Upcoming budget 2019 is going forward for digital tax

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2018/10/15/no-inheritance-capital-gains-tax-in-budget/

SSM Compound Discounts

SST Taxable Period

CASES INVOLVING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS IN MALAYSIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Case

Ooi Boon Leong v. Public Prosecutor [2011] MLJU 1104 

Details

This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in the case against Tan Yeow Teck, the former Director and Chief Financial Officer of Mems Technology Berhad (“CFO”) and Ooi Boon Leong (“CFO”). Both the Appellants were charged under section 122B(b)(bb) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 for knowingly having authorised the furnishing of a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad relating to a listed Company called, Mems Technology Bhd (“Company”). The misleading statement was contained in the Condensed Consolidated Income Statements (“ICCS) relating to the revenue of the Company for the year 2007 as at 31st July, 2007. The said ICCS showed that the Company had revenue of RM73.416 million. The said information was misleading because the figure of RM73.416 million was made of a sum RM30.169 million of sales that did not take place. 

Judgement/Outcomes

Both the CFO and CEO pleaded guilty to the charge brought against them and the Sessions Court judge imposed on each of them a fine of RM300,000 and in default of payment of the fine, 6 months’ imprisonment. Both have paid the fine. However, due to the inadequacy of the sentence, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal to the High Court against the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. When the appeal came before the High Court, the High Court Judge enhanced the sentence by imposing a term of 6 months’ imprisonment in addition to the fine of RM300,000 and in default of payment of the fine 2 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, both the CFO and CEO appealed to the Court of Appeal. Having considered the grounds of the appeal, the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court Judge. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the decision of the High Court Judge was affirmed.

SOURCE : MIA

SC puts a halt to LavidaCoin promotional activities

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 5): The Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) has issued a notice directing the promoter of LavidaCoin to cease all promotional activities effective immediately, pending further review by the regulator into the matter.

In a statement today, the SC said DSV Crypto Club, LUX Galaxies and VI Profit Galaxy, which were found to be promoting LavidaCoin, have been added to the SC’s investor alert list at www.sc.com.my.

"Investors are reminded to be cautious and exercise due diligence before participating in any investment schemes, in particular those involving cryptocurrencies and digital tokens," it added.

On Aug 27, the SC announced that it was in the midst of reviewing all available information in relation to LavidaCoin to determine whether there has been any breach of securities laws.

Two days later, Bank Negara Malaysia reported that it had listed VI Profit Galaxy (DSV Cryptoclub and LUX Galaxies), the operator behind LavidaCoin, in its financial consumer alert list.

This followed a Utusan Malaysia report that cosmetics millionaire Datuk Seri Dr Hasmida Othman – better known as Datuk Seri Vida – was introducing her very own cryptocurrency called LavidaCoin.

SOURCE : THE EDGE

Service Tax 2.0 2018

Service Tax 2.0 is a form of indirect tax imposed on any provision of taxable services made in the course or furtherance of any business by a taxable person in Malaysia. Service tax is not chargeable on imported services and exported services.

In general, the services provider is liable to be registered under the Service Tax Act 2018 when the value of taxable services provided for a period of 12 months that exceeds a threshold of RM500,000. The SST registration threshold is RM1,500,000 for Operator of restaurant, bar, snack-bar, canteen, coffee house or any place which provides food and drinks (eat-in or take-away , exclude canteen in an educational institution or operated by a religious institution or body), Caterer and Food court operator.

 

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TAX AGENT

 (a) The conduct of a tax agent is governed by the Code of Ethics for Tax Agents issued by IRB which is based on principles of integrity, accountability, transparency and efficiency and as prescribed under S. 153 of the ITA;.

 (b) A tax agent is expected to carry out his duties in the following manner:

 • Professional and fully conversant with tax laws and practices;

 • Act with integrity, be honest, trustworthy and transparent, and fully cooperate with the taxpayer and IRB;
 • Give the best advice to the taxpayer and inform the taxpayer of his responsibilities under the tax laws;
 • Give accurate feedback on the progress of the investigation and advise the taxpayer based on the true facts of the case;
 • Safeguard the confidentiality of all information and ensure that information is not disclosed to any unauthorised party; and

 • Notify the IRB immediately upon cessation as tax agent to the taxpayer.

(c) The tax agent is prohibited from:
• Using information obtained in his position as a tax agent for personal advantage;

 • Delaying the investigation process or failing to perform his responsibility; and

• Giving any gift or payment which may be construed as a bribe to the officer


SOURCE:MIA, BUDGET BOOKLET