2000 MarsdenLR 1030
GOPAL SRI RAM, MOKHTAR SIDIN, SITI NORMA YAAKOB
MARGARET LUPING – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI – Respondent
For the appellants - Herman Luping; M/s Luping & Co For the respondent - Ahmad Khairuddin Abdullah[Appeal from High Court, Kota Kinabalu; Tax Appeal No: K-16-01-1995]
Payments made to a statutory body are allowable as deductions under s. 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967 if they are wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income.
Headnote:The matter concerns the deduction of payments termed 'net proceeds' made to the state government for the extraction of timber under licences granted by the government. The court examined sections 33(1) and 39(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967 regarding allowable deductions and their applicability to the payments made by the appellants. It was established that these payments were indeed necessary for the production of income and did not fall under the exclusions of section 39. The court also clarified the relationship between allowable and disallowable deductions, emphasizing that payments made to a statutory body qualify for deductions. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and assessments were amended to reflect the deductions appropriately.
Mokhtar Sidin JCA:
We had given our decision in respect of this appeal earlier whereby we allowed the appeal by the appellants. We now give our reasons for doing so.
The appellants, being unhappy with the assessments raised by the respondent, appealed against those assessments to the special commissioners. Before the special commissioners there were two separate appeals but were heard together because the issue was the same in both appeals. The appeals continued to be heard together in the High Court. The first appeal was by Syarikat Jasa Bumi (Woods) Sdn Bhd while the second appeal was by Margaret Luping and two others. The appellant in the first appeal did not appeal to this court. As such the appeal before us is the one by Margaret Luping and two others.
As can be seen from the record of appeal, both the special commissioners and the High Court judge at Kota Kinabalu treated the facts of these two appeals as one. There were times in the case stated and in the judgment of the learned High Court judge where reference to one appeal covered the other appeal as well.
The appeal by Margaret Luping and two others were against the following additional assessments raised by the respondent:
Year of Assessment Date of Assessment Tax Payable
1974 10.9.1977 RM15,580.00
1976 10.9.1977 RM19,599.00
As can be seen from the above the additional assessments for the years of assessment 1974 and 1976 were raised on 10 September 1977. The tax payable for those years was in respect of sums paid to the state government of Sabah as net proceeds. The appellants claimed that the amounts paid to the state government should be allowable deductions under ss. 33(1) and 39(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
The respondent disagreed, and added back the sums paid as net proceeds to the state government. As a result of the adding back, the tax payable on those sums are those stated above.
The special commissioners found that the timber licence granted to the appellants required the appellants to pay net proceeds to the state government on extraction of timber. The net proceeds were calculated by taking into account extraction costs, royalty and other fees. The average FOB value of timber exported minus total cost was said to be the net proceeds. The net proceeds were levied and included in royalty bills as and when timber were extracted. Generally, it was based on the volume of timber removed. It was the policy of the State Government then in order to encourage development that a person paying the net proceeds was entitled to get back the net proceeds paid by him as subsidy for any agricultural or industrial development carried out by him on the land where the timber were extracted.
The issue before us is whether the net proceeds paid are allowable as deductions under s. 33(1) of the Act and not caught by s. 39 of the Act. Section 33 (1) of the Act provides as follows:
33. ADJUSTED INCOME GENERALLY
(1) Subject to this Act, the adjusted income of a person from a source for the basis period for a year of assessment shall be an amount ascertained by deducting from the gross income of that person from that source for that period all outgoings and expenses wholly and exclusively incurred during that period by that person in the production of gross income from that source, ... (emphasis made).
The relevant provisions of s. 39(1) in respect of this appeal provide as follows:
39. DEDUCTIONS NOT ALLOWED
(1) Subject to any express provision of this Act, in ascertaining the adjusted income of any person from any source for the basis period for a year of assessment no deduction from the gross income from that source for that period shall be allowed in respect of:
(a) ...
(b) any disbursements or expenses not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of producing the gross income;
(c) any capital withdrawn or any sum employed or intended to be employed as capital;
(d) ...
(e) ..