Speech by Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC, at the Second Reading of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 23/2022)
Introduction
This Bill proposes to implement the changes to the tax system announced in Budget 2022. On the whole, these changes will make our tax system fairer and more efficient, and support Singapore’s growth across a whole slew of sectors.
I have clarifications on two areas.
Disclosure of information
My first point is on information sharing by IRAS.
The Bill includes provisions to allow IRAS to share information to public officers or other authorised people. I have four questions on this.
First, can Minister share in what situations do government bodies envision using the information-sharing provisions in the new section 6(12)?
Second, can Minister share how will IRAS obtain “express consent” under the new section 6(12)?
When seeking consent, to what standards will government bodies hold themselves? Will they state the exact piece of information to be shared, the frequency of this information sharing, the recipient of that information and the intended usage of that information? Or will government bodies ask for a blanket agreement without providing such details?
Third, can Minister share if someone can be held in contempt of the authority of a public servant for not providing consent to disclose their income information under section 6(12)?
After all, many actions involving non-disclosure of information constitute such an offence under the Penal Code, including refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question and obstructing a public servant in discharge of their public functions.
Fourth, the new section 6(12B) allows IRAS to disclose certain prescribed information without consent. One piece of information is whether a company claimed deductions under seven sections in the Income Tax Act.
Can Minister share why these seven specific sections were chosen for the Eleventh Schedule? Why not any of the other deductions in Part 5 of the Act? The rationale for the differentiated treatment is unclear.
Hearing of appeals by the Board of Review
My second area of clarifications is on the hearing of appeals by the Board of Review. I have three questions.
First, the new section 78 will allow the Chairperson of the Board of Review (BOR) to appoint a single member of the Board to hear a case if the issues involved are not complex.
The Chairperson is required to have regard to the facts and circumstances of a case in deciding whether to appoint only a single member to hear the case.
Can Minister share if the Chairperson will take into account the preferences of the parties to the case in deciding whether hearing by a single Board member is appropriate?
For instance, there may be cases where the issues are not complex but the relationship between parties is extremely acrimonious and it may be preferable to have the case heard by a panel.
Second, the Bill proposes substituting a number of terms. Can Minister clarify if these substitutions are intended to be significant?
For instance, “in the absence of a member of Board” is substituted by “by committee where a member becomes unavailable”. Should these terms be interpreted differently?
Additionally, “do not consent” is substituted by “object” in a number of provisions. Is this substitution significant and is a positive expression of an objection now required where previously the absence of consent would suffice?
Third, sections 80A and 80B allow parties to object to the hearing of an appeal in various cases.
Section 80A provides that “the parties may object” whereas section 80B provides that “any party may object”.
Can Minister clarify if the objection of a single party is sufficient in both cases? If not, can Minister clarify when are the objections of both parties required and what is the rationale for drawing this distinction?
Conclusion
Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Watch the speech here.