EY Tax Alert. Malaysian developments. Vol Issue no June Guidelines on tax exemption for Wholesale Money Market Funds

Transcription

1 EY Tax Alert Vol Issue no June 2018 Malaysian developments Guidelines on tax exemption for Wholesale Money Market Funds Practice Note No. 2/2018: Guidelines on the Non-application Provision in Income Tax Orders and Income Tax Rules GST matters Overseas developments Indian Government tightens tax return non-compliance penalties and legal proceedings against foreign companies OECD releases Korea s peer review report on implementation of Action 14 minimum standard Malaysian developments Guidelines on tax exemption for Wholesale Money Market Funds The Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC) has issued the updated Guidelines on Tax Exemption for Wholesale Money Market Funds ( Guidelines ) dated 24 April The Guidelines are issued under Section 377 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA) and set out the qualifying criteria which must be fulfilled by a wholesale money market fund to qualify for the income tax exemption on interest income under paragraph 35A of Schedule 6 of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA). The 15-page Guidelines take effect from 24 April 2018 and replace the previous Guidelines that were effective from 23 December 2016 (see Tax Alert No. 2/2017). The contents of the new Guidelines are broadly similar to those of the earlier Guidelines; they stipulate that the money market fund must obtain SC certification to qualify for the tax exemption and set out the qualifying criteria and procedures for making an application to obtain SC approval/certification. They also reiterate that the applicant must attach the letter of certification to its income tax return form for submission to the Inland Revenue Board (IRB), and that the certification must be obtained annually. EY Tax Alert Vol. 21 Issue no June

2 Some of the changes in the new Guidelines are as follows: Paragraph Definitions The new Guidelines outline the definition of family member and related parties as follows: Family member Means spouse, parents, children and siblings Related parties In relation to a group of investors or unit holders, means- (a) An individual and any of his family members; (b) A corporation, its ultimate shareholder and another corporation in which that ultimate shareholder owns or controls 20% or more of the voting shares. For avoidance of doubt, such ultimate shareholder need not be an investor in the wholesale money market fund. (c) An individual or a corporation and another corporation in which the individual or the first-mentioned corporation owns or controls 20% or more of the voting shares; (d) A corporation and its subsidiary; (e) A trust, the beneficiary of the trust and the trustee or settlor of such trust who is a related party to the beneficiary, where the trustee or settlor is i. Also an investor or a unit holder in the wholesale money market fund; or ii. A related party of another investor or unit holder in the wholesale money market fund Paragraph 4.03(b) Certification for subsequent years of assessment The updated Paragraph 4.03(b) stipulates that the application for certification must be accompanied by a declaration to the SC confirming that: (a) Each unit holder does not hold more than 10% of the net asset value of the wholesale money market fund, or (b) No particular unit holder or group of unit holders which are related parties, holds more than 33% of the net asset value of the wholesale money market fund Item (b) as highlighted above was not a requirement in the earlier Guidelines. As such, in line with this, Part C of Appendix 2 of the Guidelines (which outlines the written declaration for subsequent certification) has also been amended accordingly. Paragraph 6.0 Application procedures The contact details for the application have been updated to the following: Chairman Securities Commission Malaysia 3 Persiaran Bukit Kiara Bukit Kiara Kuala Lumpur (Attention: Head, Managed Investment Scheme) Practice Note No. 2/2018: Guidelines on the Non-application Provision in Income Tax Orders and Income Tax Rules The IRB has issued a two-page Practice Note No. 2/2018 (PN) dated 1 June 2018, in Bahasa Malaysia, titled Penjelasan Berhubung Dengan Pemakaian Peruntukan Ketidakpakaian Yang Dinyatakan Dalam Perintah Cukai Pendapatan Dan Kaedah-kaedah Cukai Pendapatan Di Bawah Akta Cukai Pendapatan 1967, to provide guidance on the non-application proviso stipulated in the Income Tax Orders (ITO) and Income Tax Rules (ITR). The PN explains the IRB s interpretation of a situation where the non-application proviso of an ITO / ITR stipulates that such ITO / ITR would not apply to a person who has been granted an exemption under Section 127 of the ITA. 2

3 The PN clarifies that where reference is made to Section 127 of the ITA under the non-application proviso in an ITO or ITR, it would apply only to exemptions granted under Section 127(3)(b) and Section 127(3A) of the ITA, as these exemptions are granted based on specific facts and merits of each case. Exemptions granted under Section 127(1) of the ITA are not included therein, as these are general exemptions granted pursuant to Schedule 6 of the ITA. The PN also provides two examples. Goods and services listed under the Goods and Services Tax (Exempt Supply) Order 2014 remain exempt from GST. All GST registered persons will continue to be subject to the current legislation and regulations which include the issuance of tax invoices, submission of GST returns and claiming of input tax credit. Implementation of Sales and Services Tax GST matters Imposition of Goods and Services Tax at 0% The Ministry of Finance announced that effective 1 June 2018, the supply of goods and services made in Malaysia, as well as the import of goods will be subject to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the standard rate of 0% until further notice. Prior to that, the GST rate was at 6%. The Goods and Services Tax (Rate of Tax) (Amendment) Order 2018 has been issued to amend the rate of tax on the supply of goods or services or on the importation of goods from 6% to 0%. The following GST Orders are also revoked effective 1 June 2018: Goods and Services Tax (Zero-rated Supply) Order 2014 Goods and Services Tax (Relief) Order 2014 Goods and Services Tax (Application to Government) Order 2014 Goods and Services Tax (Imposition of Tax for Supplies in respect of Designated Areas) Order 2014 Goods and Services Tax (Imposition of Tax for Supplies in respect of Free Zones) Order 2016 Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced in a press conference on 30 May 2018 that the intention is for the Sales and Services Tax (SST) to be introduced on 1 September SST will replace the GST regime, which will be abolished when the SST comes into effect. In addition, the Chairman of the Council of Eminent Persons, Tun Daim Zainuddin, has also made a statement that the SST implementation method will be submitted to the government within two weeks. In a separate press conference, Tun Daim stated that the SST system to be introduced will be an updated version of the previous SST framework. MDTCC media release Price Control and Anti- Profiteering In line with the announcement by the Ministry of Finance to impose GST at 0% effective 1 June 2018, the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism (MDTCC) has released a media statement outlining activities to monitor price control and enforce anti-profiteering actions during the GST transition from 6% to 0%. MDTCC has announced that to ensure stability of market prices, it will conduct continuous price monitoring activities which include, among others, the following actions: Enforcement of the Price Control and Anti- Profiteering Act

4 Price monitoring through collaboration with other agencies such as the Friends of MDTCC Price inspection covering essential items, especially controlled goods, food items, household goods and cooked food and beverages required to be changed and GST should not be charged to customers. Overseas developments The Ministry has also reiterated that fines and penalties will be imposed on traders who raise prices and carry out the following activities: Imposing or making unreasonable high profits in selling or supplying goods Not displaying the price tag or price list for items on display Using descriptions which are confusing under the Trade Description Act 2011 RMCD notice Price Tags Guidelines The Royal Malaysian Customs Department (RMCD) has also issued a notice which provides guidelines on price tags, beginning 1 June Key highlights from the notice include: Displayed price tags should be updated to reflect the GST rate at 0%, where no GST is charged to the customers. GST registered persons must clearly display a notice in a prominent place at their premises, indicating that the previous price tag which was inclusive of GST at 6% has been changed to the 0% GST rate. Any price tag which includes GST that has not been updated shall be updated before 1 July GST registered persons shall deduct the GST amount using the fraction method (GST = Amount on the price tag x 6/106). In the event tax invoices are issued with an amount which includes 6% GST, adjustments should be made as follows: - Adjustments may be made by issuing credit notes; or - Manual adjustment to tax invoices is allowed and the relevant GST amount should be returned to the buyer. Price tags that were approved by the Director General to be displayed as GST exclusive are not Indian Government tightens tax return non-compliance penalties and legal proceedings against foreign companies Under Indian income tax law (ITL), a company, including a foreign company, is required to file an income tax return in India. In the case of a foreign company, the provisions are generally applicable when the foreign company has sufficient nexus or income sourced in India, even if such income is fully subject to withholding tax. The only exception is for specific types of income, provided that the full tax is withheld at source. Until 2016, only a nominal penalty was imposed, at the discretion of the tax authority, on the failure to file an income tax return, if most or the entire amount of taxes due were otherwise withheld at source. Further, legal proceedings were not applicable unless there was unpaid tax exceeding INR3,000 (US$46). However, this trend has been changed recently. The Indian Finance Act, 2016 amended the penalty provisions applicable for a taxable year beginning 1 April 2016, increasing the risk of penalty for underreporting of income to 50% of the tax liability on income earned in India, even if the tax is fully withheld. The Indian Finance Act, 2018 (the Finance Act 2018) has further amended the legal proceedings for willful failure to file an income tax return by the due date, effective for tax returns for taxable years beginning on or after 1 April Under the Finance Act 2018, the principal officer of a company, including a foreign company, may be subject to legal proceedings including prosecutions for failure to file an income tax return, even if the 4

5 final tax due is less than the INR3,000 minimum tax liability. In view of the above amendments and given the wide coverage related to failure to file income tax returns, a foreign company having sufficient nexus in India and/or earning income in India, irrespective of whether the tax was fully satisfied via withholding, may be exposed to not only monetary penalties but also legal proceedings for failure to file an income tax return. Due to the above amendments, multinational entities should evaluate their current income tax return filing positions and take appropriate action. OECD releases Korea s peer review report on implementation of Action 14 minimum standard On 12 March 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the third batch of peer review reports relating to the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) minimum standard under Action 14 on improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Korea was among the assessed jurisdictions in the third batch. Overall the report concludes that Korea meets almost all of the elements of the Action 14 minimum standard. In the next stage of the peer review process, Korea s efforts to address any shortcomings identified in its Stage 1 peer review report will be monitored. Detailed discussion Background In October 2016, the OECD released the peer review documents (i.e., the Terms of Reference and Assessment Methodology) on Action 14 on Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective. The Terms of Reference translated the Action 14 minimum standard into 21 elements and the best practices into 12 items. The Assessment Methodology provided procedures for undertaking a peer review and monitoring in two stages. In Stage 1, a review is conducted of how a BEPS member implements the minimum standard based on its legal framework for Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) and how it applies the framework in practice. In Stage 2, a review is conducted of the measures the BEPS member takes to address any shortcomings identified in Stage 1 of the peer review. Both of these stages are desk-based and are coordinated by the Secretariat of the Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) s MAP Forum. In summary, Stage 1 consists of three steps or phases: Obtaining inputs for the Stage 1 peer review Drafting and approval of a Stage 1 peer review report Publication of Stage 1 peer review reports Input is provided through questionnaires completed by the assessed jurisdiction, peers (i.e., other members of the FTA MAP Forum) and taxpayers. Once the input has been gathered, the Secretariat prepares a draft Stage 1 peer review report of the assessed jurisdiction and sends it to the assessed jurisdiction for its written comments on the draft report. When a peer review report is finalized, it is sent for approval of the FTA MAP Forum and later to the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs to adopt the report for publication. Minimum standard peer review report The report is divided into four parts, namely: Preventing disputes Availability and access to MAP Resolution of MAP cases Implementation of MAP agreements Each part addresses a different component of the minimum standard. The report includes 19 recommendations relating to the minimum standard. In general, the performance of Korea with regard to MAP has proven to be satisfactory in the respective reports. Overall, 5

6 Korea meets almost all of the elements of the Action 14 minimum standard. Preventing disputes Korea generally meets the Action 14 minimum standard concerning the prevention of disputes. It has an extensive tax treaty network with 95 tax treaties in place and has an established MAP program. Out of Korea s 95 tax treaties, three (3) do not contain a provision that is equivalent to Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention (The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavor to resolve by mutual agreement any difficulties or doubts arising as to the interpretation or application of the Convention). It is recommended that Korea should ratify, as quickly as possible, the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) to incorporate the equivalent of Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in the two treaties that currently do not contain such an equivalent and that will be modified by the MLI upon its entry into force. For the remaining treaty that will not be modified by the MLI to include the equivalent of Article 25(3), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention following its entry into force, Korea should request the inclusion of the required provision via bilateral negotiations. To this end, Korea should, following the outcome of its analysis on which treaties need modification in light of the Action 14 minimum standard, put a plan in place on how it envisages updating this treaty to include such an equivalent. In addition, Korea should maintain its stated intention to include the required provision in all future treaties. Finally, it was recommended that Korea should continue to provide for roll-back of bilateral APAs in appropriate cases, as it has done thus far. Availability and access to MAP Korea generally meets the requirements concerning availability and access to MAP in light of the Action 14 minimum standard. Out of Korea s 95 tax treaties, seven (7) do not contain a provision that is equivalent to Article 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention. Of those seven tax treaties: One tax treaty does not contain the equivalent to Article 25(1), first sentence (allowing taxpayers to submit a MAP request to the competent authority of the state in which they are a resident when they consider that the actions of one or both of the treaty partners result or will result in taxation for the taxpayer that is not in accordance with the provisions of the tax treaty, and that can be requested irrespective of the remedies provided by the domestic law of either state), and the timeline to file such a request is shorter than three years as from the first notification of the action, resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provision of the tax treaty. Two tax treaties do not contain the equivalent to Article 25(1), first sentence. Four tax treaties provide that the timeline to file a MAP request is shorter than three years from the first notification of the action, resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provision of the tax treaty (two years). It is recommended that Korea should ratify, as quickly as possible, the MLI to incorporate the equivalent to Article 25(1) of the OECD Model Tax Convention in those treaties that currently do not contain such an equivalent. This concerns both: A provision that is equivalent to Article 25(1), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention, either: - As amended in the final report of Action 14 allowing taxpayers to submit a MAP request to the competent authority of either treaty partner; or 6

7 - As it read prior to the adoption of the Action 14 final report, thereby including the full sentence of such a provision; and A provision that allows taxpayers to submit a MAP request within a period of no less than three years as from the first notification of the action, resulting in taxation not in accordance with the provision of the tax treaty For the remaining treaties that will not be modified by the MLI following its entry into force to include such an equivalent, Korea should request the inclusion of the required provision via bilateral negotiations. To this end, Korea should, following the outcome of its analysis on which treaties need modification in light of the Action 14 minimum standard, put a plan in place on how it envisages updating these treaties to include such an equivalent. In addition, Korea should maintain its stated intention to include the required provision in all future treaties. With respect to areas for improvement and recommendations, Korea has in place a formal process to notify the other competent authority in cases where the Korean competent authority considered the objection raised in the MAP request as not justified. However, it was not possible to assess whether the notification process is applied in practice because no such cases have occurred since 1 January As Korea has thus far granted access to MAP in eligible transfer pricing cases, it should continue granting access for these cases. With respect to access to MAP in relation to the application of anti-abuse provisions, Korean domestic law allows the competent authority not to initiate a MAP where it is recognized that MAP is utilized for purposes of tax avoidance, which bears the risk that in cases where anti-abuse provisions are being applied, access to MAP will not be granted. Consequently, relating to the provision included in Article 22(2) Adjustment of International Taxes Act (AITA), Korea should followup its stated intention to take appropriate action to ensure that the article would not limit access to MAP in cases concerning the application of anti-abuse provisions. Nevertheless, as Korea has thus far granted access to MAP in eligible cases concerning whether the conditions for the application of a treaty anti-abuse provision have been met, or whether the application of a domestic law anti-abuse provision is in conflict with the provisions of a treaty, it should continue granting access for these cases. As Korea has thus far not limited access to MAP in eligible cases when taxpayers have complied with Korea s information and documentation requirements for MAP requests, it should continue this practice. Out of Korea s 95 tax treaties, nine (9) do not contain a provision that is equivalent to Article 25(3), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention. Korea should ratify, as quickly as possible, the MLI to incorporate the equivalent of Article 25(3), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in those six treaties that currently do not contain such an equivalent and that will be modified by the MLI upon its entry into force. For the three remaining treaties that will not be modified by the MLI to include the equivalent of Article 25(3), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention following its entry into force, Korea should request the inclusion of the required provision via bilateral negotiations. To this end, Korea should, following the outcome of its analysis on which treaties need modification in light of the Action 14 minimum standard, put a plan in place on how it will update these treaties to include such an equivalent. In addition, Korea should maintain its stated intention to include the required provision in all future treaties. 7

8 Moreover, although not part of the Action 14 minimum standard, in order to further improve the level of clarity, Korea could consider including in its MAP guidance, information on: Whether MAP is available in cases of: (i) the application of anti-abuse provisions, (ii) multilateral disputes, and (iii) bona fide foreigninitiated self-adjustments Whether taxpayers can request for the multiyear resolution of recurring issues through MAP The consideration of interest and penalties in MAP Korea should also ensure that future updates of the information on MAPs are made publicly available and easily accessible. Its MAP profile, published on the shared public platform, should be updated if needed. In addition, although its MAP profile is almost complete, Korea could consider, as suggested by a peer, including information on the unilateral allowance in its domestic law to close MAP cases if no agreement has been reached after five years. To this end, it could also refer to the relevant sections of its domestic law and could attach an excerpt of such sections to its MAP profile, like Korea did for the other relevant sections of its domestic law. Furthermore, Korea could also consider adding an address of its competent authority in the general information section of its MAP profile. Resolution of MAP cases Out of Korea s 95 tax treaties, two (2) do not contain a provision that is equivalent to Article 25(2), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention. Korea should ratify, as quickly as possible, the MLI to incorporate the equivalent of Article 25(2), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in the one treaty that currently does not contain such an equivalent and that will be modified by the MLI upon its entry into force. For the remaining treaty that will not be modified by the MLI to include the equivalent of Article 25(2), first sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention following its entry into force, Korea should request the inclusion of the required provision via bilateral negotiations. To this end, Korea should, following the outcome of its analysis on which treaties need modification in light of the Action 14 minimum standard, put a plan in place on how it envisages updating this treaty to include such an equivalent. In addition, Korea should maintain its stated intention to include the required provision in all future treaties. As part of the peer review, Korea submitted comprehensive MAP statistics regarding the timeline of the MAP process on the basis of the MAP Statistics Reporting Framework. Based on the information provided by Korea s MAP partners, its post-2015 MAP statistics actually match those of its treaty partners as reported by the latter. Korea s MAP statistics reflect that during the Statistics Reporting Period, it closed 4.55% (1 out of 22 cases) of its post-2015 cases in 4.18 months on average. In that regard, it is recommended that Korea seeks to resolve the remaining 95.45% of the post-2015 cases pending on 31 December 2016 (21 cases) within a timeframe that results in an average timeframe of 24 months for all post-2015 cases. As Korea closed MAP cases in months on average, there may be a risk that post-2015 cases are not resolved within the average 24 months, which is the targeted average for resolving MAP cases received on or after 1 January This indicates that Korea s competent authority is not adequately resourced, especially because of the fact that the governance within its competent authority is not conducive to ensure that post-2015 cases are resolved within the pursued average. Korea should ensure that the governance within its competent authority enables adequate resources in order to resolve MAP cases in a timely, efficient and effective manner. This, as also suggested by peers, 8

9 in particular concerns: (i) ensuring that the frequent change in personnel does not affect the progress of pending cases; (ii) position papers are issued in due time and ahead of face-to-face meetings; and (iii) its competent authority at the level of the National Tax Services endeavors to discuss and resolve MAP cases in a timely, efficient and effective manner when a case that is of an interpretative nature is being handled by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. As it has done thus far, Korea should continue to ensure that its competent authority has the authority, and uses that authority in practice, to resolve MAP cases without being dependent on approval or direction from the tax administration personnel directly involved in the adjustments at issue, and absent of any policy considerations that Korea would like to see reflected in future amendments to the treaty. As it has done thus far, Korea should continue to use appropriate performance indicators. Implementation of MAP agreements There is a risk that not all MAP agreements will be implemented because of the requirement for taxpayers to request correction of a tax assessment within a period of two months as a prerequisite for having a MAP agreement implemented, when the other jurisdiction concerned has initiated the MAP. As it has done thus far, Korea should continue to implement all MAP agreements if the conditions for such implementation are fulfilled. Additionally, Korea should closely monitor whether the requirement for taxpayers to request correction of tax assessments within a period of three months results in obstruction in practice concerning the implementation of MAP agreements, where the underlying tax assessment was made by the other jurisdiction concerned. Where this is the case, Korea should consider amending this process in order to enable the implementation of all MAP agreements. Implemented MAP agreements may be annulled due to rulings of domestic courts. Furthermore, Korea should ensure that implemented MAP agreements are not annulled by domestic court rulings after such implementation, for which it could consider amending its domestic law in line with its stated intention. As it has done thus far, Korea should continue to implement all MAP agreements on a timely basis if the conditions for such implementation are fulfilled. Out of Korea s 95 tax treaties, 27 do not contain a provision that is equivalent to Article 25(2), second sentence of the OECD Model Tax Convention, nor the alternative provisions in Article 9(1) and Article 7(2). Korea should promptly ratify the MLI to incorporate the equivalent of Article 25(2), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention in those 11 treaties that currently do not contain such an equivalent and that will be modified by the MLI upon its entry into force. For the remaining 16 treaties that will not be modified by the MLI to include the equivalent of Article 25(2), second sentence, of the OECD Model Tax Convention following its entry into force to include such an equivalent, Korea should request the inclusion of the required provision via bilateral negotiations or be willing to accept the inclusion of both alternative provisions. To this end, Korea should, following the outcome of its analysis on which treaties need modification in light of the Action 14 minimum standard, put a plan in place on how it intends on updating these treaties to include such an equivalent. In addition, Korea should maintain its stated intention to include the required provision, or be willing to accept the inclusion of both alternative provisions, in all future treaties. 9

10 Next steps Korea is already working to address deficiencies identified in its peer review and will now move on to Stage 2 of the process, where Korea s efforts to address any shortcomings identified in its Stage 1 peer review report will be monitored. Under the peer review program methodology, Korea shall submit an update report to the Forum on Tax Administration s MAP Forum within one year of the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs adoption of the Stage 1 peer review report. Implications In a post-beps world, where multinational enterprises (MNEs) face tremendous pressures and scrutiny from tax authorities, the release of Korea s peer review report represents the continued recognition and importance of the need to achieve tax certainty for cross-border transactions for MNEs. While increased scrutiny is expected to significantly increase the risk of double taxation, the fact that tax authorities may be subject to review by their peers should be seen by MNEs as a positive step to best ensure access to an effective and timely mutual agreement process. Furthermore, the peer review for Korea provides insights to taxpayers on the availability and efficacy of MAP. With additional countries continuing to be reviewed, the OECD has made it known that taxpayer input continues to be welcomed on an ongoing basis. With stakeholder feedback in mind, businesses are encouraged to share their views with the OECD on the peer review for Korea and any other jurisdictions, and to perhaps comment on whether the next iteration of the OECD s assessment of tax administration s MAP performance warrants greater feedback from taxpayers as the primary source. Feedback from the international tax community is the logical next step after peer review, which may help to further validate the current favorable result. 10

11 Contact details Principal Tax contacts Yeo Eng Ping Amarjeet Singh Global Compliance and Reporting Simon Yeoh Julian Wong Datuk Goh Chee San (based in Sabah) Janice Wong Julie Thong Lee Li Ming (based in Johor) Liew Ai Leng People Advisory Services Tan Lay Keng Irene Ang Christopher Lim Business Tax Services Amarjeet Singh Asaithamby Perumal Farah Rosley Robert Yoon Wong Chow Yang Transaction Tax Services Yeo Eng Ping Sharon Yong International Tax Services Anil Kumar Puri Transfer Pricing Sockalingam Murugesan Vinay Nichani Hisham Halim Indirect Tax Yeoh Cheng Guan Aaron Bromley Financial Services Bernard Yap

12 Important dates 15 June 2018 Due date for monthly instalments 30 June th month revision of tax estimates for companies with December year-end 30 June th month revision of tax estimates for companies with September year-end 30 June 2018 Statutory deadline for filing of 2017 tax returns for companies with November year-end 15 July 2018 Due date for monthly instalments 31 July th month revision of tax estimates for companies with January year-end 31 July th month revision of tax estimates for companies with October year-end 31 July 2018 Statutory deadline for filing of 2017 tax returns for companies with December year-end EY Assurance Tax Transactions Advisory About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com Ernst & Young Tax Consultants Sdn. Bhd. All Rights Reserved. APAC no ED None. This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice. Publisher: Ernst & Young Tax Consultants Sdn. Bhd. Level 23A Menara Milenium Jalan Damanlela, Pusat Bandar Damansara Kuala Lumpur Tel: Fax: