Budget 2012: New Tax Laws







From a friend.

Worth your while to check if below is true. It is scary if it is really so.

16 Nov 2011


In the 2012 Budget, some changes to the Income Tax Act have been included. Initially, I did not bother to learn more about these changes. I thought my only honest-to-goodness income would be derived from my savings on which I had paid my taxes due.


These past few days, however, from comments I had gleaned, I realised that these changes indeed contained far-reaching consequences. In particular, under

the new S107D, the DG of IRD is vested with absolute power to deal with those who are suspected of paying income tax less than what it should be.

I did not read into the legal jargon as I felt that the absolute power given under this section to the DG is no different, in terms of its use or abuse, from that given to the AG to decide which investigation paper is given the NFA or which complainant is given the middle finger. Likewise, the IGP has absolute power to decide when a gathering is illegal, including a Friday congregation of PAS muslims. And we are also aware that a judge has absolute power to decide when to interfere in the affairs of a state legislative.


Before the time of the pharoah, the Agung will decide whether an Act passed by parliament becomes law. Now, the Agong is told when to make an Act become law. If the law is against the Constitution, then the Constitution will be amended.


So, with a compliant DG heading the IRD, what is there to prevent him from declaring that a resident - including but not limited to the spouse, children, relative, business partner, tennis partner, the office bearers of an organisation or corporation in which the resident is a member, the pub owner who provides a watering hole for the resident, the neighborhood grocery store patronised by the resident, the worker from Indah Water who empties the septic tank of the resident - had understated his tax liability since 1957, or that his tax liability for the year 2019 is set at RM1million? And why would the DG declare so? Because the DG was told by someone from up above that the resident


a) is a supporter of PR because he cancelled his subscription to the STAR/Berita Hairan

b) didn't vote for BN because he was in hospital on polling day

c) was seen at a Bersih 3.0 gathering while he was crossing the road to join the chicken on the other side

d) died without reciting his allegiance to BN


Scarry, isn't it? It's worse than the ISA. At least, under the ISA, only that target person is incarcerated.


Under S107D of the ITA, anyone close to you and smells like you because he didn't use the deodorant can be prosecuted for merely thinking that the BN is no good.