Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean J |
Judgment Date | 04 June 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 120 |
Published date | 09 April 2013 |
Date | 04 June 2012 |
Year | 2012 |
Hearing Date | 10 February 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Joanna Yap and Alvin Chia (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 120 |
Defendant Counsel | Leung Yew Kwong, Novelle Chan and Tan Shao Tong (Wong Partnership LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 422 of 2011 |
This Originating Summons No 422 of 2011 (“OS 422/2011”) is the Chief Assessor’s appeal against the decision of the Valuation Review Board (“the Board”) made on 24 May 2011 (“the Decision”).
The relevant factsThere is no dispute as to the relevant facts underlying the valuations in dispute. The Respondent, HSBC Institutional Trust Services (“the Landlord”), is the trustee of CapitalMall Trust which owns the shopping centre known as Bugis Junction.
Bugis Junction has 180 units which are normally leased to tenants carrying on various types of businesses at the shopping centre.
In the computation of the annual value of the various tenanted units (collectively “the Premises”) for the valuation years of 2004 and 2005, the Chief Assessor did not exclude a portion in the gross rent for depreciation arising from wear and tear of escalators, lifts, air-conditioning and fire safety systems installed in Bugis Junction (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the asset items” or individually as “the asset item”).
The Board’s Decision Dissatisfied with the assessment made by the Chief Assessor, the Landlord appealed to the Board. The Board accepted the Landlord’s contention and ruled that the claim for depreciation was a constituent part of the total cost of the services provided by the Landlord, and that it should be excluded from gross rent in the determination of annual value for the relevant tax years (see
Ms Tan Gee Hong (“Ms Tan”), the property manager, testified before the Board. She explained in her affidavit that the tenants paid the Landlord a monthly gross rent that included a sum of $0.20 per square foot calculated on the basis of a 7.5% annual depreciation for air-conditioning plant, lifts and escalators, and 20% for the fire safety system. It was Ms Tan’s evidence that the Landlord had contracted to let out the Premises located in a building with central air conditioning, escalators, lifts, and a fire safety system, and that the asset items were required to provide the services agreed to by the Landlord, and for that reason the claim for depreciation was an expense that related to services rather than rent or letting. She confirmed that this monthly sum of $0.20 per square foot was an integral part of gross rent but its purpose was not itemised in the tenancy agreements; that it was for depreciation in relation to the asset items; that the monthly service charge of $1.50 per square foot was to cover operating expenses1 and not depreciation of the asset items. It was argued on behalf of the Landlord that the Premises would yield higher rental as compared to a shopping mall without similar installations like central air-conditioning, lifts, escalators and fire safety systems.
Ms Tan’s evidence was not seriously challenged by the Chief Assessor who did not call any witness.
The Board referred to
In the first place the items in question were required to provide the services to the tenants. The [Landlord] would have to incur actual and notional expenditure, which refers to the depreciation of the equipment. Undoubtedly, these items cannot last forever and not only require maintenance but need replacement due to wear and tear. ... [T]he underlying premise remain (sic) that the [Landlord] would require these items to provide services to the tenants which they are contractually bound to.
In coming to its decision, the Board followed
A plain reading of the Chartered Bank case would be an implicit awareness of the learned judge that depreciation was a concept which he recognised and which ought to be excluded from the gross rent, if it had been so included, for the purposes of calculating annual value.
Applying
... that the depreciation of the [asset] items constituted part of the total cost of services and since the gross rents were formulated taking into consideration the depreciation, this ought to be excluded in the computation of the annual value.
Having concluded in favour of the Landlord that the amount claimed for depreciation of the asset items (
OS 422/2011 is brought pursuant to s 35 of the Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed) (“the PTA”). It was agreed between the parties that the question of law for this appeal is whether, as a matter of principle, a component in the gross rent for depreciation of the asset items (
It is appropriate at this juncture to set out the relevant statutory provisions. The charging provision of the PTA is s 6(1) which provides:
[emphasis added]
Section 2(1) defines “annual value” as follows:
“annual value” —
...
[emphasis added]
Section 2(2) reads as follows:
In assessing the annual value of any premises in or upon which there is any machinery used for any of the following purposes:
The competing arguments Chief Assessor’s Casethe enhanced value given to the premises by the presence of such machinery shall not be taken into consideration, and for this purpose “machinery” includes the steam engines, boilers and other motive power belonging to that machinery.
The Chief Assessor submits that the Board erred in allowing the exclusion of a portion of the gross rent for depreciation in the computation of annual value. First, the Chief Assessor argues that the Board had focussed on the wrong question,
The Landlord submits that the Board was correct in holding that the claim for depreciation ought to be excluded from the gross rent in order to arrive at the annual value of the Premises. The Landlord’s argument is that as depreciation constituted part of the total cost of the services provided and the gross rent was formulated with the depreciation in mind, it ought to be excluded from the gross rent in order to arrive at the annual value of the property.
Finally, the Landlord accepts that the asset items are in the nature of plant and machinery, but disagrees that they formed “integral parts of the building”.5 According to the Landlord, the Board rightly decided (at
On the point made by [the Chief Assessor] that all the items are permanent features of the building and hence an integral part of the building, we are of the view that this is irrelevant. Just because an escalator...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd v Chief Assessor
...in assessing property tax. The decision of the Judge was reported in Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 933 (“the Judgment”). The sole issue to be determined in the present appeal is whether the Judge was correct to have refused to exclude the de......
-
HSBC Institutional Trust Services v Chief Assessor
...– particularly from a functional perspective. [emphasis in original] Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 933 (“Bugis Junction”)35 illustrates how the fixture test and the principles enunciated by the CA in Pan-United have been applied by the Singa......
-
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd v Chief Assessor
...us in the present case (see the Singapore High Court decision of Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Limited [2012] 3 SLR 933 at [25]). The rebus sic stantibus or “things as they stand” principle of valuation is a principle that the assessable entity should be val......
-
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd v Chief Assessor
...in assessing property tax. The decision of the Judge was reported in Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 933 (“the Judgment”). The sole issue to be determined in the present appeal is whether the Judge was correct to have refused to exclude the de......
-
Revenue and Tax Law
...to be excluded in determining annual value 23.42 The case of Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd[2012] 3 SLR 933 reviewed this issue. The taxpayer owned the Bugis Junction shopping centre. Its obligations as a landlord included providing central air conditioni......