before reading paragraph 25(2), please read the full act 25

Section 25. Anti-avoidance provisions.

(1) Where a chargeable asset which is disposed of was previously acquired by the disposer for a consideration wholly or substantially provided by a connected person within the meaning of Schedule 2 (otherwise than as a bona fide loan made in the course of carrying on business as a moneylender), the asset shall be deemed to have been disposed of by that person and not by the disposer:

Provided that, where the asset disposed of was acquired by the disposer from that person, that person shall, for the purpose of computing any gain accruing to or loss suffered by him by the operation of this subsection, be deemed to have acquired the asset at an acquisition price equal to the consideration which, by virtue of paragraph 9 and subparagraph 23 (1) of Schedule 2, he is deemed to have received when the asset was acquired by the disposer.

(2) The Director General, where he has reason to believe that any transaction has the direct or indirect effect of-


(a) altering the incidence of tax which is payable or suffered by or which would otherwise have been payable or suffered by any person;

(b) relieving any person from any liability which has arisen or which would otherwise have arisen to pay tax or to make a return;

© evading or avoiding any duty or liability which is imposed or would otherwise have been imposed on any person by this Act; or

(d) hindering or preventing the operation of this Act in any respect,
may, without prejudice to such validity as it may have in any other respect or for any other purpose, disregard or vary the transaction and make such assessments as he considers just and proper in the circumstances.

(3) In this section "transaction" means any trust, grant, covenant, agreement, arrangement or other disposition or transaction made or entered into (whether before or after the commencement of this Act), and includes a transaction entered into by two or more persons with another person or persons.

Bro,

Sec 25 Anti-avoidance provisions has 2 sections. The example you mention is about Sec 25(1) which is specific to a avoidance scheme. Section 25(2) is a "catch all" provision. Its effect is to allow LHDN to catch all "out-smart" avoidance scheme

If the provisions in Sec 25(2) refer to only Sec 25(1), then section 25(2) should be Sec 25(1)(a), 25(1)(b) and so on. Also, the wording in Sec 25(2) is obvious to be a stand alone section

That should clarifies

Good that you bring up Sec 25(3) which mention "person". The definition of "person" is in Sec 2. It does not limit to connected person eg husband and wife in your example

Let say what you say is correct, 25(1) has not relation with 25(2), but in 25(2) which sentence specifically mentioned if we sell the asset below market value, LHDN will come after us?

That's why I still believe all the clause of 25(1), 25(2) and 25(3) have to be read together as there are co-related and not independent.

It didn't say so because it is a catch all section. But the effect of the wording is obvious enough

For example

Sec 25(2)(a) "altering the incidence of tax" - by understating disposal price intentionally, RPGT is lesser, hence it is "altering the incidence of tax"

Sec 25(2)© "evading and avoiding any duty and liability which is imposed" - by understating disposable price intentionally, RPGT is less, hence you are trying to avoid and evade tax


Bona fide selling at below market price most probably will not be queried by LHDN. If acquisition price is RM400k, market price is RM700k, you sell say RM600k, I think it is still acceptable because of property conditions, facing, renovation etc. But if market price is say RM700k, the S&P price is RM400k, then it should raise LHDN eyebrow. We can play around with the selling price to reduce some RPGT, but not overboard lah. Under Sec 25(2), they can go after elaborated scheme

I can't alter your belief. Not here to convince you. It is up to you to interprete. Next time if you have the chance to talk to your lawyer, do ask him/her this section

Thats the main point for all this discussion.

Again, selling at loss is a line which a sane investor wont cross... Unless got problem

Everyone pls be wise on some people info and advise. Especially on financial

some ppl just like to use name calling and attacking.


https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/3182390/+100

this thread is about rpgt..personal attack thread is somewhere else ?

My understanding of Clause (25) has to be read in conjunction of sub clause 25(1), 25(2) and 25(3).

the explanation of this clause I understand from this article

Section 25 of the RPGT Act contains the general anti-avoidance provisions which allow the tax authorities to disregard transactions, vary transactions or impose taxes that should have been imposed.

The law specifies that this right is available if the transactions had the effect of “altering the incidence of tax”, “relieving a person from tax liability” or “evading or avoiding any liability which would otherwise have been imposed”.

Besides these general anti-tax avoidance measures which are also found in the Income Tax Act to discourage income tax avoidance, Section 25 of the RPGT Act also provides for persons who provide loans to related parties; for example, Mr A providing loans to Company A which is owned by him.

The law provides that if Company A sells a property and the property was financed by a loan provided by Mr A, the disposal may be regarded as a disposal by Mr A and not by Company A.

However, the cost of acquisition to Mr A is the market value of the property when Company A acquired the property from Mr A. If Company A had acquired the property from Mr A at the true market value, this anti-tax avoidance provision of the RPGT Act should not pose any problem.

Source : http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file...ness%2f5027956&

Your explanation on 25(2)(a) and 25(2)© are based on your own understanding? Based on the above article, your explanation seems is not correct.

Boss tikaram @ banana is super food, please grow up. If you have any objection/comments on my info and advice, do share here. We dont need your crap talking about name calling and attacking (attack? What attack?) which you felt in the other thread. Keep it professional please.

If you have no comment on the subject at hand, DIAM DIAM LAR....

If you have, SHARE SHARE LAR....

Er, you were mentioning about me right? Because if you were not, I kantoi again...
Dont worry lah boss... Childish act it is...

This person claim only give adive on wat he/she know. But when i point out not the case as only name calling and and attacking only.

So i think it is wise to get tax professional advise rather that the so call expect.

Just go to that thread n check the attaking. And consider info from him with a pinch of salt ya.

jiao is singing

Bro,

The article actually reinforce my interpretation of Sec 25(2). I have highlighted the essence of anti-avoidance provision above. In what way do you think the article contradict my interpretation

err..as far as i know edyek and manut are seasoned taikors in their own right so for me personally, i would say they DO know what they are talking abt ya based on their postings to date.

I know abit out of topic. Since u touch on taikor.

Yes. Me too before this think they are tsikor. But when two of these start the name calling and attacking. Does it sound like taikor?

My answer is nah!

Taikor need attacking in the debate meah? Tailor need to do name calling in the debate meah? Sound like GANGSTER taikor more?

After all the name calling and attacking. Next asked people to grown up and call ppl childish in this thread. They themself not childish when they do name calling ppl first and attacking ppl next.? Hahahaha..

Over there name calling and attacking still continue. Taikor wo?????

Go back to thread topic.

Arent not my opinion of asking TS to take the advise with a pinch of salt and seek tax prifessional help is relevant in this thread?

This post has been edited by tikaram: Apr 5 2014, 02:48 PM

Pls look back who ask uuu to sell buttock. Then case closed. Ngam boh???

I'm just a kindy ll nvr 呈强. If no buy then I dun comment on the particular thread. Unless I wanna explore. I onli comment on wat I know. I onli voice out my real life experiences. But those were the days. Since ddd ask us to stop the facts sharing, any1 can trace back my posts for the past mths. Mostly sembang sembang la. Same applied in rwi. I read but I dun comment cos I know I'm learning.

No worries dudes. Forum nia. No award wan. Readers r smart to know know cheated by putting up a nicely done ddd scenario n hide behind buying.

Boss thanks for the complement. But in real life I'm still learning from edyek gor.

Soli edyek gor for putting u onto altar.

Please go away.

We are not interested with out of topic post!