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

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.


This post has been edited by gunh: Apr 5 2014, 10:15 AM

Agree with UFO-ET. all this are about an offer and an acceptance or willing buyer and willing seller. Some one make the offer and someone grab it.

who bombard u?

Have read it. But which specific clauses say I cannot sell at below market value and will get penalise?

Bro,

I believe the RPGT sec 25(2) is not used or apply in our discussion. Please read the Sec25 in Full. This act is for those who think they are smart. Eg:

The house belong to Husband (Disposer) name purchase 3years ago say at RM300,000.00

Now the house could be worth RM 500,000.00

Husband thought he is smart and transfer the house to his wife (connected person) at year No3 (which is now at market rate say 450,000 to 500,000) and then sell it another potential buyer.

Husband think by doing that, he will have very minimal RPGT but with this RPGT act 25, stated clearly, that the RPGT act shall be from the "Disposer" and not that "Connected Person"

Hope this clarifies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Your point is noted. Most cases under declare the transacted price (means price written in snp) is not likely to happen. Vendor will have lost or risk his right to get the actual payment in full (assuming both vendor and purchaser has side agreement on the under declare transacted amount). And the purchaser will bot want to be losing side as if he agree for declarin lower transacted price now, he will have to pay a much higher rpgt if he would want to sell the property again wihin the next 5yrs.

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.