• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Is PAP gahmen getting desperate for money? Why IRAS harass a distributor for giving discounts?

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Is PAP gahmen getting desperate for money? Why IRAS harass a distributor for giving discounts?

Or is a new intern in charge at the helm? Familee connections maybe?

IMHO, after reading this report, I find IRAS quite ridiculous or else it's an intern in charge at the helm. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/herbalife-iras-court-s22-million-gst-taxes-3327981

Distributor give their sellers 50% discount off the product, IRAS also must hiam (i.e. jealous, fussy, upset etc).
Obviously the product is over priced and probably at least around twice so, this the distributor is giving up to 50% discount to it's 'members' to buy.

Then IRAS green eyes, buay song, says that is revenue/GST leakage.

Perhaps, the IRAS chief intern has suffered buyers remorse, having unfortunately bought the product from a member who only received the lower tier 25% discount. Or maybe he discovered that the goods were really not worth the price paid. (Haha!)

Then why don't IRAS also go and tax the guys who win the NTUC lucky draw car prize or tell NTUC that the car GST they cannot claim back etc. I dunno if NTUC claims input GST refund on lucky draw prize car cost, but AFAIK, this is standard procedure, just like NTUC will claim back input GST from IRAS on all goods NTUC buys from GST registered distributor supply. Or maybe NTUC is just too big to bully, so IRAS prefers to go for the small fry?

Maybe Singapore gahmen is really bankrupt or maybe IRAS has also caught the PM Lee HL 'schizophrenia disease', just like his GST announcements, Sept 2015 says irresponsible government will raise GST, then 8 months later (May 2016) says that revenues insufficient, so GST must go up.
So seems like this is the standard of public service and government, suka suka disturb and anyhow threaten people , rotiprata about GST decision, totally change mind over 8 months.

Whatever the case, this incident doesn't bode well for the future of Singapore, cos IRAS has certainly missed the woods for the trees in this case and I suspect that parliament would be equally clueless or else bungle the entire thing up like it did for that section 377a legislation thus far. So should NTUC pay GST for the big bonanza lucky draw prize or should the prize winner pay for it instead.

My guess is that parliament will probably prorogue itself, cos as part timers with stratospheric salaries, who will waste a good chance to win the lucky draw car from NTUC fair price? And I bet the chief of IRAS is also shopping at NTUC fair price for the opportunity to win the car as well too.

And I bet that should be be declared the winner, the chief of IRAS will not offer to pay the GST for the car he has won, cos by his understanding, that was paid for by the GST charged to all customers from the overpriced goods that NTUC fair price sells, in order to raise extra funds to sponsor the prize car.

Double standards much. Bah.
angry-mad.gif


================
FB-IMG-1663139841491.jpg



5f6f1e60daa87dc11b19b0e5200f24bb027730226168b76ef96f793f01f8e195_3.jpg
 
Last edited:

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
it’s sexplained in detail here. obviously distributor doesn’t read, understand, and comply with tax rules in sg. instead of offering substantial discounts to (high) listed prices, relist (reduce) sales prices before transactions. listing at high prices but giving away substantial discounts simply give more gst opportunities for iras to collect.
https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/goods...e net price after the prompt payment discount.
 
Last edited:

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
it’s sexplained in detail here. obviously distributor doesn’t read, understand, and comply with tax rules in sg. instead of offering substantial discounts to (high) listed prices, relist (reduce) sales prices before transactions.
https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/goods...e net price after the prompt payment discount.
I still think that it's IRAS that committed the blunder.

The distributor didn't artificially lower the invoiced amount.
All transacted amounts were transparent.

Just because the distributor overpriced some goods, IRAS is ILLOGICALLY demanding that he overprice ALL his goods.

IRAS has clearly overstepped it's ambit and imho is either seeking Scape goats or else trying to punish the distributor obliquely for over pricing his goods.

I think Judge Choo Han Teck was just being very forgiving or biased towards IRAS with the parliament story and if he didn't ask IRAS to also compensate plaintiffs legal costs. Me thinks that in this case, the judge should have not just squashed the tax bill, but ordered IRAS to compensate the plaintiff full legal cost too.

I am no expert, but I highly doubt parliament can further improve the tax rules, without creating a catch 22 situation as a result.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I still think that it's IRAS that committed the blunder.

The distributor didn't artificially lower the invoiced amount.
All transacted amounts were transparent.

Just because the distributor overpriced some goods, IRAS is ILLOGICALLY demanding that he overprice ALL his goods.

IRAS has clearly overstepped it's ambit and imho is either seeking Scape goats or else trying to punish the distributor obliquely for over pricing his goods.

I think Judge Choo Han Teck was just being very forgiving or biased towards IRAS with the parliament story and if he didn't ask IRAS to also compensate plaintiffs legal costs. Me thinks that in this case, the judge should have not just squashed the tax bill, but ordered IRAS to compensate the plaintiff full legal cost too.

I am no expert, but I highly doubt parliament can further improve the tax rules, without creating a catch 22 situation as a result.
gst still applies to original sales price not discounted price lah. if invoice says $69 each and discount of 69% brings it down to $21.39 the gst applies to $69 not $21.39. aiyah how long has distributor done business in sg?
 

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Perisher-HWZ said:
Nobody say court isn’t independent…

Re: https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/...ts-supplied-to-members.6879785/post-146585669

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ver-2m-in-gst-on-products-supplied-to-members

It's the court of public opinion which is independent.

Truth is the courts judgement will be open to public scrutiny (as it rightly should be).

IRAS CEO should ask himself if the lucky draw prize car, should he win from NTUC, should NTUC also charge him the GST to receive it, since like all other NTUC products, NTUC as a GST rated company, will claim GST refunds in all NTUC purchases fro GST rated suppliers, so up to the point where the IRAS CEO registers the prize car in his own name, no GST has been paid for the car. This is due to the fact that the funds to buy the prize car, has come from overcharging all NTUC customers for goods sold, just so the supermarket can raise the funds to conduct the lottery to purchase the prize car, so all in, the GST for the car is paid for or covered by the excessive pricing and thus GST of the ordinary NTUC goods sold.

IRAS is just trying to be funny and bullying the weak in this case (why not penalize NTUC for lucky draw car bonanzas and tax the recipient of freebies, like tax the free pack of cheese in buy 2 get one free offers as well. IRAS are clowns.

IRAS should concentrate on progressive wealth taxation, rather than regressive GST taxation, it's victims most likely the poor aunties who resell the MLM products to their equally aged/retired friends.

I can say from this incident, that the IRAS CEO moral compass, is truly and completely broken.
 

bic_cherry

Alfrescian
Loyal
jinsatkilife-HWZ said:
clarify in court of law is considered harrass?

in singapore, if u win suit, the loser pay
Re:
https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/...-in-charge-at-the-helm.6879835/post-146585950



https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_54
Judge didn't grant costs to plaintiff (Herbalife), means after all the harassment and nuisance that IRAS caused, Herbalife still have to pay their own lawyers and IRAS will continue to just suka suka fly test balloon to any old how issue notice of assessment to try to gain more tax revenue for gahmen.


Really should sack the IRAS CEO from his job, and ask IRAS to compensate Herbalife legal costs.

Then the law enforcers will learn to behave themselves.

Otherwise, they become hired hitmen or the greatest political mafias and gangsters, this land has and will last see.

IRAS should have negotiated with Herbalife or even sponsored Herbalife appeal to court, since IRAS themselves also not sure of how the law works. Now Herbalife won the appeal, IRAS should in gratitude, sponsor Herbalife lawyers and not pretend that they are angels when actually IRAS are rogues.

Probably for any appeal against government policy, if hearing granted by registrar or judge, the court hearing should be fully government sponsored as well.
 

Loofydralb

Alfrescian
Loyal
Top