Comptroller of Income Tax v BLM
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 2013 |
| Date | 17 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No 331 of 2013 (Summonses Nos 3108-3113 and 5041 of 2013) |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Choo Han Teck J
Originating Summons No 331 of 2013 (Summonses Nos 3108-3113 and 5041 of 2013)
High Court
Civil Procedure—Stay of proceedings—Request to disclose various bank statements—Owners of bank statements applying to intervene—Whether order for disclosure could be stayed
Revenue Law—International taxation—Double taxation agreement—Japanese letter of request for disclosure of various bank statements—Whether order for disclosure should be stayed
This was an application by the plaintiff for the disclosure of various bank statements by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (‘IRAS’) to the National Tax Agency of Japan (‘J-NTA’) pursuant to s 105 J of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, Rev Ed 2008) (‘the Act’) and Art 26 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Singapore And the Government of Japan for the Avoidance of Double taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income. This related to ongoing tax examinations in Japan in relation to the main applicant, a Japanese national, and seven other account holders. On 19 April 2013, after reviewing the letter of request (‘the Request’), IRAS made an ex parte application to the High Court pursuant to s 105 J, read with ss 105 BA, 105 D and 105 F of Act and O 98 r 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) for an order that the information requested be disclosed. The court granted the application on 31 May 2013 (‘31 May order’). The applicant applied to stay or discharge the order. The applicant argued, inter alia, that the J-NTA requests were not being made pursuant to an investigation into tax evasion and were thus not valid. He also argued that the investigations in Japan had been withdrawn and that this court should stay the order pending a resolution of the outstanding legal issues in Japan.
Held, dismissing the applicants' application for a stay of the order:
(1) The Act provided a two-step process for filtering out unmeritorious requests. The first step was an assessment of the Request by IRAS. The second was an order by the High Court. The responsibility for determining whether a request for information was valid was primarily IRAS's. By the time it reached the High Court, the High Court's responsibility would be to assess that application in accordance with the formal requirements provided under the Eighth Schedule of the Act. Given the statutory scheme, it was not the place of the Singapore High Court to enquire into the propriety of the J-NTA request under Japanese law: at [5] , [8] and [9] .
(2) In the present case, the Request complied with the Eighth Schedule. The IRAS had stated its opinion that the Request was justified and valid (i.e. it was not a fishing expedition). There was nothing in the Eighth Schedule that suggested that a disclosure of the information requested was only permitted when there was an investigation into tax evasion: at [10] .
(3) The applicants did not produce any proof that J-NTA had withdrawn its investigation. If it were the case that the information was no longer required, then it would fall to J-NTA to withdraw the Request: at [11] .
(4) There were no grounds for stay of the 31 May order under common law conflicts of law principles. There was no pending suit in Singapore and no legal issue of Singapore law to be determined. The only issue of law to be determined was Japanese law: at [14] .
(5) There was no statutory basis for granting a stay or discharge of the 31 May order. The purpose of s 105 J (4) of the Act was to give an opportunity to any person affected by a request for information to be heard by the court. The applicant had been given ample opportunities to do so and had not raised any points at the stay application which did not already traverse the grounds considered when the 31 May order was granted: at [15] .
Comptroller of Income Tax v AZP [2012] 3 SLR 690 (refd)
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 1097 (refd)
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 105 BA, 105 D, 105 F, 105 J, 105 J (9) , 105 J (3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ABU v Comptroller of Income Tax
...Judge delivered his judgment on 17 October 2013. The written grounds for his decision are reported as Comptroller of Income Tax v BLM [2014] 1 SLR 123 (“Judgment”). By his decision, the Judge dismissed each of the summonses filed by the Appellant and the other account holders. On 13 Novembe......
-
ABU v Comptroller of Income Tax
...Judge delivered his judgment on 17 October 2013. The written grounds for his decision are reported as Comptroller of Income Tax v BLM [2014] 1 SLR 123 (“Judgment”). By his decision, the Judge dismissed each of the summonses filed by the Appellant and the other account holders. On 13 Novembe......
-
Revenue and Tax Law
...on R to prove it was contrary to public interest to give the information: at [25]. 23.61 The fourth case, Comptroller of Income Tax v BLM[2014] 1 SLR 123, was a request from the Japanese tax authority. The Japanese tax authority was examining eight related account holders in Japan. The Comp......
-
Revenue and Tax Law
...stayed pending certain legal proceedings against JNTA in Japan. The High Court's decision is reported as Comptroller of Income Tax v BLM[2014] 1 SLR 123; see (2013) 14 SAL Ann Rev 490 at 502, paras 23.61–23.63. 24.7 At the hearing of the appeal by only the appellant in late 2014, the Court ......