Anyone up for a slap in the face?

Here’s one.

They pretend to giveth… and they snatcheth away before ye can even smell it

Inconsiderate power abusing pricks. That’s the new term I’ll use to describe them from now on.

First, the gazette ain’t even out yet, despite the “law” supposedly having been effective from 1 January 2008. But, they issue an addendum (read: a-them-dumb, because they are) to the Public Ruling that places ridiculous restrictions so that those exemptions that the taxpayers thought should now help in belt-tightening times, are C4-ed into pieces and places far and wide it surprises even this seasoned-getting-used-to-their-idiotic-antics-tax-practitioner.

To explain my rants, let me remind you taxpayers that in Budget 2009, it was announced by the now Defense Minister that employees were meant to be given such goodies as tax exemptions for meal allowances and child care allowances from employers, amongst a slew of exemptions.

The A-Them-Dumb now reads…

Meal allowance provided to an employee for purposes such as overtime or outstation/overseas trips and other similar purposes in exercising his employment is meant to cover meal expenses of the employee. Such meal allowance is paid according to the employee’s position, duties or place where the employment is exercised. As such, any allowance pertaining to meal expenses is chargeable to tax and does not fall under this exemption. Similarly, a per diem allowance which is meant to cover meal expenses for an employee in exercising his employment is also not included in this exemption.

Reality check. A flippin’ two year old would relate a meal allowance to covering meal expenses! Which part of the word “meal” don’t you get in ”meal allowance”?! If it’s not meal expenses, then what? Use the money to buy seeds to cultivate our gardens on our apartment balconies, is it?!

Now, let’s look at how working parents are encouraged to leave their teenagers home alone to join street gangs, lepak and/ or beef up the Mat Rempit population…

For the purpose of this exemption, child means a child of the age of 12 years and below and who is a legitimate child or step-child of an individual or his wife/ husband or a child proved to the satisfaction of the Director General to have been adopted by the individual or his wife/ husband in accordance with any law.

Let’s top off this lump of shit with the fact that the a-them-dumb was issued less than 3 weeks before every employer must submit the details of every one of their employee’s taxable income. Nothing like icing that matches the cake, is there?

Technically, they’re mad!

And that’s my cue for saying I’m gonna get a bit technical for this post. But for those with slightly less tax background, a… well, bit of background.

Payments made to non-residents are subject to withholding tax if, amongst others that I won’t regurgitate here, those are royalty payments.

Royalty is defined in the legislation to include -

(a) any sums paid as consideration for the use of, or right to use -

(i) copyrights, artistic or scientific works, patents, designs or models, plans, secret processes or formulae, trademarks, or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, motion picture films, films or video tapes or other means of reproduction where such films or tapes have been or are to be used or reproduced in Malaysia or other like property or rights;

(ii) know-how or information concerning technical industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill;

(b) income derived from the alienation of any property, know-how or information mentioned in paragraph (a) of this definition;

I took the trouble to reproduce the definition because I’d like anybody with any legal background or even the layman on the street to try and find any remote link that payment for use of a foreign phone line would have to royalty. Anybody? Well, those idiots seem to see a link. If I wasn’t clear there, let me spell it out: They tell me payment for use of a foreign phone line is royalty.

Just so I could be sure they weren’t high on some sort of substance of their technical prowess, I ventured another question – What about payment for off-the-shelf software like Microsoft Office?

Wanna know what they told me? “Itu… kalau tak customize, bukan royalti, sebab itu sell to public… Tapi kalau you all buat customization, yang tu royaltilah…”

Now, do you agree with the title of my post?

What kinda answer did they expect they’d get?

I need that Public Ruling out now!

Because I have a flippin’ painful stiff neck!

No, really. Each tiny jerk everytime the phone rings or if someone hollered at me from a workstation situated anywhere beyond directly in front of where I’m sitting sends my pain receptors into overdrive from my shoulder blades up.

Anyway, there’s supposed to be this slew of tax exemptions granted by Budget 2009 for employees who receive such heaven-sent benefits from their employers, like traditional medicine and alternative treatments… that I so need right now. The funny thing is, all those exemptions were supposed to have kicked in for the calendar year 2008. But given the propensity of our legislators for twisting the intentions of a proposal into some unimplementable creature and propel us to grander heights of global laughing stock, which employer would have the guts to pay for our neck massages without a written decree, I ask?

Oww.

Moral switch? Moral switch?!

I can’t take this. Seriously cannot take this.

Here. Read.

What kinda tax parallel can there be to that? Well, the word “guideline” comes to mind. More of how public rulings, those supposed tax authorities’ interpretation of how the tax laws are to be administered are supposed to be merely guidelines – not something that is supposed to be law, even if it stinks like an undead one. Not something that requires you to bare all in your tax returns in declaring whether you are or are not following their guidelines. Not something that factors into whether you are or are not chosen for their “yes, its a random pick” field audit if you ticked the box stating that you’re not a “guideline follower”. Definitely not something that automatic penalty of 45% of tax for underdeclaration is supposed to hit.

So, to non-tax practitioners… having enforceable “guidelines” that requires additional investments in times when money is tight just to achieve “a moral switch” is old hat to us. Welcome to our world. Now allow me to go puke some blood and buy a dryer with my 10 sen petrol savings.

Complex algebra and broken promises… yet again

The new law’s out. On insurance.

Specifically, computation of set off of tax charged for actuarial surplus.

Goes like this…

(A x B/C x D) + (E x F/G x H)

No. I’m not kidding.

And, they went back on their word. Again.

In theory, it’s supposed to work…

Here’s a question to ponder. Do we really have 6 years statutory limitation?

If you’re in a loss position, you’re open to scrutiny and adjustments by the mighty Board up till six years after you first become tax payable. So, if you happened to be one of those poor shmucks who are down on their luck for seven generations… well, my only advice is try some feng shui.

In the meantime, some salt on that wound.

The new Section 97A says that the Director General may (as opposed to “must”) notify you in writing that you have no assessment by issuing you a Notification of Non-Chargeability, if you happened to be in a loss position for instance.

There’s no time frame set on him to do that, by the way. So, he can sit on it till your tax manager becomes eligible to cash in his retirement benefits for 20 friggin’ years and there’s nothin’ you can do about it. By then, the warehouse in which you stored your documents would’ve been torn down because the leasehold term has expired and there’s nothin’ you can do about it. By then, those documents are already three quarters on their way to full decomposition, so obviously there’s nothin’ you can do about it.

And if by then, he issues you with that Notification, guess what? He’ll expect an answer back in 30 days, failing which he’ll deem his adjustments as final and conclusive. And by then, he can cascade that new (usually massively reduced) loss down to your current years and BANG! BANG! BANG! (sounds better than Form JA! Form JA! Form JA! doesn’t it?)

And there’s nothin’ you can do about it.

Enter Petrol Tax

Remember the RM7b? Well, they’ve finally explained where it came from.

Unbelievable? Believe it.

I want kill somebody…

ARGH!!

That’s my reply to that IRB officer! ARGH!!!

Franking credits (that’s Section 108 credit for techies) are supposed to be tax that the corporate taxpayers have paid, so they can actually pay franked dividends from. The basic idea is that if you’ve paid the tax (up to 31 December 2007) it’s supposed to count as your franking credits. Yeah, go back to basics, IRBozos! You people gazette the stupid law on 28 December 2007. You people tell us at talks and conferences that taxes that we’ve paid up to 31 December 2007 are creditable into our Section 108 balance. And now Fucking 11 months after that law’s been applied to death, you tell us that prepaid tax instalments don’t count??!! Go read the damn law that you drafted when you had half a brain and go to hell with your stupid interpretation!

Damn you! I hope you rot in perpetual civil servitude!

ARGH!!!