Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 22 of 2021

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 22 of 2021
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 22 of 2021

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 6 December, 2021 | 0

    Can one be charged stamp duty on an inheritance?

    Case:

    PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM v. LEE KOY ENG (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA TAN KOK LEE @ TAN CHIN CHAI, SI MATI) [2021] MLJU 2083

    Brief Facts:

    • Lee Koy Eng (“ Lee”) and her son, Tan Chun Keat (“Mr. Tan”) were appointed by the Shah Alam High Court as co-administrators of Ms. Lee’s husband’s estate (“the Deceased”).

     

    • In view of the fact that the Deceased died without a will, Section 6(1)(a) of the Distribution Act 1958 (“DA 1958”) provides that Ms. Lee and the Deceased’s 2 children shall each have one-third of the Estate.

     

    • The Estate consists of, among others, the Deceased’s interest in 5 pieces of land.

     

    • Lee and the 2 children executed a “Deed of Family Arrangement” on 2.10.2018 (“DFA”) where Ms. Lee and the 2 children [Tan siblings] agreed to distribute, among others, the Deceased’s interest in the 5 properties to Ms. Lee only.

     

    • On 20.12.2018, the Shah Alam High Court issued an order to vest the Deceased’s interest in the 5 properties to Ms. Lee only (“the Vesting Order”)

     

    • Pursuant to the Vesting Order, Ms. Lee and Mr. Tan executed 5 “Forms 14A”, instruments of transfer of the Deceased’s interest in the 5 properties under the National Land Code, in favour of Ms. Lee only.

     

    • Pursuant to section 36(1) of the Stamp Act 1949 (“the SA”), the Collector imposed ad valorem stamp duty on Forms 14A.

     

    • The Collector’s Assessment was made on the ground that the Forms 14A concerned “release or renunciation by way of gift” under item 66(c) of the First Schedule of the SA.

     

    • Lee objected to the Collector’s Assessment and applied to the Collector to review the Assessment under section 38(1) of the SA.

     

    • The review application was made on the basis that a stamp duty of RM10.00 should be assessed for Forms 14A in accordance with item 32(i) in the First Schedule.

     

    • The Collector dismissed the review application. Hence, Ms. Lee paid the stamp duty in full as stated in the Collector’s Assessment.

     

    • Lee then filed appeals to the High Court against the Collector’s dismissal of the review application according to section 39(1) of the SA.

     

    • The only question posed by these appeals is whether the Forms 14A, in this case, attract ad valorem stamp duty under item 66(c) (release or renunciation of property by way of a gift) or a fixed amount of stamp duty of RM10.00 pursuant to Item 32(i) (conveyance or transfer which is not specifically charged with stamp duty).

     

    • The High Court allowed Ms. Lee’s appeal with costs and ordered the Collector to refund the excess stamp duty that was paid by Ms. Lee.

     

    • The Collector appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the Tan sibllings were merely entitled to 2/3 of the Deceased’s estate. They don’t have a beneficial or legal interest in the estate until the administration of the estate is complete.

     

    • Therefore, the Deed of Family Arrangement executed by the Tan siblings was merely their renunciation of their entitlement to the estate of the deceased. It was deemed not a gift as the Tan siblings were not the beneficial or legal owners of the properties. As such they had no right to gift the properties away.

     

    • On that basis the Court upheld the High Court fuling that the true nature of the instant Forms 14A is solely to give effect to the renunciation of their entitlement made by the Tan siblings and it was not a gift.

     

    • Because it was not a gift, ad valorem stamp duty under item 66(c) (release or renunciation of property by way of a gift) would not apply
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil