Beneficial ownership is extensively used in the tax laws of numerous jurisdictions, including Singapore. While the same term is used across different areas of tax law, there are three distinct concepts of beneficial ownership which separately apply depending on the context. This article explains how to identify and apply the appropriate concept of beneficial ownership by looking at the relevant provisions of Singapore tax statutes and their subsidiary legislation. It then addresses the special case of the recently enacted Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act 2024 and highlights it as the only exception to the general finding that wherever the concept of beneficial ownership is used in Singapore primary tax statutes, the domestic tax law concept should be applied. However, due to careful drafting of the statutes, there is little likelihood of confusion on which concept should apply in cases where that Act and the Income Tax Act 1947 interact.

The concept of beneficial ownership is extensively used in domestic tax legislation, but several decades of inconsistent case law have muddied the waters as to exactly what it means. With the leading cases stopping short of the apex court, it is difficult to reconcile the cases and come up with a clear definition of beneficial ownership. The recent Hargreaves 1 decision by Falk LJ (with whom Nugee and Peter Jackson LJJ agreed) represents the most structured judicial attempt to rationalise the concept to date. This note suggests that, contrary to Falk LJ’s statement that the concept is ‘well established’, 2 the law pre- Hargreaves was far from clear. This situation has since been greatly improved through the efforts of Falk LJ, though further questions remain for future judicial clarification.

Crypto losses have the potential to adversely impact the tax base, particularly if they are deducted against income from other profitable sources. There is a key question of fairness as to whether crypto losses should be cross-subsidised by income from other sources that may have nothing to do with cryptoassets at all. This article argues for stronger scrutiny of the deductibility of crypto losses at the stage of determining whether such losses can be set off against income from other sources or at the stage of the shifting of the losses across time and between companies. It explains why crypto losses are of particular concern to tax systems and considers how safeguards can be put in place at both stages to safeguard the tax base. In particular, it suggests that specific crypto legislation should be enacted in order to impose a loose "source matching" requirement on crypto losses. Crypto losses from the carrying on of a trade or business should only be deductible against crypto income. That said, there is probably no need to strictly require that the source of the crypto losses must exactly match the source of the crypto income which is sought to be deducted.

Abstract As stamp duty rates in Singapore have increased over time, so too have the number of stamp duty avoidance schemes, ranging from simple and straightforward to complex and elaborate. Even when these schemes technically succeed, any potential loopholes are quickly dealt with legislatively. But stamp duty avoidance attempts can also backfire with heavy resulting costs. Changes such as the stamp duty avoidance surcharge discourage aggressive planning. The most severe consequences occur when property buyers go beyond mere avoidance and enter the more dangerous territory like evasion. This article cautions against a range of missteps, each more serious than the last.

The pre-1988 Australasian GAAR jurisprudence continues to exert a strong influence on the Singapore GAAR, which references concepts such as the “predication principle” and “scheme and purpose approach”. 10 years after the first and only apex court decision, questions still remain.

The paper highlights the need for governments to carefully consider the implications which the rise of crypto assets can have on tax systems, noting that the absence of a deliberate policy position would be a policy decision in itself, with consequences for the tax base. It discusses four main classes of tax risks which crypto assets pose.Firstly, crypto assets and crypto transactions can act as ‘functional substitutes’ for traditional assets and transactions. As existing tax laws are drafted without crypto assets in mind, this can produce a host of unintended tax consequences and produce opportunities for tax arbitrage. Secondly, the values of crypto assets exhibit significant volatility, with extreme swings in the values of tokens on average. There are also issues of potential instability in crypto markets, as evidenced by the recent ‘crypto winter’. In the absence of appropriate safeguards and ring-fencing, these crypto losses could potentially be used to set off income from other sources, resulting in a significant erosion of the tax base. Thirdly, crypto assets give rise to certain events which may not have a traditional equivalent, such as mining and forging. Tax systems which do not consider these new potential sources of revenue risk losing out.Fourthly, crypto assets may be used to facilitate tax evasion. The pseudonymity offered by crypto assets and the opportunities to conduct transactions outside of the traditional banking system inherently poses the risk of tax evasion, both premeditated and incidental (for example, through the shadow economy). Annex A1 builds on a lot of my prior work on crypto taxation and provides a very comprehensive introduction to crypto assets and their taxation. The paper recommends that governments should consider evaluating the risks to their tax systems posed by crypto assets, develop crypto tax guidance for both internal tax authority use and for taxpayers, and work on training and capacity building in crypto taxation.

Our article introduces the reader to crucial concepts such as provenance, authenticity and ownership of fine art. It explains how one can check the established art databases and registers to conduct due diligence searches.We also explain the importance of a written contract for both buyers and sellers. The current common practice of transacting without a written contract can lead to considerable difficulties if issues with the artwork are discovered in the future. At the minimum, a contract should make it clear that the seller has the full responsibility for the accuracy of the provenance, particularly in cases where the artwork has an incomplete ownership history. Different considerations may also apply depending on whether the artwork is an Old Master, modern art or even an NFT. The article concludes with a reminder not to chase trends and instead to buy artworks that one would enjoy looking at and living with.

This Toolkit seeks to provide a practical, structured framework for the identification and assessment of crypto tax risks that can be used by tax administrations. It has three main parts. Firstly, an introduction to the Toolkit and how it should be used. Secondly, a series of questionnaires to complete. Thirdly, a commentary to provide additional context and details on each part of the Toolkit and its application. As tax administrations go through the questionnaires, they can rely on the Commentary to complement their existing knowledge and expertise to accurately identify the crypto tax risks facing their domestic tax systems.

Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser Add Paper to My Library Share: Permalink Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely Copy URL Copy DOI

Digital tokens, or crypto assets, are digital financial assets based on distributed ledger technology. They come in a considerable variety of forms and have been used in a large number of different ways. Yet, relatively few tax laws of any jurisdiction mention digital tokens specifically. It is therefore necessary to consider how orthodox tax rules can be applied to transactions involving digital tokens. Given the broad range of forms which digital tokens and transactions involving them can take, this may appear to be a daunting task. A framework providing a rough guide on how to navigate this somewhat new area of tax would be useful.In this blog post, I propose a crypto taxation framework that divides along the lines of the main types of digital tokens in question and the common tax events in the “life cycle” of digital tokens.While there can be a considerable variation in the types of potential transactions that can involve digital tokens, most tax events can generally be divided into:1) creation (through mining, forging, issue and purchase, or others);2) transfer (through exchange for goods and services, other tokens or fiat currency); and3) disposal (through redemption, token burning or loss).

Whether a trustee is permitted to have regard to ethical considerations when making investment decisions has been a hotly debated topic attracting diverse views. In view of this legal uncertainty, it is unsurprising for trustees to be cautious about engaging in ESG investing, hence impeding efforts to divert more funds into sustainability causes. Against this background, this article explores a variety of structuring tools which settlors may use to empower trustees and manage associated risks while ensuring accountability to the beneficiaries.

The article highlights the strong ecosystem in Singapore where charitable initiatives are supported and encouraged, and builds on DPM Lawrence Wong's recent comments that the Government is reviewing its tax incentive schemes to encourage increased philanthropic giving.As a starting point, we suggest three simple ways in which tax incentives could be enhanced:1) increasing the enhanced tax deduction for donations from the current 2.5 times the amount of qualifying donations to 3 times for certain causes where there is a significant amount of public spending;2) extending the period for which tax deductions for donations can be carried forward for from the current 5 years, perhaps indefinitely; and3) consider allowing some tax deductions for donations for selected overseas charitable causes.These suggestions would build on the existing generous tax incentive schemes for philanthropy, such as the exemption on the income of the foreign account of a philanthropic purpose trust (administered by a trustee company in Singapore) and the not-for-profit organisation tax incentive administered by the Economic Development Board.No doubt, more sophisticated initiatives are currently in the pipeline and we look forward to them being announced soon.Finally, the article notes that donors are more likely to be driven by a desire to make a difference in the world rather than to maximise tax savings. As such creating a strong framework for reporting and monitoring the real-world impact of donations is likely to further encourage philanthropy.

Purpose Precious stones and metals have commonly been used throughout the world as a conduit for terrorism and money laundering activities. Such illicit use of these assets has called for its much-needed attention from a regulatory perspective. This is particularly relevant in a financial haven such as Singapore. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to explore how several of the most common trading and investment activities involving precious stones and metals in Singapore are regulated. Design/methodology/approach The research explores activities include the trading of – the storing or custodising of – and the current available savings plans involving the use of precious stones and metals. It is based mainly on information collected from various legal sources such as books, domestic legislation and international papers issued by the Financial Action Task Force and the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering. Findings With the author’s findings, the analysis may prove useful for businesses seeking to navigate the regulatory landscape for precious stones and metals in Singapore, for investors seeking to understand the protection offered to them under the regulatory framework and for other jurisdictions seeking to evaluate and refine their existing framework for regulating precious stones and metals. Originality/value To the author’s knowledge, this is the first substantive academic study which analyses the regulatory landscape for the use of precious stones and metals under the Singapore Law.

The blockchain’s apparent immutability has attracted significant interest on whether it may be relied on for registering and transferring land. Proponents of blockchain-based land systems point toward data security, automated transacting, and improved accessibility as key benefits; critics raise concerns over structural vulnerabilities, such as majority attacks, and inconsistencies with existing legal frameworks. The literature, however, tends to conceptualise blockchain as one monolithic data structure invariably built on the same mechanisms powering Bitcoin. This paper seeks to situate the debate on a closer understanding of the range of blockchain implementations possible. To this end, we provide a detailed technological survey of established and emerging blockchain technologies, clarifying that different consensus mechanisms, permissioning schemes, and other use-based customisations, are possible. We then re-evaluate the promises and perils of blockchain land transfers in this light, focusing on the English conveyancing system, and illustrate how different implementations involve different advantages and limitations. However, the features necessary to avoid key vulnerabilities also diminish the marginal advantages of using blockchains over traditional electronic databases. Thus, we conclude that blockchains, even properly understood, remain unsuitable for land transfers.

In this blog post, I highlight the fact that across jurisdictions, tax provisions specifically drafted to address the taxation of digital tokens are still quite rare, meaning that existing orthodox tax rules will have to be applied. However, care must be taken when applying tax provisions and one must be aware of the limits of "reasoning by analogy".Some tax provisions make reference to specific assets or asset classes and it cannot be assumed that digital tokens which look very similar to these assets will inevitably fall under those provisions. For example, no matter how much a digital payment token looks like money and no matter how closely it can serve as such a substitute, one should not assume that a provision specifically referring to "money" will necessarily apply to digital payment tokens as well.As a general observation, provisions imposing taxation tend to be quite broadly drafted so as to catch as many situations as possible. Activities involving digital tokens will tend to be caught by these provisions, even if they are not specifically referenced. On the other hand, provisions dealing with deductions, allowances, reliefs or exemptions (generally, anything that can potentially reduce tax liability) tend to be drafted rather more narrowly. Thus, one must be particularly careful in such situations and assess each case on its facts. It is most unlikely that such provisions will apply "across the board" to all forms of digital tokens.

The post highlights three main issues that may result from the rapid and widespread automation of jobs: 1) declining tax revenues; 2) inequitable distribution of gains and losses from automation; and 3) social costs of job displacement, such as social support and retraining programmes for displaced workers.An automation tax may be imposed on a temporary basis to manage (slow) the rate of displacement of workers due to the adoption of automation technologies, but should not be a permanent feature. Otherwise, there will be a risk of loss of competitiveness in the long-term, possibly resulting in even greater economic harm.One main problem with an automation tax is figuring out what to base the tax on. Attempts to tax "robots" have faced difficulties in defining what a robot is.A potential solution proposed in the paper is to build on the existing capital allowance/depreciation mechanisms. Such frameworks in many tax systems are schedular, allowing governments the flexibility of attaching a particular tax benefit to each item in the schedule. An automation tax could be determined based on the type of technology adopted and the field it is applied in, correlating with the social costs associated with its adoption (which can be conceptualised as “negative depreciation”).This mechanism could also allow for a distinction to be drawn between employment-substituting technologies, which render human workers redundant and should be disincentived, and employment-complementing technologies, which can be used by human workers to enhance their productivity, and which should be incentivised.

As a response to the “missing beneficial owner” problem highlighted by the Zhao Hui Fang case, amendments have been made to Singapore’s stamp duty regime. ABSD will now be levied at 35% on transfers of residential property to trustees, with a remission available if certain conditions are met. These conditions effectively mean that residential property held on inter vivos trusts in Singapore must be given to beneficiaries without conditions or powers of revocation or variation. This has major ramifications for succession planning, since such restrictions largely defeat the purpose of using a trust to hold property in the first place.