Initial Financing Costs Sink Manufacturers’ Tax Appeal

PM v DGIR, PR v DGIR, PI v DGIR

20.1.2020

The petitioners are called PM, PR, and PI, which seem to be abbreviations for company names.

Obtaining financing can be costly for businesses, but can those costs be deducted against taxable income?

Three manufacturing companies found out that the answer is often no, as tax authorities likely consider financing-related expenses capital expenditures.

Facts:

• The taxpayers (PM, PR and PI) were companies manufacturing and marketing petroleum products in Malaysia.
• They incurred various expenses for obtaining working capital financing facilities, including:
  • upfront fees,
  • stamp duties,
  • agency fees and
  • legal fees.
• The taxpayers claimed these expenses were deductible under Section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967 as incurred in the production of income.
• The tax authorities disallowed the deductions because the expenses were capital in nature.

Issues:

• Whether the financing-related expenses were deductible under Section 33(1) as argued by the taxpayers.
• Whether the expenses were capital expenditures as contended by the tax authorities.

The Special Commissioners of Income Tax’s Decision:

• The Special Commissioners dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal and held the expenses were capital expenditures, not deductible under Section 33(1).

Analysis:

• The court found the expenses were incurred to obtain a sustainable financing source, indicating a capital purpose.
• Expenses to augment capital or create an enduring benefit are capital in nature based on principles laid out in Public Ruling No. 6/2006.
• The taxpayers failed to prove the expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred in the production of income, a requirement under Section 33(1) for deductibility.
• As capital expenses, the financing costs were not allowable deductions but added to the capital cost base.

Takeaway:

• The Inland Revenue Board successfully argued that the outlays were capital in nature rather than wholly incurred in producing income.
• These cases highlight the need for companies to be cognizant that the purpose and nature of expenditures determine deductibility, not merely the amount.
• Tax treatment may not align with accounting treatment. As this ruling shows, financing expenses fail the deductibility test as they secure an enduring benefit.
• Companies should be aware that deductibility depends on the purpose and nature of expenses based on tax law principles.

References:

Disclaimer:

The articles, templates, and other materials on our website are provided only for your reference.

While we strive to ensure the information presented is current and accurate, we cannot promise the website or its content, including any related graphics. Consequently, any reliance on this information is entirely at your own risk.

If you intend to use the content of our videos and publications as a reference, we recommend that you take the following steps:

1. Verify that the information provided is current, accurate, and complete.
2. Seek additional professional opinions, as the scope and extent of each issue may be unique.

免责声明：

我们网站上的文章、模板和其他材料只供参考。

虽然我们努力确保所提供的信息是最新和准确的，但我们不能保证网站或其内容，包括任何相关图形的完整性、可靠性、适用性或可用性。因此，您需要承担使用这些信息所带来的风险。

如果你打算使用我们的视频和出版物的内容作为参考，我们建议你采取以下步骤：

1. 核实所提供的信息是最新的、准确的和完整的。
2. 寻求额外的专业意见，因为每个问题的范围和程度，可能是独特的。

Keep in touch with us so that you can receive timely updates

请与我们保持联系，以获得即时更新。

1. Website ✍️ https://www.ccs-co.com/ 2. Telegram ✍️ http://bit.ly/YourAuditor 3. Facebook ✍

• https://www.facebook.com/YourHRAdvisory/?ref=pages_you_manage
• https://www.facebook.com/YourAuditor/?ref=pages_you_manage

4. Blog ✍ https://lnkd.in/e-Pu8_G 5. Google ✍ https://lnkd.in/ehZE6mxy

6. LinkedIn ✍ https://www.linkedin.com/company/74734209/admin/

7. Threads ✍ https://www.threads.net/@ccs_your_auditor

8. 小红书 ID ✍ 2855859831