B.C. thinks that very soon, those who want to withdraw their bank monies/ CPF/ claim insurance monies would soon have to pay GST on the amount claimed/ withdrawn.
It seems that SG govt intends to impose GST tax on 'capital' from now on?
Perhaps sadly, the GST collected from consumer goods taxation is no longer enough to pay our Minister's salaries...
PS:
True, this may be a 'commercial' property but isn't all such immovable property exempt from GST since it accrues stamp duties?
Isn't the principle of GST based upon 'consumption' and not investment?
Increase commercial property tax by all means but 'GST'?
Me thinks that charging GST on commercial properties would surely slow down the economy as companies think twice about changing their operating premises due to GST payable on property. Some jokers might register themselves as GST registered companies so that they can then reclaim such GST as operational expenses.
Why is PAP attacking the small man again with such short sighted policies???
GST, Stamp duties, Property taxes, and so much more just to pay the lofty salaries of PAP cadres???!!!
Buy sell shares no need pay GST so why must pay GST when buy/ sell immovable properties???!!!
Pay/ earn interest fr Bank also dun need to pay GST so why GST on immovable property?
Has this govt has been bought by large GST registered foreign property investment companies?
Commercial properties now, HDB next?
So if U sell residential property then soon buyer must pay govt 7% GST also? (any 'business' with turnover > $1m/yr must be GST registered).
Guess we must prepare for property prices to fall >7% as govt imposes GST on ALL immovable properties very soon.
=======
Buyer must foot GST in $3.8m deal,
K. C. Vijayan; Straits Times; 09 Sep 2011
WHEN a shop unit in Tanjong Pagar was sold for $3.8 million last year, the buyer was not told that goods and services tax (GST) was payable on that sum, or that the seller was GST-registered.
The seller, however, cited a 1999 set of rules used as a reference point in property contracts, which puts the burden of paying the 7 per cent tax on the buyer.
This works out to a GST of $266,000, over and above the price of the property.
When neither buyer nor seller could iron out who should pay, they took the legal route. The High Court has now ruled that it is the buyer who should pay the GST, though Justice Woo Bih Li, in a written judgment, had some criticism for the way the 1999 terms cited by the seller were drafted.
In any case, the sale of the property in Enggor Street has fallen through, as it was not completed within the given time. The seller has since pocketed the $190,000 option fee.
The question in this case was: Who is to pay the GST? In a typical sale of retail goods, the consumer does not pay anything more than the sum stated on the price tag, which already incorporates the GST that is to be paid. This means the seller bears the cost of the GST, as is laid down in the Goods and Services Tax Act.
But the contract for the sale of this non-residential shop unit was governed by the Law Society's Conditions of Sale 1999, which puts the burden of payment on the buyer, as the court has now ruled.
The buyer in this case was Mr Ma Ong Kee, a businessman, and the seller was Kaiyo Reptile Products.
In talks to seal the sale, Mr Ma said, Kaiyo had not informed him it was GST-registered, and that he would have to pay GST. It was only after Mr Ma had paid the $190,000 option-to-purchase fee that Kaiyo had told him to cough up another $13,300, as GST on that sum.
An apparent bid by Mr Ma to pay the $266,000 in GST on the $3.8 million to a neutral third party, pending settlement of the issue, was refused by Kaiyo.
Justice Woo, in his judgment grounds released last month, said the relevant clause in the Conditions of Sale was 'not well-drafted'. However, its purpose was twofold - to prescribe that the buyer pay the GST, and that this be done upon completion of the sale or earlier. But the Conditions of Sale had not been clear enough in spelling out it was the buyer's responsibility to pay the GST, he said.
Justice Woo noted that Kaiyo had benefited from the forfeiture of the deposit and the rise in the value of the property since the spat. Mr Ma, who still wants to buy the property, is appealing.
[email protected]
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_711001.html
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...=web&title=Buyer must foot GST in $3.8m deal#
It seems that SG govt intends to impose GST tax on 'capital' from now on?
Perhaps sadly, the GST collected from consumer goods taxation is no longer enough to pay our Minister's salaries...
PS:
True, this may be a 'commercial' property but isn't all such immovable property exempt from GST since it accrues stamp duties?
Isn't the principle of GST based upon 'consumption' and not investment?
Increase commercial property tax by all means but 'GST'?
Me thinks that charging GST on commercial properties would surely slow down the economy as companies think twice about changing their operating premises due to GST payable on property. Some jokers might register themselves as GST registered companies so that they can then reclaim such GST as operational expenses.
Why is PAP attacking the small man again with such short sighted policies???
GST, Stamp duties, Property taxes, and so much more just to pay the lofty salaries of PAP cadres???!!!
Buy sell shares no need pay GST so why must pay GST when buy/ sell immovable properties???!!!
Pay/ earn interest fr Bank also dun need to pay GST so why GST on immovable property?
Has this govt has been bought by large GST registered foreign property investment companies?
Commercial properties now, HDB next?
So if U sell residential property then soon buyer must pay govt 7% GST also? (any 'business' with turnover > $1m/yr must be GST registered).
Guess we must prepare for property prices to fall >7% as govt imposes GST on ALL immovable properties very soon.
=======
Buyer must foot GST in $3.8m deal,
K. C. Vijayan; Straits Times; 09 Sep 2011
WHEN a shop unit in Tanjong Pagar was sold for $3.8 million last year, the buyer was not told that goods and services tax (GST) was payable on that sum, or that the seller was GST-registered.
The seller, however, cited a 1999 set of rules used as a reference point in property contracts, which puts the burden of paying the 7 per cent tax on the buyer.
This works out to a GST of $266,000, over and above the price of the property.
When neither buyer nor seller could iron out who should pay, they took the legal route. The High Court has now ruled that it is the buyer who should pay the GST, though Justice Woo Bih Li, in a written judgment, had some criticism for the way the 1999 terms cited by the seller were drafted.
In any case, the sale of the property in Enggor Street has fallen through, as it was not completed within the given time. The seller has since pocketed the $190,000 option fee.
The question in this case was: Who is to pay the GST? In a typical sale of retail goods, the consumer does not pay anything more than the sum stated on the price tag, which already incorporates the GST that is to be paid. This means the seller bears the cost of the GST, as is laid down in the Goods and Services Tax Act.
But the contract for the sale of this non-residential shop unit was governed by the Law Society's Conditions of Sale 1999, which puts the burden of payment on the buyer, as the court has now ruled.
The buyer in this case was Mr Ma Ong Kee, a businessman, and the seller was Kaiyo Reptile Products.
In talks to seal the sale, Mr Ma said, Kaiyo had not informed him it was GST-registered, and that he would have to pay GST. It was only after Mr Ma had paid the $190,000 option-to-purchase fee that Kaiyo had told him to cough up another $13,300, as GST on that sum.
An apparent bid by Mr Ma to pay the $266,000 in GST on the $3.8 million to a neutral third party, pending settlement of the issue, was refused by Kaiyo.
Justice Woo, in his judgment grounds released last month, said the relevant clause in the Conditions of Sale was 'not well-drafted'. However, its purpose was twofold - to prescribe that the buyer pay the GST, and that this be done upon completion of the sale or earlier. But the Conditions of Sale had not been clear enough in spelling out it was the buyer's responsibility to pay the GST, he said.
Justice Woo noted that Kaiyo had benefited from the forfeiture of the deposit and the rise in the value of the property since the spat. Mr Ma, who still wants to buy the property, is appealing.
[email protected]
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_711001.html
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...=web&title=Buyer must foot GST in $3.8m deal#
Last edited:
