Taxing "all other income" in Singapore and Malaysia
Section 10(1)(g) of the Singapore Income Tax Act is a ‘sweeping-up’ provision which catches all income not falling under sections 10(1)(a)–(f). More than 50 years after its introduction, the application of section 10(1)(g) is still unclear despite the test laid out in IB v CIT. This article notes th...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2955 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4913/viewcontent/101080_1472934220191665764.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Section 10(1)(g) of the Singapore Income Tax Act is a ‘sweeping-up’ provision which catches all income not falling under sections 10(1)(a)–(f). More than 50 years after its introduction, the application of section 10(1)(g) is still unclear despite the test laid out in IB v CIT. This article notes that the current jurisprudence is limited to cases involving gains or profits from the disposal of assets. It argues that the reliance on the Australian Myer Emporium test in IB v CIT was misplaced and that the section 10(1)(g) test should not have a sole focus on intention. Rather, it proposes a set of indicia of income drawn from the Badges of Trade, which it argues to be consistent with the existing jurisprudence. The article highlights that the tax consequences of receipts being assessed under sections 10(1)(a) or (g) are different and notes the importance of the receipts being assessed under the correct subsection. |
|---|