negligence, gives any incorrect information in relation to any matter affecting his own liability to tax, or the liability of any other person or of a partnership, will be liable to a penalty that is twice the amount of tax undercharged. A fine and/ or a jail term may also be imposed.
Two property agents, 50-year-old Mu Shen , 44-year-old Loy Thye Wei and two property buyers, both 44-year-old Daniel Halim and Lee Liu Ying were found guilty and convicted by the Court for their involvement in falsely backdating an Option to Purchase of a property to avoid paying the higher Additional Buyer's Stamp Duties at the rate of 15%, instead of 10%, on the property purchase price of $1.38 million. The ABSD evaded amounted to $69,000.The ABSD rate for Singapore citizens buying third and subsequent residential property has been raised from 10% to 15% with effect from 6 July 2018. Investigations revealed that both buyers, Daniel and Lee, would only proceed with the property transaction if the OTP was backdated to 4 July 2018. Mu subsequently assisted the buyers to avoid paying the higher ABSD rate of 15% by instigating Loy, the property agent for the sellers, to backdate the OTP to 4 July 2018. Despite knowing that the buyers did not qualify for the lower ABSD rate of 10%, both Mu and Loy proceeded to backdate the OTP to take advantage of the lower ABSD rate even though the property transaction was only concluded on 8 July 2018.Mu pleaded guilty to one charge of abetment by instigating Loy to falsely backdate the OTP of the property with intent to avoid payment of higher ABSD. Mu was sentenced by the Court to 8 weeks of imprisonment.Loy pleaded guilty to one charge for her involvement in the preparation of OTP where she falsely backdated it with intent to avoid payment of higher ABSD. Loy was sentenced by the Court to 8 weeks of imprisonment.Daniel and Lee each pleaded guilty to stamp duty evasion by exercising a falsely backdated OTP. They were each sentenced by the Court to 6 weeks of imprisonment. In addition to the Court sentencing, a penalty of $276,000 which is four times the ABSD of $69,000 was imposed under Section 46 of the Stamp Duties Act on Daniel and Lee for under stamping the acceptance to the OTP.Serious Consequences for Providing False Information to Evade Payment of Stamp Duty. This is the first case of property buyers and property agents to be charged and convicted under Section 62 and 62 of the SDA for executing the OTP for a property which all the facts and circumstances are not fully set forth.In addition, offenders may be liable to a penalty of up to four times the deficient duty prescribed under Section 46 of the SD