Share This

Monday, 10 December 2012

Falling foul of the tax law

Many tax offences arise due to failure to correctly discharge filing obligation

MOST of us would not ever think of cheating when we file our tax returns. This does not however mean that one cannot fall foul of the tax law. This is in part due to the fact that tax laws generally are amongst the most complex of a country's set of laws, and our own tax law is no exception.

Often it is not the complexity of the law that catches one out but simple failure to follow procedures, the most common of which involves keeping to set time frames, whether in the filing of returns, paying of one's taxes or providing information to the tax man.

Thus the instances when one can be in breach of the tax law are quite varied and extensive. All such breaches are serious offences, some more serious than others.

Our tax law adopts the declaratory system one is required to declare income via the filing of returns to the tax authority. Many tax offences arise due to failure to correctly discharge this filing obligation.

The most obvious offence is not filing a tax return, or not filing within the stipulated time frame.

An Inland Revenue Board officer helping taxpayers filing their submission
In filing the return, an offence is committed if the return filed is incorrect. A return would typically be incorrect if income is omitted or a lesser than actual sum is included. Likewise, more deductions claimed than one is entitled to would result in incorrect filing.

An innocent mistake may not be regarded as cheating but it is still an offence especially when it results in less tax being charged. Generally the severity of penalties varies with the level of the offence's blameworthiness.

An offence involving willful intent to defraud would be amongst the most serious, bringing about the prospect of imprisonment if convicted. Details of the range of penalties for various offences are listed on the official website of the Inland Revenue Board (

An offence of “not taking reasonable care” was introduced with the implementation of the self-assessment system. This is entirely justifiable as the filing of a tax return is in law the making of an assessment on oneself upon which tax becomes payable.

The aim is to ensure that a “degree of care or conscientiousness” is exercised in connection with the preparation and filing of a tax return. It is intended to prevent the adoption of a reckless or careless approach to the task and to penalise any breach where it results in tax underpaid.

Thus with this standard, claiming a deduction for a capital expense would constitute an offence of not taking reasonable care, even where its capital nature is not quite obvious. The law presumes that a reasonable person would seek to determine the true nature of the expense.

The “reasonable care” requirement was also introduced by Australia when it implemented self-assessment some years before we did. Since the standard is derived from the common law on negligence, features of the “reasonable care” standard adopted in Australia should apply equally to the Malaysian provision.

However, a taxpayer who fails to take “reasonable care” under the Malaysian law is liable to prosecution and, if convicted, is liable to a fine of not less than RM2,000 and not more than RM20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. This is in fact harsher than an offence of willful intent to evade tax.

There seems to be an obvious anomaly here as the offence of failing to take reasonable care does not involve bad intent, what lawyers would term mens rea. Australia treats the offence as amongst the least culpable of tax offences, certainly less so than intentional disregard of taxation law.

A controversy resulting in considerable bemusement arose in Australia recently where its Appeals Tribunal in a tax appeal ruled that a taxpayer in seeking the advice of an accountant had not taken reasonable care; he should have used the services of a lawyer. Understandably, this resulted in consternation and dismay amongst both tax accountants as well as tax lawyers for quite different reasons; the latter over concerns that their numbers are fewer in this specialism.

A further difference is that the Australian law requires both the taxpayer and his advisor to take “reasonable care”, whereas the “reasonable care” standard under Malaysian law applies only to the “person who advises or assist” the taxpayer but not the taxpayer himself. Why this is so is not clear.

The Australian “reasonable care” standard is coupled with the “reasonably arguable case” standard.

Where the law is unclear and there is room for a real and rational difference of position between two views, and the taxpayer adopts the view, which ultimately is seen to be wrong, he would in strictness have made an incorrect return.

In Australia, no penalty is imposed where a “reasonably arguable case” is made out.
This recognises that the intricacies of tax law often does mean that the taxpayer could be forced to take a contentious position, one where the arguments could go either way. If the weight of arguments is fairly balanced, imposing a penalty for taking an incorrect position would seem manifestly unfair.

Our tax authorities do exercise discretion in considering the question of penalties despite the absence of the equivalent Australian standard.

However, this does not detract from the fact that the taxpayer will always prefer to see his right spelled out in the law. On the basis of balance of rights, there seems to be no cogent reason why the “reasonably arguable case” standard should be left out from the Malaysian tax legislation.

Kang Beng Hoe is an executive director of TAXAND MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd.The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the firm. Readers should seek specific professional advice before acting on the views.

Related posts:
Reducing income tax 
Breaking the Goods and Services Tax (GST) taboo for a ... 21 Oct 2012
How will the Malaysia's Tax Budget 2013 affect your ... 07 Oct 2012