Saturday, May 28, 2011

ICT Zone Ventures Scheme

Our firm is proud to have assisted a fast-growing technology-based SME to successfully obtain the relevant approvals from the Companies Commission of Malaysia (Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia) to establish Malaysia's 1st ICT Interest Scheme. 

The fact sheet for the ICT Zone Ventures Scheme is set out in tabular form below-


Issuer & Management Company


ICT Zone Ventures Berhad

Core business activity


Rental of ICT equipment to government agencies, statutory bodies and private sector corporations


Objective of fundraising


To finance business growth in the ICT rental sector


Regulator


Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)

Principal legislation for the Scheme


Companies Act, 1965

Total approved fund size


RM110 million

Total no. of approved ICT Interests


22,000 ICT Interests

Investment value per ICT Interest


RM5,000

Investment returns


8% Fixed Nett Yield annually per ICT Interest


Term


Fixed period of 9 years

Capital protected


Cumulative 9-years Redemption Reserve Fund managed by Trustee


Management of funds


All investment funds received will be managed by the Trustee and released to the Management Company


Transferability


Fully transferable after initial 3-years lock-in period


Buy-back guarantee


Buy-back of ICT Interests after initial 2-years lock-in period


Cooling-off period


10 days

Eligibility to invest


Both Malaysians and non-Malaysians

Frequency of audit


Every 6 months

Approved Scheme Trustee


My Premier Trustee (Malaysia) Berhad
(719395-T)


Independent Consultant


PKF Accountants (AF 0911)


For more information on the ICT Zone Ventures Scheme click on the link HERE.

Friday, May 13, 2011

VAT (or GST) and its implications

Source: Edge Daily


Consumption tax is tax charged on consumers for goods and services purchased by them. Since the early 1970s, Malaysia has imposed the single-stage consumption tax, called sales and service tax (SST). Sales tax is imposed on goods manufactured in or imported into Malaysia and service tax on services rendered in Malaysia. The cost of the SST is embedded in the selling price of the goods to recover the additional cost.

In 2005 the government announced that VAT (value-added tax), also called GST (goods and services tax) was to be adopted to replace SST effective January 2007. 

VAT or GST is considered theoretically sound as it avoids tax cascading, multiple taxation and transfer pricing bias. Consequently, it has been adopted by over 130 countries. 

GST is also said to help enhance tax compliance and reduce tax avoidance and tax evasion. GST, as a consumption tax, is finally borne by the consumers. Businesses will not have to bear GST but they have to help collect the tax, account for and remit the tax to the government during the supply chain. 

GST is broad-based and is imposed on the value-add of almost all goods and services, said to cover everything under the sun. The collection of the GST is practically carried out by all the businesses. Businesses pay GST (called input tax) on all their purchases (i.e. input goods and services) needed to conduct their business. They will then charge and collect GST of, say 4%, on the selling price of their outputs (called output tax) on sales of such goods to their buyers, which can be another business or final consumers.  

If the output tax collected is more than the input tax paid, the difference will be remitted to the government. Conversely, if the input tax paid is more than the output tax collected, the businesses will get refund of the difference from the government.

The implementation of the multi-stage GST is complex. There are three types of supplies — standard-rated, zero-rated and exempted supplies — each with different applicable rules. The businesses will need to register with the authority to be able to secure refund for input tax paid on their purchases. Exempted businesses are not to be registered, not entitled to claim input tax refund and are not allowed to charge output tax on their sales (so they will have to increase their selling price to recover the input tax paid on their purchases). Zero-rates supplies mainly refer to export sales on which no GST will be charged (and so all related input tax will be refunded by the government).

There are many other provisions, reliefs, refund schemes, remissions, special treatment for certain businesses (e.g. construction and property businesses), etc.  Most businessmen, large or small ones, will need to pay the GST tax consultants to help them comply with the laws and rules. This is so even in the advanced country like New Zealand.

There are so many concerns and considerations expressed that the government has not implemented GST since announcing it in 2005. Hong Kong also announced its plan to adopt GST in 2007 and has since kept quiet on its implementation.

The various concerns included:

1. Indirect tax like GST is regressive in that the poor and the rich pay similar rate of tax on similar items, even basic necessities;
2. Based on the past experience of other countries, GST will usually lead to higher inflation;
3. Income disparity among Malaysians is still very great — less than 20% working Malaysians earn more than the threshold to have to pay income tax. When income tax rates are reduced subsequent to the imposition of GST, only those rich ones can benefit from such tax rate reduction.
4. High cost of compliance by the businesses will affect their competitiveness. They will invariably pass the cost to consumers, causing higher inflation;
5. High cost of administration and enforcement of GST  by the government may not help reduce its budget deficit;
6. Malaysians are concerned about the tendency of GST rates increase. Singapore started with 3% and has since increased to 7%, an increase of 130%. Certain European countries kept increasing the GST rate to the current rate of 25%.
7. The fraud and refund mechanism has led to substantial loss and leakage even among the advanced nations. The UK suffered a loss of about £11.9 billion (RM59.2 billion) in one year. The US government did two studies on the possibility of introducing GST in 2004 and 2008 and had so far not decided on adopting GST. 
8. The refund mechanism is a fertile source of fraud, as the source document is only the invoice of a company. As more frauds are detected, increased levels of checking will make it impossible for Customs to adhere to the 14 day refund timeline, thereby affecting competitiveness
9. Both the export and SME sectors will likely be affected due to high cost of compliance and loss of competitiveness

The government will certainly do an in-depth study, perhaps at a special lab to devise measures to deal with the aforesaid concerns.

Datuk OK Lee is the northern branch chairman of the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers.

Monday, May 9, 2011

A less gilded future?

Sourced from the Economist-


TWO years ago Howrey was one of the world’s 100 biggest law firms by revenue, with nearly 700 lawyers in eight countries. Profits exceeded $1m per partner. The American firm, which specialised in intellectual-property suits, had had several spectacular years in a row. But in 2009 profits were much less than expected and angry partners began to leave. Defections continued during the recession. After failed merger talks, Howrey shut its doors this March.
Though Howrey was the only big firm to collapse, the forces that destroyed it hit the whole profession hard. Work on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) dried up and nothing similarly profitable took its place (bankruptcy, securities litigation and regulation were rare bright spots). Clients became keener to query their bills—and to demand alternatives to the convention of charging by the hour, such as flat, capped or contingent fees. Small and innovative firms began obliging them, and big firms increasingly felt forced to follow suit.
All this took a toll on the labour market. After a dozen years of growth, employment in America’s law industry, the world’s biggest, has declined for the past three years (see chart 1). The 250 biggest firms, according to an annual survey by the National Law Journal, shed more than 9,500 lawyers in 2009 and 2010, nearly 8% of the total. Many also deferred hiring, leaving new graduates in a glutted market. Legal-process outsourcing firms, which do not advise clients but do routine work such as reviewing documents, put further downward pressure on the demand for their talents. The pain was felt in Britain, easily the biggest legal market after America, and other countries too.
But not all the trends that have hit the legal industry are cyclical. Some are here to stay even as the economy recovers. One is clients’ determination to keep their bills down. Feeling that they had overpaid vastly for the work of green trainees, they began refusing to have routine work billed to first- and second-year associates (ie, lawyers who are not yet partners). They see no reason to stand for it again. And alternative fee arrangements continue to grow in importance, albeit slowly: they accounted for 16% of big firms’ revenue in 2010.Lawyers would like to believe that the worst is over and that no more of them will suffer Howrey’s fate. Work on M&A and initial public offerings has recovered from dismal levels. And according to American Lawyer, profit per partner at America’s 100 biggest firms rose by 8.4% last year, having fallen by 4.3% in 2008 and gone up by a measly 0.3% in 2009.