12. -
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1975
AT THE REQUEST OF THE HON. LEE QUO-WEI, MR. HADDON-CAVE GAVE AN ASSURANCE THAT STAND-OVER OF PROVISIONAL" TAX WOULD NOT BE "UNREASONABLY WITHHELD' DUT HE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HAD CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS TO THE REVENUE AND HENCE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, +AND SO INEVITABLY, HIS ATTITUDE MUST DEPEND IN PART ON HIS ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.+
MR. HADDON-CAVE REPEATED THE GENERAL EFFECT OF THE NEW SYSTEM OF CALCULATING ASSESSABLE PROFITS FOR PROFITS TAX PURPOSES. AS FROM THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT STARTING APRIL 1, 1975, HE SAID, BUSINESSES WILL BE FINALLY TAXED FOR EACH YEAR OF ASSESSMENT ON THEIR ACTUAL PROFITS EARNED FOR THAT YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. FUTURE. THEIR TAX LIABILITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXACT RELATIONSHIP
SO, IN WITH THEIR ACTUAL PROFITS EARNED, DOTI IN THE SHORT TERM AND OVER THE LIFE OF A BUSINESS.
FOR ALL BUSINESSES THE NEW SYSTEM WILL MEAN THAT, FROM THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT DEGINNING APRIL 1, 1975, THEIR TAX LIABILITY WILL BE NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN THE STANDARD RATE OF TAX APPLIED TO THEIR ACTUAL PROFITS, HE ADDED.
EARLIER, THE HON. LEE QUO-WEI, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF HIS UNOFFICIAL COLLEAGUES, SAID THEY SUPPORTED THE MAIN PRINCIPLE OF THE DILL.
HE DESCRIBED THE BILL AS A GOOD ONE WHICH GREATLY IMPROVED ON THE OLD SYSTEM BOTH FROM THE REVENUE POINT OF VIEW AND THAT OF THE TAXPAYER'S.
THE UNOFFICIALS' HAD SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT ANALYSING THE BILL'S PROVISIONS AND PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS SOUND AND FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED, HE SAID. THEY CONCLUDED THAT GENERALLY IT WAS EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN ASPECTS WHICH COULD BE IMPROVED. REPRESENTATINS ON THESE WERE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND MOST OF THEM WERE ACCEPTED.
ON THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT FOR APPEAL IN CASES WHERE THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE REFUSED STAND-OVER OF PROVISIONAL TAX, MR. LEE SAID THE UNOFFICIALS DECIDED AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, NOT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE. THIS WAS DECAUSE, SO FAR AS THE RIGHT OF APPEAL WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS FELT THAT THERE WOULD BE INADEQUATE TIME FOR THE APPEAL DODY TO CONVENE AND DELIVER ITS DECISION DEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF TAX.
+SINGE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WOULD HAVE TO CARRY WITH IT AN AUTOMATIC DEFERRAL PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR ANY TAXPAYER TO AVOID PAYING ON TIME SIMPLY BY LODGING AN APPEAL, THEREBY FRUSTRATING THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW SYSTEM,+ HE SAID.
MR. LEE REVIEWED