I know this is not really tax related, but it’s the big news for the day and I am seriously confused over it.
The news: Here.
The extract…
KUALA LUMPUR: The 30% bumiputra equity requirement for Malaysian companies seeking public listing is now repealed, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
However, these companies are now required to offer 50% of the public shareholding spread to bumiputra investors.
For the uninitiated, public shareholding spread is the percentage of shareholding in a listed company that must be held by the public. In numerical terms, that’s at least 1,000 people. 999 persons does not constitute the public, got it? Under Bursa rules, the current minimum public shareholding spread is 25%. But what I understand from an investment banker is this… its near impossible to even meet the 1,000 people-equals-to-public requirement in the first place. Usually, listed companies would just make an application for exemption from having to comply with this. To top that off, the determination of who gets how much shares is subject to a public ballot. Yes, lucky-draw style.
Now, if a question hinting heavily on the nonsensical impracticality of the “groundbreaking” announcement hasn’t popped up in your head already by now, go back to the top and read this post again.
Categories: Events · Thinking Out Loud
Or maybe I’m exaggerating. Or dreamt it up. Or maybe my poor abused mind has finally popped on the notion that meal allowances relating to meal expenses aren’t exempted when they proposed an exemption on meal allowances.
Anyway, Halijah Bulat announced at the Malaysian Tax Conference 2009 (which is the localised version of the National Tax Conference) that MOF has agreed to exempt “day allowance”. A few squints, blinks and one creative thought later, one should deduce that she meant per diems that employees usually get when they go overseas, because she spoke about trips overseas.
Be wary though. Can’t find anything in writing about this yet.
Categories: Events · Good News
If ya’ll haven’t already heard, plus it was all over the news yesterday, the IRB has withdrawn all tax refund cheques issued from May 27 to 29 and June 1 and 2 on “technical grounds”. Of course, they won’t tell you what’s so technical about the grounds and of course I’ll tell you. 
Their cheques were actually perfect except for one little non-cashable boo boo… after the taxpayer’s name on the “Pay to” line, they typed in bank account numbers that belonged to someone else. So, there. Now we all know how the IRB defines “technical”. A typo on a cheque. Thing was, when taxpayers called up about the weird account numbers, their first response was, “Please check with the bank”.
Now, they promise we’ll get our refund by next Wednesday. By post. Would they be “technically” late if they mailed it by Wednesday?
Categories: Bad News
An interesting analysis on the PKFZ shit hitting the nation’s already dirtied fan… only, I don’t think it’s costing RM500 per Malaysian, because not all Malaysians pay tax. I think I remember reading somewhere that there are 3 million taxpayers in Malaysia. So, the cost per taxpayer is really RM2,333.33 and counting!
It kinda brings me to an idea. What if Malaysian taxpayers lobbied for a tax rebate against this wastage? Oh, I don’t know… an idea for the political parties to save taxpayers their already flushed down the toilet hard earned dough AND at the same time, send a message that, “Hey! That was wrong and here’s your money back. We’ll find a way to bring those bozzos who created the white elephant to task” might just be an election winner.
And it’ll kill a few birds with a stone, really. Those Malaysians eligible to pay tax but are hiding in and/or chained in a Seri Kembangan apartment because the Inland Revenue hasn’t flushed them out yet, will just not be eligible for this once in a PKFZ-boo-boo opportunity.
But then again, I tend to dream too much…
Categories: Thinking Out Loud
Just read this on the Singaporean Straits Times.
In the meantime, I get a reply via email from the IRB that reads like this…
I would just like to clarify my opinion re the above given this morning.
The activity of the recipient in his country is irrelevant in determining whether the income it receives is sec 4(f) income or not. Malaysia cannot / will not decide whether the activity of the recipient is a business activity as it doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of ITA 1967. If the payment made by resident person is the type of gains or profits which falls under sec 4(f) and sec 15B, then section 109F is applicable. Thus any confirmation re its activity (the NR) will be irrelevant for this purpose.
I truly regret the incorrect or misleading advice given this morning.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between us and them.
Categories: Ayam to De Duck? · Double Tax Aggravation · Prolific Profession · Unbelievable Acts · Yes? No? Maybe?
So, I’ll leave you with a quiz:
What relatively recent change in the tax laws resulted in the “robbing of the poor to pay the rich”?
Categories: Double Tax Aggravation · How They Screw Us
Sorry for the title. Let me just get right to the point. Today, I discovered two developments in tax. I’m sure I could have phrased the last sentence better, but I’m beyond caring right now.
The first is an addendum to a public ruling and the second one is a gazetted order for a new law.
The addendum was expected. There were rumours of it coming out sometime in March anyway, back when they surprised us with “Yes, it’s an exemption but no, it’s not really an exemption” addendum to the Public Ruling on Perquisites. This addendum, in addition to it being issued right smack in the month when people are already scrambling to file their tax returns and companies have washed their hands of the employees’ EA forms for the calendar year 2008, is obviously about ‘clarifications’ on benefits-in-kind granted to employees that are exempted from the year 2008. Like I said, I plan to ignore whatever’s in that addendum until shit hits the fan, so, let’s not get into what’s in it.
The gazette order, on the other hand, tells us the “good” news that those exempted benefits that we employees get, comes with a tax deduction for the companies giving them. All well and good at first glance. Only, technically, here’s the question: Why would this law be necessary?
To follow up with that question: You mean if not for this law, the companies would not have been able to enjoy a tax deduction for staff benefits?
Third (and last question, I promise): Are you kidding me?!
Categories: Bad News · Death and Taxes · Unbelievable Acts
To a country with a maximum tax rate of 16.5%. And look what’s happened!
But let’s see what the real law looks like before we pop the champagne corks, shall we?
Categories: Good News
