Undertaker Roland Tay given S$12,000 fine and penalty of about S$529,000 for tax offences
His incorrect tax returns led to more than S$250,000 in tax being undercharged across three financial years, and his failure to register for GST when his businesses' taxable supplies exceeded S$1 million for four consecutive quarters led to him owing a total net GST of almost S$287,000.
Funeral director Roland Tay leaves the State Courts on Sep 5, 2024. (Photo: CNA/Wallace Woon)
SINGAPORE: Well-known undertaker Roland Tay Hai Choon was fined S$12,000 (US$9,200) and ordered to pay a penalty of more than S$529,000 for tax offences by a court on Thursday (Sep 5).
His incorrect tax returns led to more than S$250,000 in tax being undercharged across three financial years, and his failure to register for Goods and Services Tax (GST) when his businesses' taxable supplies exceeded S$1 million for four consecutive quarters led to him owing a total net GST of almost S$287,000.
Tay, a 77-year-old Singaporean known for providing pro-bono funeral arrangements for murder victims, pleaded guilty to four charges under the Income Tax Act or GST Act for making incorrect personal income tax returns and failing to register for GST.
The court heard that Tay was a partner of Direct Singapore Funeral Services & Embalming at the time.
He was also the sole proprietor of five other businesses: Hindu Casket, Tong Aik Undertaker, All Saints Care Services, 24 Hours Direct Casket and Defu Veterinary Clinic.
Tay had an employee who did bookkeeping for some of his businesses – 80-year-old Pang Toon Jim.
For the returns for the years of assessment (YA) 2011 and 2012, Tay handed his personal income tax return forms, known as Form B, to Pang to fill in on his behalf.
Form B requires a taxpayer to report, among other things, income derived from a trade, business profession or vocation. This involves providing information on the revenue, gross profit or loss, allowable business expenses and adjusted profit or loss for the businesses in question.
Pang filled in the Form B for YA2011 and YA2012, and Tay signed and filed them with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
However, investigations revealed that the information in the returns for those two years was incorrect and did not fully report the income and expenses of Tay's businesses.
The returns also did not account for the profits that Tay made from two of the businesses for YA2011 and YA2012 respectively.
He reported an income of S$121,051 for YA2011, when his actual income was S$539,599. This resulted in S$76,070.10 of tax being undercharged.
For YA2012, he reported an income of S$138,976 when his actual income was S$583,239. This resulted in S$83,551.80 of tax being undercharged.
For the returns for YA2013, Tay filed his income tax returns online, but also did not fully report the income and expenses of his businesses. He also failed to report the losses of Defu Veterinary Clinic.
He reported an income of S$81,766 for YA2013, when his actual income was S$588,645. As a result, S$90,690.59 in tax was undercharged.
Tay had also failed to notify the Comptroller of GST of his liability to be registered for GST purposes.
Investigations revealed that the total value of the businesses' taxable supplies for four consecutive quarters exceeded S$1 million on Jun 30, 2010.
He was required to notify the Comptroller of GST of his liability to register by Jul 30, 2010, but he did not do so. Consequently, he failed to account for GST from the quarter ended Dec 31, 2010, to the quarter ended Sep 30, 2013, tax prosecutors said.
The net GST owed arising from Tay's failure to register for GST was S$286,962.97.
IRAS said in a statement that the offences were uncovered through its audit programme, adding that it runs regular audit programmes across various industries to ensure tax compliance among individuals, businesses and the self-employed.
Tay has since made full restitution.
The prosecution sought a fine and the mandatory penalties.
Tay was represented by lawyers from the Jacob Mansur & Pillai law firm, who said Tay was "a very low-educated person with no knowledge of financial matters".
"He relied entirely on Pang, the assistant. He did not exercise due diligence on Pang, as a result of which, errors were committed without reasonable excuse," said the lawyer.
He said Tay's knowledge was "so limited" that he did not even take into account losses when submitting debt returns.
He said Tay is "of poor health" and has ensured compliance in future as he has corporatised his business which is now run by his family members.
Tay has also cooperated with IRAS, made full restitution and performed charitable acts in the course of his business, said the defence.
They asked that Tay be allowed to pay the penalty in instalments, given its size.
District Judge John Ng said instalments are usually granted if half of the sum is paid upfront and the other half within six months. However, in view of the "huge" and "substantial" sums here, he said he was prepared to grant up to one-and-a-half years for the full sum to be paid.
If Tay is unable to pay the fine of S$12,000, he will have to serve 12 weeks' jail in default. If he does not pay the penalty, he will have to serve 32 months' jail.
