ey tax alert · sdn bhd and cb ventures sdn bhd) acquired 56,025 units of shares in bioford. 9...
Post on 31-Mar-2019
298 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018 1
Malaysian developments
Case law on whether a property development constitutes a “real property company” pursuant to Paragraph 34A of Schedule 2 of the RPGTA
In Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Continental Choice Sdn Bhd
& Anor (2018) MSTC 30-165, the High Court (HC) overturned the
decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SC) (see Tax
Alert No. 23/2017) and delivered a judgment in favour of the Inland
Revenue Board (IRB). The HC concurred with the SC that the HC
precedent in Binastra Holdings Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil
Dalam Negeri (2002) MSTC 3897 (Binastra) was correctly relied on
by the SC as the decision was binding on them. The HC however
stated that the Binastra judgment was not binding on another HC
and so the HC could proceed to make its own decision. On that
note, the HC disagreed with the SC’s position in adopting a
purposive interpretation of Paragraph 34A of Schedule 2 of the
Real Property Gains Tax Act (RPGTA) and thus holding that a
property development company would not be a real property
company (RPC). The HC held that the law as laid out in Paragraph
34A must be given a strict interpretation as the words are clear and
unambiguous. The HC therefore held that the shares disposed by
the taxpayers’ were chargeable assets and the gains were subject
to real property gains tax (RPGT).
An overview of the case and discussion of the issues are set out
below.
EY Tax Alert Vol. 21 - Issue no. 19
10 September 2018
Malaysian developments
• Case law on whether a property
development constitutes a “real
property company” pursuant to
Paragraph 34A of Schedule 2 of the
RPGTA
Overseas developments
• UK Government’s guidance on
preparing for “No Deal” on Brexit
outlines indirect tax implications
• Poland publishes legislation on
Innovation Box
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
2 2
Overview
The chronology of events are as follows:
7 January 2004
Bioford Development Sdn Bhd (Bioford) was incorporated
8 September 2004
Bioford purchased property from Mishika (M) Sdn Bhd and Maharta Sdn Bhd, for a consideration of RM14.5 million. After the purchase of the property, the defined value of Bioford’s real property exceeded 75% of its total tangible assets. Based on the above, the IRB found that Bioford was a “real property company” within the ambit of Paragraph 34A(6) of Schedule 2 of the RPGTA, commencing from the date of the said purchase of property by Bioford.
18 October 2004
The taxpayers (Continental Choice Sdn Bhd and CB Ventures Sdn Bhd) acquired 56,025 units of shares in Bioford.
9 August 2005
Continental Choice Sdn Bhd and CB Ventures Sdn Bhd disposed of their shares to Chean Ah Wah and Chean Chuan Fatt respectively. Thereafter, the taxpayers filed the relevant forms (including RPGT form, as well as supporting documents such as Sale & Purchase Agreement (property), Sale & Purchase Agreement (shares), computation and relevant bills) vide their solicitors, to err on the side of caution, despite being of the view that the gains from the sale of the shares were not subject to RPGT. Upon request by the IRB, the taxpayers also supplied additional documents, including Forms 24 and other supporting documents.
19 February 2008
The IRB issued a Notice of Assessment to CB Ventures Sdn Bhd, stating the RPGT payable.
23 June 2011
The IRB issued a Notice of Assessment to Continental Choice Sdn Bhd, stating the RPGT payable.
As the taxpayers did not agree with the
assessments, they filed notices of appeal to the SC.
The SC held in favour of the taxpayer. The IRB
appealed the SC’s decision, to the HC. The issues
for the HC’s determination were as follows.
Whether the SC was correct in deciding that:
1. the HC decision in Binastra was still good law
despite being reversed by the Court of
Appeal (CA); and
2. the CA decision could not be applied in this
case since there was no written judgment
The HC affirmed the SC’s judgment that the HC’s
decision in Binastra remained good law, and a
binding precedent to the SC, as the doctrine of
judicial precedent only applied in circumstances
where there was a written judgment produced by a
higher court. In this case, the CA’s judgment in
Binastra was not binding on the Court, as there was
no ratio decidendi or legal principles extracted from
the CA’s judgment.
Notwithstanding the above, the HC also found that
the HC’s decision in Binastra was not binding on
another HC of a similar jurisdiction. Therefore, the
HC in this instance could proceed to make its own
judgment.
Whether the SC was correct in deciding that:
3. Paragraph 34A of Schedule 2 of the RPGTA
must be given a purposive, rather than
literal, interpretation;
4. Bioford is not a “RPC” within the ambit of
Paragraph 34A; and
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
3
5. the gains made by the Respondents from the
disposal of its shares in Bioford are not
subject to RPGT
The HC disagreed with the SC’s position in adopting
a purposive interpretation of Paragraph 34A, and
was of the view that the literal approach should
instead be adopted. The HC referred to the Federal
Court decision in Palm Oil Research and
Development Board Malaysia & Anor v. Premium
Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd [2004] 2 CLJ 265, where it
was stated that “The correct approach to be
adopted by a court when interpreting a taxing
statute is ……
First, the words are to be given their ordinary
meaning. They are not to be given some other
meaning simply because their object is to frustrate
legitimate tax avoidance devices ……….
Secondly, ‘… one has to look merely at what is
clearly said. There is no room for any intendment.
There is no equity about a tax. There is no
presumption so to a tax. Nothing is to be read in,
nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at
the language used.’ ……….
Thirdly, the object of the construction of a statue
being to ascertain the will of the legislature, it may
be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was
intended, if therefore a literal interpretation would
produce such a result, and the language admits of
an interpretation which would avoid it, then such an
interpretation may be adopted.
Fourthly, the history of an enactment and the
reasons which led to its being passed may be used
as an aid to its construction.
In this case, the HC found that as the law set out in
Paragraph 34(6) was unambiguous, the words could
be given their ordinary meaning, and the test to
determine whether or not Bioford was a RPC was
clear. The intention of the taxpayers in acquiring
the shares of Bioford and the primary business of
Bioford, were not relevant considerations in
determining whether Bioford was a RPC.
Furthermore, no injustice or absurdities would arise
from construing Paragraph 34A in its ordinary and
natural meaning.
In addition, in line with the fourth approach, the HC
was of the view that the purposive approach (which
was taken by the SC), was only to be adopted in a
situation where the provision in the taxing statute
does not provide plain and unambiguous language.
The intention behind the introduction of a provision
may be used to aid its interpretation in cases of
ambiguity. However, in this case, it would not be
applicable, as the test of a RPC in Paragraph 34A
was so clearly worded that there was no ambiguity.
In conclusion, based on the facts of the case, the HC
held that Bioford was a RPC pursuant to Paragraph
34A of Schedule 2 of the RPGTA, and hence the
gains from the disposal of its shares were subject to
RPGT.
Overseas developments
UK Government’s guidance on preparing for “No Deal” on Brexit outlines indirect tax implications
On 23 August 2018, the United Kingdom (UK)
Government published its first batch of technical
notices setting out some of its unilateral actions and
recommended steps for businesses in a “No Deal”
scenario on Brexit. This scenario would be one
where the UK leaves the European Union (EU) on 29
March 2019 without an agreed EU Withdrawal
Agreement and without a framework in place for a
future relationship between the UK and the EU.
However, in such a scenario, the Government does
expect that some agreements can still be reached
with the EU given the number of interdependencies
between the UK and the EU’s respective
contingency plans.
This Alert focuses on the notices explaining how the
UK Government intends to operate its customs and
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
4 4
value added tax (VAT) border from 29 March 2019
absent a deal.
The steps announced in these notices will help
reduce some friction in the event of a No Deal
scenario mostly for companies that import to the
UK. In particular, allowing for VAT to be dealt with
in VAT returns rather than to be paid at the border
will reduce cash flow impacts, particularly for
smaller firms; and a selective approach to customs
checks will help reduce the risk of delays and costs
at the border.
While helpful, these notices can only cover some of
the impact businesses face in a No Deal scenario
and of course, only cover the UK perspective. UK
customs waving through a shipment will have
limited effect if that shipment is stopped on the
EU side and there are delays on that side. The
Government is right to challenge the EU to
reciprocate some of these arrangements to avoid
the most damaging friction, not least for EU-based
firms, should a deal not happen.
The notices published represent about a third of the
total notices the Government intends to publish by
the end of September. Some of the critical issues to
reaching a full agreement between the UK and the
EU, such as the ”border” between Northern Ireland
and the Republic of Ireland are the subject of
current negotiations and in the notices, the
UK Government simply reiterates that it will be
working on a solution to the Irish border issue with
the EU.
Customs and trade
Customs function development
All trade between the UK and the EU will require
customs declarations as well as safety and security
declarations. It is clear that businesses will need to
develop and expand their customs knowledge,
particularly businesses that have no experience in
imports and exports outside the EU.
All current trade of goods between the EU and UK
will need to be classified as per the existing HM
Revenue & Customs (HMRC) customs tariff. No
immediate changes will be made to the existing
commodity codes in use, but import licenses or
supporting documentation may be required. This
allows businesses confidence in the requirements
that need to be met and provides the ability to
evaluate their existing master data against the
requirements.
Businesses need to evaluate between both their
customers and suppliers which Incoterms best fit
for trade bearing in mind these contractual
decisions will now directly impact who will act as the
importer or exporter along with all the requisite
administration, duty costs and compliance.
The UK Government invites businesses to consider
using customs special procedures which could allow
reliefs of suspensions of duties for goods traded
with the EU. These come with controls requirements
and potential IT demands to be met that typically
have three-six month lead times to be met, meaning
businesses need to make those evaluations now if
they want to be effective in March.
Future tariff impacts
The UK intends to continue offering unilateral
preferences to developing countries and to
transition all existing EU free trade agreements (EU
FTAs). By omission this means exporters using FTAs
may lose the preferential treatment. The Most
Favored Nation rates will be applicable for trade
between the EU and the UK, however, the UK may
choose to apply new duty rates that differ to the
EU.
Export controls
Dual use items primarily require no license to move
between the UK and EU currently. If the UK leaves
the EU without a deal, licenses issued in the country
of export would be required for trade of these
goods. Existing export licenses for dual use goods
issued in the UK would no longer be valid if
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
5
exporting from an EU Member State, a new EU
license would be needed and vice versa if exporting
from the UK using an EU license.
Other points
UK excise goods moving under the Excise
Movement and Control System (EMCS) will now only
be allowed for domestic movements. Businesses
importing from the EU will need to make use of a
registered consignor to enter goods into suspension
and subsequently EMCS in a no-deal scenario.
For businesses producing and processing organic
foods, UK businesses would only be able to export
to the EU if they were certified by an organic
control body recognized and approved by the EU to
operate in the UK, however UK control bodies are
not permitted to make these applications until the
UK becomes a ”third country” and approval can
take up to nine months. The UK Government will
work with the EU for a solution.
The UK Government has applied to re-join the
Common Transit Convention which will facilitate
cross border movement and which will be a critical
tool especially with goods movements to Ireland.
In respect of trade remedies, the UK will review all
existing measures applied by the EU and is
developing a new system called the Trade Remedies
Authority for businesses to raise complaints for
investigation after Brexit.
VAT
The Government has confirmed the continuation of
a VAT system after the UK leaves the EU and that
the VAT rules relating to UK domestic transactions
will continue to apply to businesses as they do now.
The technical notice highlights the VAT changes
that businesses will need to prepare for when:
• Importing goods from the EU
• Exporting goods to the EU
• Supplying services to the EU
UK businesses importing goods from the EU
Accounting for import VAT on goods imported into
the UK
Postponed accounting will be introduced for import
VAT on goods brought into the UK. This means that
UK VAT registered businesses that import goods to
the UK will be able to account for import VAT on
their VAT return, rather than paying import VAT on
(or soon after) the time that the goods arrive at the
UK border. This will result in significant cash flow
savings for business as the import VAT will be offset
in the VAT return, rather than being paid and then
recovered.
Postponed accounting will apply both to imports
from the EU and non-EU countries. Customs
declarations and the payment of any other duties
will still be required.
VAT on goods entering the UK as parcels sent by
overseas businesses
If the UK leaves the EU without an agreement then
Low Value Consignment Relief will no longer apply
to any parcels arriving in the UK, and all goods
entering the UK as parcels sent by overseas
businesses will be liable for VAT (unless they are
already relieved from VAT under domestic rules).
For parcels valued up to and including £135, a
technology-based solution will allow VAT to be
collected from the overseas business selling the
goods into the UK. Overseas businesses will charge
VAT at the point of purchase and will be expected to
register with HMRC and account for VAT. On goods
worth more than £135 sent as parcels, VAT will
continue to be collected from UK recipients in line
with current procedures for parcels from non-EU
countries.
VAT on vehicles imported into the UK
Businesses should continue to notify HMRC about
vehicles brought into the UK from abroad as they do
now, using the Notification of Vehicle Arrival
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
6 6
Procedures (NOVA) system which will continue to
be used for this purpose.
Import VAT will be due on vehicles brought into the
UK from EU Member States. Certain reliefs will also
be available as with current imports of vehicles from
non-EU countries. Businesses will need to continue
to use NOVA to verify that VAT is correctly paid on
imported vehicles.
UK businesses exporting goods to the EU
UK businesses exporting goods to EU consumers
Distance selling arrangements will no longer apply
to UK businesses and UK businesses will be able to
zero rate sales of goods to EU consumers. EU
Member States will treat goods entering from the
UK as imports with associated import VAT and
customs duties due when the goods arrive into the
EU.
UK businesses exporting goods to EU businesses
VAT-registered UK businesses will continue to be
able to zero-rate sales of goods to EU businesses.
EC sales lists will not be required. There will be a
need for evidence to prove that goods have left the
UK, to support the zero-rating of the supply.
UK businesses supplying services into the EU
Place of supply rules for UK businesses supplying
services into the EU
The main VAT ”place of supply” rules will remain
the same for UK businesses. The rules around
”place of supply” will continue to apply in broadly
the same way that they do now, subject to the
points below.
For UK businesses supplying digital services to
non-business customers in the EU the ”place of
supply” will continue to be where the customer
resides. VAT on services will be due in the EU
Member State where the customer is resident.
For UK businesses supplying insurance and
financial services, input VAT deduction rules for
financial services supplied to the EU may be
changed. We will provide an update once more
information is available.
Other points
UK businesses selling their own goods in an EU
Member State to customers in that country will be
required to register for VAT in that EU Member
States where sales are made in order to account for
the VAT due in that country.
The technical notice recognizes that the impact on
the Travel Operators Margin Scheme is still not
clear. HMRC has been engaging with the travel
industry and will continue to work with businesses
to minimize any impact.
Businesses that sell digital services to consumers in
the EU will be able to register for the Mini One Stop
Shop (MOSS) non-union scheme. Businesses that
want to continue to use the MOSS system will need
to register for the VAT MOSS non-Union scheme in
an EU Member State. This can only be done after
the date the UK leaves the EU. The non-union MOSS
scheme requires businesses to register by the 10th
day of the month following a sale.
UK businesses will need to use the existing VAT
refund processes for non-EU businesses. This varies
across the EU and businesses will need to make
themselves aware of the processes in the individual
countries where they incur costs and want to claim
a refund.
UK businesses will be able to continue to use the EU
VAT number validation service to check the validity
of EU business VAT registration numbers but UK
registration numbers will not be a part of it. HMRC
is developing a service so that UK VAT numbers can
continue to be validated.
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
7
Next steps
The UK Government has repeated that it believes a
No Deal scenario remains unlikely given the mutual
interests of the UK and the EU in securing a
negotiated outcome. Negotiations covering both the
future UK/EU relationship and remaining points on
the Withdrawal Agreement will continue on a
regular basis in the coming weeks. The next
meeting of the EU Council is set for 17-18 October
2018 and the UK’s technical notices and any
responses to them will be part of the background to
the negotiations leading up to that meeting.
Businesses will hope for more certainty as to the
way forward to emerge from these negotiations,
preferably at the earliest opportunity.
Poland publishes legislation on Innovation Box
On 24 August 2018, the Polish Minister of Finance
published the much anticipated draft legislation
introducing the Innovation Box regime (IBR) into the
Polish tax system. The IBR is aimed at incentivizing
innovative research and development (R&D)
activities by taxing profits from qualifying
intellectual property rights (qualifying IP) at a
preferential 5% tax rate. The incentive is based on
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) recommendations regarding
the modified nexus approach, which intends to link
the relief to the proportion of R&D in Poland.
The preferential 5% tax rate will apply to the
“qualified income” obtained from the qualifying IP
created, developed or improved by a taxpayer as
part of his R&D activity.
The new IBR is a further addition to Poland’s
existing tax landscape to encourage investment in
innovation activities in Poland. At present, Poland
already offers an R&D incentive, which allows for a
double deduction for tax purposes of certain
qualifying costs incurred in relation to a taxpayer’s
R&D activities. While the existing R&D incentive
refers to the cost side of the taxpayer’s activities,
the proposed Innovation Box relief will apply to
income earned from the qualifying IP developed as
a result of the taxpayer’s R&D activities.
Poland has already established itself as a popular
destination for Shared Services Centers and R&D
activities of many international groups. This is due
inter alia to the availability of skilled workforce and
cost competitiveness. Therefore, it is expected that
for many multinational groups benefitting from the
nexus-based incentive in Poland this will be a
welcomed development.
The proposed relief is to enter into force on 1
January 2019.
What IP qualifies?
Qualifying IP rights include:
• Patents
• Extensions of patent protection
• Protected utility models
• Registered industrial designs
• Registered topographies of integrated circuits
• Extensions of patent protection for medicinal
products and plant protection products
• Registered medicinal and veterinary products
admitted to trading
• Registered new varieties of plants and animal
breeds
• Rights to computer program
protected under national or international law.
What income qualifies?
The new provision contains a list of the types of
income from qualifying IP rights that are in scope of
the proposed relief:
• Fees and royalties under license agreement for
qualifying IP
• Income from sale of qualifying IP
• Income from the qualified IP embedded in the
sale price of products and services
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
8 8
• Compensation for infringement of rights arising
from qualifying IP obtained in litigation,
including court proceeding or arbitration
Calculation of the tax base
The amount that will be subject to the preferential
5% tax rate i.e., the qualified income amount,
corresponds to the amount calculated as the
income obtained from the qualifying IP right
multiplied by the ratio established in accordance
with the following formula based on the OECD
recommendations:
(a + b) x 1.3
a + b + x + d
Where the individual letters stand for costs actually
incurred by the taxpayer in respect of:
a. R&D activity carried out directly by the taxpayer
related to the qualifying IP right
b. acquisition of R&D results related to the
qualifying IP right from an entity unrelated to
the taxpayer, other than those mentioned in
point d
c. acquisition of R&D results related to the
qualifying IP right from an entity related to the
taxpayer, other than those mentioned in point d
d. the acquisition by a taxable person of the
qualifying IP right
In the case when the value of the ratio calculated in
accordance with the above formula is greater than
1, it is assumed to be 1.
Based on the above formula, the more R&D activity
that is performed by the taxpayer himself or
outsourced to unrelated parties, the higher the
amount of the relief the taxpayer will be entitled to
claim under the new IBR.
The above results from the nexus approach
formulated in accordance with the OECD
recommendations, according to which revenues
related to IP can be taxed on a favorable basis to
the extent that specific IP-generating income is the
result of R&D activity carried out by the respective
taxpayer.
Documentation requirements
Taxpayers intending to benefit from the preferential
taxation will have certain additional documentation
requirements. These taxpayers will be obliged to
keep accounting records, based on which it will be
possible to distinguish each qualifying IP right and
determine the revenues, tax deductible costs, and
income (loss) attributable to each of the qualifying
IP rights.
In certain cases, an alternative approach may be
available to taxpayers who earn income from more
than one qualified IP right and it is not possible to
determine the income streams and costs applicable
to each of the qualifying IP rights. Under this
alternative approach, it may be possible to
determine the income applicable to all qualifying IP.
Similarly, it may be possible to track income and
costs to the same type of products or services, or
the same group/family of products or services, in
which the qualifying IP asset was used.
Next steps
Companies operating in the field of innovation and
technology, and especially multinationals with an
R&D presence in Poland, should become familiar
with the current IBR proposals and consider their
application to the company’s operations.
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
9
Contact details
Principal Tax contacts Yeo Eng Ping eng-ping.yeo@my.ey.com +603 7495 8288 Amarjeet Singh amarjeet.singh@my.ey.com +603 7495 8383
Global Compliance and Reporting Simon Yeoh simon.yeoh@my.ey.com +603 7495 8247 Julian Wong julian.wong@my.ey.com +603 7495 8347 Datuk Goh Chee San (based in Sabah) chee-san.goh@my.ey.com +6088 235 733 Janice Wong janice.wong@my.ey.com +603 7495 8223 Julie Thong julie.thong@my.ey.com +603 7495 8415 Lee Li Ming (based in Johor) li-ming.lee@my.ey.com +607 334 1746 Liew Ai Leng ai-leng.liew@my.ey.com +603 7495 8308 Koh Leh Kien leh-kien.koh@my.ey.com +603 7495 8221 Mark Liow (based in Penang) mark.liow@my.ey.com +604 263 6260
People Advisory Services Tan Lay Keng lay-keng.tan@my.ey.com
+603 7495 8283 Irene Ang irene.ang@my.ey.com +603 7495 8306
Christopher Lim christopher.lim@my.ey.com +603 7495 8378 Business Tax Services Amarjeet Singh amarjeet.singh@my.ey.com +603 7495 8383 Farah Rosley farah.rosley@my.ey.com +603 7495 8254 Robert Yoon robert.yoon@my.ey.com +603 7495 8332 Wong Chow Yang chow-yang.wong@my.ey.com +603 7495 8349
Transaction Tax Services Yeo Eng Ping eng-ping.yeo@my.ey.com +603 7495 8288 Sharon Yong sharon.yong@my.ey.com +603 7495 8478
International Tax Services
Anil Kumar Puri anil-kumar.puri@my.ey.com +603 7495 8413
Asaithamby Perumal asaithamby.perumal@my.ey.com +603 7495 8248
Transfer Pricing Sockalingam Murugesan sockalingam.murugesan@my.ey.com +603 7495 8224 Vinay Nichani vinay.nichani@my.ey.com +603 7495 8433 Hisham Halim hisham.halim@my.ey.com +603 7495 8536
Indirect Tax Yeoh Cheng Guan cheng-guan.yeoh@my.ey.com +603 7495 8408
Aaron Bromley aaron.bromley@my.ey.com +603 7495 8314
Financial Services Bernard Yap bernard.yap@my.ey.com +603 7495 8291
EY Tax Alert – Vol. 21 Issue no. 19 | 10 September 2018
10 10
EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com. © 2018 Ernst & Young Tax Consultants Sdn. Bhd. All Rights Reserved. APAC no. 07001413 ED None. This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific
advice.
Important dates
15 September 2018 Due date for monthly instalments
30 September 2018 6th month revision of tax estimates for companies with March year-end
30 September 2018 9th month revision of tax estimates for companies with December year-end
30 September 2018 Statutory deadline for filing of 2018 tax returns for companies with February year-end
15 October 2018 Due date for monthly instalments
31 October 2018 6th month revision of tax estimates for companies with April year-end
31 October 2018 9th month revision of tax estimates for companies with January year-end
31 October 2018 Statutory deadline for filing of 2018 tax returns for companies with March year-end
Publisher:
Ernst & Young Tax Consultants Sdn. Bhd.
Level 23A Menara Milenium
Jalan Damanlela, Pusat Bandar Damansara
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: +603 7495 8000
Fax: +603 2095 7043
top related