This is the first prosecution of taxpayers who give false and misleading information to the taxman.
A MOTHER-AND-SON duo is facing charges for giving false and misleading information to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) during its audit of cases of the so-called “99-to-1” arrangement for private properties.
This is the first prosecution of taxpayers providing false and misleading information to Iras during its investigation into the two-step “99-to-1” property transactions for possible tax avoidance, said the agency in a statement on Friday (Sep 20).
The mother, 56-year-old Ng Chiew Yen, and her son, 26-year-old Keith Tan Kai Wen, face five charges each. They are both Singaporeans.
Investigations revealed that Tan bought a condominium unit at the 99-year leasehold The Watergardens at Canberra in Sembawang in his sole name on Sep 24, 2021, said Iras. He subsequently sold a 1 per cent share of the property to his mother.
Data from URA Realis showed that the fourth-floor unit, 753 sq ft in size, was transacted on Aug 28, 2021, for S$1.1 million, or S$1,477 a square foot.
Iras commenced an audit into the transactions in 2023. During the audit, it asked Tan why he did not purchase the property jointly with Ng from the outset. He allegedly falsely stated that he had made a hasty decision to buy the property, on the assumption that his family would support him financially. But he said his family was unable to do this, so Ng had to be added as an owner in order to take a loan.
Tan was also accused of providing misleading information to Iras, through incomplete WhatsApp messages, and in other “false and misleading” responses to the agency during the audit.
Both Tan and Ng were handed five charges each for allegedly conspiring to provide misleading information and responses to Iras. If convicted, they could each be fined up to S$10,000 or jailed for up to two years, or both.
If Iras determines that tax avoidance has taken place, it will recover the rightful amount of stamp duty from the buyers, and may also impose a 50-per-cent surcharge of the additional duty payable. There is no statutory time limit for stamp duty audits.
Leave a Reply