For property bought within 1 year, RPGT is 30% on profit.   

Question : if there is no profit made (e.g. S&P price minus all expenses is lower than selling price); is it valid for RPGT=0%??    Agent told me cannot ... must have a minimal profit (if so, what is that min amount) ... otherwise will get into legal problem. 

Seeking advise from experts ... if that agent pulling a quick one on me??  If property bought at wrong time, then forever cannot sell.

But can't one sell below tax dept valuation value for some reason e.g. urgent need of $???

UUU campers will say u bloody liar, now all property price UUU, how come u making loss, 

Be a responsible citizen, Just pay the tax lah ! 

I thought the one cause 4 CSOBM is the public transport passenger with 2 660K Condo ?? 

How many dozen of RPGT threads i seen, those admin/staff/mod all keep blind eye, yes lucifah & cherroy i do mean u 2. 

30% is on your sales price, not profit. so if you make no profit, you still have to pay 30% RPGT tax if you buy and sell fast. (rugi)

RPGT has nothing to do with property valuer.  Is the taxable amount from nett gain.  And nett gain is the amount u sell ( stated in snp) minus amount u buy (also stated in your old snp) and minus all the expenses incurred (such as leal fees, agent fees and renovation to the said property)

Please dont provide misleading information

Smart dude ... your world class work is framed here..I wonder now....tapao me balik pulak..

You dare accussed me dunno diffetentiate when I  fact It was you.. linking valuer with RPGT which was correctly pointed out by gunh.. remembrr

There is only 1calculation of RPGT..

Willing buyer willing seller basis
Under declared is illegal but owner has the full right to sell any price tat he/she think is appropriate, authority has no right to question the fair value of the property, separate valuation is carried out for the purpose of stamp duty calculation.
RPGT only refers to old and new SPA price.
Tax dept can only question the undeclared amount (settle in cash) between the Purchaser and Vendor.
Not all the purchaser willing to under declare the selling price.

I'm not sure where you got your information substantiate from.  I can even sell the house at Rm1 to someone I like and draft the S&P and get it legalised.  What make you say I cannot sell the house below market price and Tax dept will come after me?  I guess you are the one that should go to speak to your lawyer.  You are indeed giving misleading information here.

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?

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

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??

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.

Another so call investor club taikor doing attacking.

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... 

Chief, I hv to correct yr above sentence, in normal circumstances, >90% can't afford (or not willing)  to fork up so much cash to buy property.
Imagine a property worth RM1,0 mil, if both agree to settle at RM500K, then the purchaser needs to come out :-
RM600K cash (90% loan) to buy
RM700K cash (70% loan) to buy

In order to under declare, a few conditions need to be fulfilled:-
1. Vendor willing to take the risk
2. Purchaser willing to take the risk
3. Purchaser's / vendor's solicitors encourage this arrangement, normally purchaser will seek advice fr lawyer and most lawyer will discourage it
4. Buyer wants to save on legal and stamping fees (& a little bit of MOT)
5. Purchaser has extra cash as mentioned above
6. Purchaser has extra cash but willing to proceed with this arrangement
    i. Like myself, I hv spared a lot of cash with me now but I dun want to spend all the cash in a single transaction, I would rather find ways to secure as much loan as possible to buy more properties, unlike old days, many buyers buy for own stay only, but nowadays we find tat many purchasers are trying to reserve more CASH to invest more properties
  ii. Buy cheap now, sell later within 5 yrs will kena higher amt of tax (as gunh claimed)
  iii. The risk of being cheated by seller, lawyer will not handle this type of "special arrangement", for those undeclared amount is going to be settled between both vendor and purchaser outside the lawyer firm, take the RM1.0 mil example :-
- Shall the Purcahser settle 500K cash prior to the signing of SPA? (Purchaser not willing)
- Shall the Purchaser settle 500K cash after the signing of SPA? (vendor not willing)

In my experience being an agent, if there are 100 cases tat the vendor willing to under declare the price, only <3% of the purchasers willing / able to comply / accept. It is not easy to do

My 2 bakuli

Bro,

Please refer to your post 3 on page 1. I find your relate the rpgt with the property valuer findings. Thats why i want to make clear to the reader here. I'm sure you aware property value duty.

On the lhdn reserved rights to investigate your transaction i'm not sure. But they can always use clause 25 on act 1976 if they smell or suspected something fishy.

I apology if i made or cause any misunderstand. We just want to shared what we aware here so other reader will be benefit from reading it.

I know
The problem is with the purchaser, not the vendor
If it is not illegal, I think majority of buyers can't afford too