Out of topic started at 12:13pm. Close closed.

oopsi soli to all. Out of topic. Soli TS.


Attached thumbnail(s)

The article itself explained why there is clause25 and how it works. Not based on what essence which u have highlighted. Clause 25 have to be read in full and not interpreted part by part like what you have said. If u read again the clause and the article, you will find clause 25(1) ,25(2), and 25(3) are inter relate.

i have explained and shared enough. if you still want to maintain your believing, then i cannot stop you. But i will not changed mine.

Bro, inter related or not is not the question. That is technical. The question is we can't simply understate the disposal price for RPGT. LHDN can go after you if you have overdone.

Since when i say cannot sell below market price??

LHDN "MAY" come after, not "WILL"!

I do agree hardly ppl will do such act or challenging the authority..... but if there is such an act taken, u mean the authority got no rights to take any action against both party, jus because both party already signed SPA at an agree price of RM1??

This post has been edited by AppreciativeMan: Apr 5 2014, 04:37 PM

I've made my point. If you read it positively then thats good. But you can always choose to read it negatively.

You hav yet to make it clear..... And u r the who read my point negatively.....

No answer to the above question?

Is not up to you or me to say who read who negatively.



In legally binding contract, there must be an condition or you called it an offer and an acceptance. The RM1 is just an example. When someone made an offer, and another guy accepted it then the transaction will valid as the condition of an legal agreement is met.







this sentence is refer to your post above. "What make you say I cannot sell the house below market price and Tax dept will come after me?"
You may want to argue the word "MAY" and I have use "WILL". Ok, that's my mistake, but the point is noted here and by reading the post as whole and not few words.

Dun cry like a baby, enuf

Out of topic...pls go away. Agent!

Who do you think you are? Funny
Cry somewhere else lah, kid

Another so call investor club taikor doing attacking.

Then I say sorry lor, dun cry ha

Boss tikaram @ banana is super food, if no comment/advice/fact on the Topic at hand... DIAM DIAM lar...

Like your saying... Dont waste space...

Wah I like tis one.

Just like how rakyats ask naj1s to DIAM LAR.

I hav never mention doubt abt legality of the contract or SPA.....

I mention..... LHDN reserve their rights to challenge the "under declare" transaction price... They come after their "income" not against the legality of transaction....

So the simple question "DO LHDN HAVE RIGHTS TO QUIRES YOUR TRANSACTED PRICE IF ITS WAY BELOW MARKET VALUE?".........A simple "YES" or "NO"....... u hav yet to answer this question after your challenging statement stating i provide misleading info....

Worst then a CRY BABY.....

Chill boss.. I think there is a misunderstanding here... You are right about the right to query, and gunh is right about the contract.

So both of your info is not wrong...

I'm still cool....
I dont challenge something I'm not 100% sure.... nor i'll provide info where i'm not sure..... if not sure then use words like, "maybe", "i think" and etc lor..... Dont use so firm words like, "will", "cannot" and etc
RPGT is something i was trying to work around it 2-3 yrs back.... I think i hav gathered sufficient info to kno wat is my risk, wat are their rights, pro & con and etc.....
A simple logic, if the authority MUST accept whatever we stated in SPA transacted price, i think there will be lots of ppl already underdeclare the transacting price to avoid RPGT..... They wants their income, u still can keep your SPA transacted price....


This post has been edited by AppreciativeMan: Apr 5 2014, 11:38 PM

Walao argue to this level.. refer to hansard.. see parliament intention lahh.. we copy cat uk wat..

at the end any form arguements remain as it is.. courts and government will interpret so far to suit their needs.. more revenues for gov are never a wrong..

This post has been edited by bearbearwong: Apr 6 2014, 01:02 AM