|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goh Eng Yeow
Markets Correspondent
Tax change a dampener ?
July 08, 2009 Wednesday, 10:42 AM
Goh Eng Yeow on reactions to making the law on taxing property gains clearer.
SINCE hitting its highest closing level so far this year at $10.00 on June 3, property giant City Developments has fallen about 18 per cent in the past five weeks. Fellow rival CapitaLand is down 13 per cent, after hitting a high of $4.01 on June 1. It is a sombre reflection of the drying up of buying interest in the stock market, after a truly spectacular run-up in the local stock market, after the benchmark Straits Times Index bottomed out on March 9. But apart from the renewed worry over the global economic outlook, property developers have something nearer home to worry about – a proposed change to clear the air on how investors would be taxed on the gain they make on selling their properties. In the past few weeks, anxious whispers have been going around the market about a consultation paper put up by the Finance Ministry to propose a change to the Income Tax Act. Even though it had been put up for public feedback since June 22, the disquiet was whispered in such hush hush tones, that many veteran tax and property consultants were not aware of the forthcoming winds of changes blowing in their direction. One tax expert said that he was only aware of it, after property developers asked him to quietly clarify with the Government what it all means. And until he was shown the consultation paper, a property consultant swore that the Government would leave things as they are. The recovery in the property market is simply too fragile to be able to take any fresh variables in its stride. Still, the proposed change is a novelty: Instead of trying to define which gains will be taxed, the Government has instead spelt out clearly what will not be taxed. Essentially, it said that anyone who sells only one property in any four-year period will not have to pay taxes on any gains he makes. But if he sells another property within four years of the first sale, the profit from the second sale may be taxable. But one tax consultant said that he simply could not understand the need for such a provision, since it only provides certainty on tax treatment for individuals who do not sell more than one property within a four year period. "Would this mean that they have to pay taxes immediately on gains made from selling a second property during the same period? he asked. When I posed the same question to the Finance Ministry yesterday, I was reassured by the reply. Its answer: "The proposed policy concession seeks to provide certainty of non-taxation to property owners who are individuals in the following situation. Under this proposed concession, if an individual disposes a property on or after 1 Jan 2010, he will be certain that the gains will not be subject to income tax, if he has not disposed of any other properties 4 years prior to and including the date of the current disposal. If he has disposed of another property within the 4 year period, the concession will not apply. Whether or not the disposal gains is taxable income will then be determined by IRAS based on the facts and circumstances, no different from the present tax treatment." From the reply, I believe that anyone who sells a second property within four years after offloading another one will not be taxed on his gains, if he can put a good case for making the sale. This sure beats the uncertainties surrounding the current rules: You don’t know if you are liable for taxes on the gains you make for selling a property until the taxman comes calling. But I got one swift reaction from an unhappy reader this morning. The proposed change is so ridiculous, he wrote. "It means that for long-term investors like me, if we do come across a peak in the property market, we can only dispose of one property and not all our properties, regardless of how long we have held on to our property investments. What will happen to the rest of my properties," he added. It is a valid question. In other countries, a capital gain is levied on the profit only if an investor buys and sells a property within a short-span of time. And the tax on the gain dwindles with the length of time in which the property is held. But having made that observation, I must say that the Government is leaving Iras to determine whether it should tax an investor if he makes a gain on his property sale. This is no change from the current status quo. Certainly, there is a big worry that speculators may be making a comeback in the past few months, as the economy recovers. And by ramping up sales and prices unnecessarily with their speculations, they may cause the property market to suffer another heart-attack, if the global economic outlook takes a turn for the worse. So on the whole, I support the Government’s move to make the rules clearer on property tax gains. I am sure that in a bull market, investors will carry on buying properties because they are sure of making a gain. They will not be hesitating simply because they are worried that they have to give up some of their gains as taxes. Tags: money, property
Your comments are welcome. The following rules apply: |
|
|
Other blogs by Goh Eng Yeow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|
|
Best viewed at 1152x864 resolution with IE 6.0 or
FireFox 2.0 and above Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Regn No. 198402868E | Privacy Statement
| Terms & Conditions
|
Reading something, a SPH newspaper won't print.
Thank goodness for the internet.
-------------------------
From the Wall Street Journal...............
At Temasek, a Foreign CEO-to-Be Won't!!
Temasek announced that Mr. Chips Goodyear would not succeed Ms. Ho as planned.
At an internal briefing Temasek's chairman, S Dhanabalan, told employees that Mr. Goodyear initiated the decision to leave, according to someone present.
During a question-and-answer session, those who attended the meeting were largely silent.
Already, some of Mr. Goodyear's initiatives to bring about change had met with a poor reception.
His proposals for the firm's new strategic direction were considered too risky by some, a person familiar with the situation said.
In addition, this person said Mr. Goodyear planned changes in senior management that weren't well received by Temasek's board.
Temasek had named Mr. Goodyear in February as the successor to Ms. Ho, who is married to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
His appointment was hailed as a move that would inject fresh blood into Temasek, a company set up in 1974 as a vehicle to hold government investments and assets, including major stakes in some of the city-state's more prominent businesses.
Aside from his experience at BHP Billiton, Mr. Goodyear was chief financial officer at Freeport McMoRan Inc., a copper-and-gold producer. Some speculated he might help Temasek make inroads into commodity-related investments at a time when rising demand from China is presenting opportunities in that sector.
At the time of his appointment, Ms. Ho noted that "Chip has capabilities that I don't have."
Temasek's chairman says the firm hopes to build on some of Mr. Goodyear's "process initiatives" even after the CEO-designate's departure.
In response to whether Temasek would consider other foreigners for the job, Mr. Dhanabalan said in a statement that "Temasek should be helmed by the best person for the job," and said the firm would continue with its succession planning.
What do you think, Mr Goh?
Was Chips Goodyear pushed or did he jump?
Or is it something you CANNOT comment on?
Imagine what a foreign newspaper would pay to hear his side of the story?
Unless of course he has been gagged by a confidential clause, which is quite probable, for now.
I think it is fair for the tax authority to levy tax from
people who gains profit from buying and selling property.
This will help mitigate any upward price pressure on all property and it will certainly help those who can barely afford to buy a flat to stay.
For people who are rich enough to own more than one property, have a heart and spare a thought for the less fortunate. One will not die from earning less profit but another will suffer for not being able to buy or rent affordable basic housing,
Having said that, the tax authority should with this additional tax income plough them back into giving more rebates on property tax to owner occupied household.
In addition I like to comment that IRAS should not behave as if they are a profit driven outfit in that they charge interest on late payment without giving any grace period.
They are operating like a credit card division of the government. I am not for those who are habitually late but there are certainly people with genuine reason for being occassionly late for payment especially so in these economically hard times. Private sector do retrench or reduce pay whereas government departments are iron rice bowl employment. Spare a thought for your less fortunate and less endowed fellow Singaporeans.
"In light of the differences, both parties decided that it is in their mutual interests to terminate the leadership transition process and hence the executive relationship with effect from Aug 15."
In simple English......it means that Mr Goodyear was not prepared to adhere and kow-tow to the "people" at Temasek and dance to their tune.
He believed he was going to have the autonomy(like..HC did)) to implement his strategies. So it must have been a rude shock for him, when the "people" at Temasek waved a finger at him. One wonders where he ever thought he could have an open-go like HC did?
Still............
He then saw he was going to be only a puppet.
That he was not prepared to be.
Unless one has just returned from the moon, we all know ... that the the real power is still with....yes you guessed it!!
One just wonders how the "staits times"will handle this.
Whatever the situation, we will NEVER know the truth unless Mr Goodyear decides to speak out later or unless they have gagged him. But no doubt the dirt will be dished some time later.
What makes it equally laughable or should one say sorrowful, is that whilst the whole country waited with bated breath,for the last day of when HC was going to step down; now it appears she will be able swan aound, spending some of our funds. After all, its only "our" money.
A nice National Day present for us all, indeed.
Hi Eng Yeow,
I read your article on above subject, which is good that the Government is clamping on short term property speculators.
I have few concerns -
Scenario 1 - example if one who owns a few property for long term investment but are force to sell 2
properties with 4 years due to en-bloc which they may not wish to sell, however due to the majority votes
he/she are comply to sell.
Firstly maybe he/she got to prove he/she vote against en-bloc ???
Then must he/she then apply to strata board against the en-bloc sale as proof ????
In this instant will it be fair to penalize he/she on the capital gain on the 2nd en-bloc sale of the property ???
a) The above can be that he/she sell the 1st property on own and the second is en-bloc ???
b) The above can be that he/she forced to sell both on en-bloc ???
Scenario 2 - example someone die and have personal properties within 5 million (non taxable)
Family have to sell the properties to split - will they be tax on the 2nd and subsequent properties ???
Hence there are more to debate about which on this subject in details before amend the Bill.
Thanks,
Regards/Ricky
1 2 3 4 5 6 >