TAX EVASION 2016002

IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

29 Aug 2016: Kay Lee Roast Meat Joint – Husband & Wife Convicted of Tax Evasion

Business Under-Declared more than $325,000 in Sales
Ha Wai Kay (“Ha”), 64, the sole-proprietor of Kay Lee Roast Meat Joint (琪利珠江烧腊), has been convicted of evading income taxes amounting to $54,917.15 for Years of Assessment (“YA”) 2010 and 2011. Kong Kuee Chin (“Kong”), 69, Ha’s wife, was also convicted of assisting Ha to evade taxes.

Husband and Wife Provided False Information to Their Accountant for Submission

Ha was the sole-proprietor of Kay Lee Roast Meat Joint (“Kay Lee”), and Kong, Ha’s wife, was the sole-proprietor of Wan Tat Eating House (“Wan Tat”). Kong, who was in charge of recording the sales amounts, would manually record the daily cash collections and expenditures for both Kay Lee and Wan Tat into her diary, and provide a total monthly sales income for both businesses in one lump sum, on slips of paper, to their accountant who assisted in the preparation of their statement of accounts and their income tax returns.

For YA2010 and YA2011 (calendar years 2009 and 2010 respectively), Kong would provide their accountant with Wan Tat’s estimated monthly sales, from which their accountant would deduct from the lump sum figure to derive Kay Lee’s annual sales income figure for the relevant YA. Their accountant would then explain the figures to be submitted to Ha and Kong, and upon Ha’s agreement, submit the income tax returns to IRAS.

Investigations revealed that for YA2010, Kong had knowingly provided Kay Lee’s total sales income as $531,924 to their accountant, when the actual sales income was $693,839. Similarly, for YA2011, Kong had knowingly provided Kay Lee’s total sales income as $665,413 when the actual sales income was $829,335. Ha had under-declared his income by $161,915 in YA2010 and $163,922 in YA2011 and was undercharged for income tax by a total of $54,917.15 for the 2 years of assessment ($26,017.78 for YA2010 and $28,899.37 for YA2011).

In knowingly providing false sales income figures to the accountant, Kong intentionally assisted Ha to evade taxes. Ha, in approving Kay Lee’ erroneous accounts and his income tax returns before their submission, when he was aware that Kong had provided false sales income figures, made false statements in his income tax returns as he had declared that Kay Lee’s sales income figures for YA2010 and YA2011 were true, correct and complete.

Taxpayers are required to declare that the information in his/her income and claim for deductions and reliefs given in income tax returns are true, correct and complete; and they are ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns.

Court Sentences

Ha was found guilty and convicted of wilful intent to evade taxes amounting to $54,917.15, making false statements by approving submission of his income tax returns for YA2010 and YA2011 that under-declared his income earned from Kay Lee. The Court sentenced Ha to 4 weeks’ jail and ordered him to pay a penalty of $164,751.45, three times the amount of tax evaded. Kong was also found guilty and convicted of assisting Ha to evade taxes. The Court also sentenced Kong to 4 weeks’ jail and ordered her to pay a penalty of $164,751.45, three times the amount of tax evaded, for assisting in tax evasion. The total amount of penalty ordered for both Ha and Kong is $329,502.90.

Two further charges of income tax evasion were taken into consideration for Ha and Kong respectively. Ha and Kong have pleaded guilty and made full payment of the income tax evaded.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

TAX EVASION 2016001

IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

9 Dec 2015: Lawyer Convicted and Jailed for Tax Evasion

Ong Cheong Wei, 51, a practising lawyer and former sole-proprietor of law firm Ong Cheong Wei & Co (“OCWC”), was sentenced to 4 weeks in jail for wilfully omitting $306,305.00 in his Income Tax Returns for Years of Assessment (“YAs”) 2007 and 2008, thereby evading income tax amounting to $39,447.26. He was also ordered to pay a penalty of $118,341.78, three times the amount of tax evaded.
Failure to keep proper records and declare income based on actual earnings
Ong Cheong Wei was the sole-proprietor of OCWC from November 2000 to March 2014. He is currently practising as a sole-proprietor in Ong Cheong Wei Law Chambers.

Investigations revealed that Ong Cheong Wei did not prepare or maintain any general ledger or accounts for OCWC. For YAs 2007 and 2008, Ong Cheong Wei filed his tax returns (Form B1) based on an estimation of his income, knowing that the actual amount earned was more than the estimated amount. His estimation was based on the assumption of a net monthly income of about $4,000 per month.

Ong Cheong Wei pleaded guilty to two charges of tax evasion, with a further two charges for making false entries in his Income Tax Returns being taken into consideration for sentencing. The Court sentenced him to 4 weeks’ jail and ordered him to pay a penalty of $118,341.78.
penalty of four times the amount of tax evaded, and a fine of up to $50,000, or a jail term of up to five years, or both.

11 Feb 2016: Boss of Social Escort Agency Jailed for Tax Evasion and PIC Fraud

Chew Tiong Wei, 38, a sole-proprietor of a social escort business, has been convicted of tax evasion and PIC fraud.
Investigations by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have led to the prosecution of Chew Tiong Wei for both vice-related and tax-related offences. He pleaded guilty on 7 Dec 2015 to two charges of wilfully omitting income of $275,685 in his Income Tax Returns for Years of Assessment (“YAs”) 2012 and 2013, thereby evading $26,964.65 in income tax. He also pleaded guilty to one charge of submitting false information in order to obtain a Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) cash payout and PIC bonus of $24,000.

Facts of the Case
Chew Tiong Wei, who operated the social escort agency involving underage escorts, was first arrested by the SPF for vice-related offences in Dec 2014. He was subsequently found to have evaded income tax by under-declaring his income from his online escort business for Years of Assessment (YA) 2012 and 2013.
Investigations revealed that Chew Tiong Wei had kept proper business earnings records. However, he had with wilful intent to evade tax, made false entries in his Income Tax Returns. He used fictitious figures to report his income and this resulted in under-declaration of $275,685 of business income for two years, with $26,964.65 of tax undercharged.

Chew Tiong Wei had also submitted a PIC cash payout application for the purchase of a Customers Relationship Management System by giving false information to meet the qualifying conditions for the cash payout.
IRAS’ investigations revealed that the business did not fulfil the condition of employing three local employees – the three persons named as his employees were in fact his father, mother, and wife who had never worked for his business. To make his claim appear legitimate, he made CPF contributions to their CPF accounts.
Court Sentences
Chew Tiong Wei was sentenced to 6 months’ jail for each charge of tax evasion, and was ordered to pay a total penalty of $80,893.95, three times the amount of tax evaded.
He was also ordered by the Court to pay a penalty of $72,000, three times the PIC cash payout of $24,000 that he had wrongfully obtained, and sentenced to 6 months’ jail.

12 Feb 2016: Jail Term for Schemer for Forging and Using Counterfeit Stamp Certificates

Sim Tee Peng (“Sim”), 39 years old, was convicted in court for one charge of counterfeiting a stamp certificate and two charges of forging and using another two counterfeit stamp certificates for property transactions.  Through his use of the counterfeit stamp certificates and his representations to various buyers and their agents, he collected close to $100,000 of stamp duties without accounting these monies to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties.
Sim was sentenced to 12 weeks’ jail for his offences under the Stamp Duties Act, which runs consecutively with the sentences for his other charges under the Penal Code, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, the Legal Profession Act, and the Road Traffic Act. He was sentenced to seven years and five months’ jail for the charges in total.

Scheme Discovered by IRAS’ Forensics

Sim’s scheme was first discovered when the buyer for one of the property transactions presented to IRAS a stamp certificate forged by Sim. IRAS used its forensic tools in its investigations and discovered that Sim had created three counterfeit stamp certificates for the sale and purchase of three properties – 183 Tanjong Rhu Road, 77 Indus Road and 92 Punggol Drive.
Sim was helping out at a law firm which handled conveyancing transactions from June 2011 to February 2012 when he had used genuine stamp certificates that were supposed to be for other properties to create the counterfeit stamp certificates.

Crime to Forge and Use Counterfeit Stamp Certificates

Stamp duty is paid on documents or agreements relating to properties. These include tenancy or lease agreements, options to purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. A stamp certificate is issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty relating to the document or agreement has been paid. Each stamp certificate will be printed with a Unique Document Reference Number.
IRAS takes a very serious view of any individual or business that deliberately forges stamp certificates and knowingly misrepresents counterfeit “certificates” as genuine. Such persons shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. website.

17 Feb 2016: Website Operator Convicted of Tax Evasion

Chue Chia Yong (徐 嘉 嵘), who operated a website to advertise sexual services, was convicted in Court today. Chue Chia Yong had wilfully omitted from his individual income tax return for the Year of Assessment (“YA”) 2014, the trade income of $90,317.38 that he earned from operating the website, thereby evading total income tax of $6,739.10. For making a false entry in his tax return, Chue Chia Yong was sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of $20,217.30, three times the amount of income tax evaded. In default of payment of the penalty, Chue Chia Yong would have to serve an additional jail sentence of 5 weeks.

Sole-Proprietor Collected Online Advertising Fees

Chue Chia Yong started operating a website known as “sgsexcapades.net” in late 2012. The website was used to post online advertisements of sexual services. Chue Chia Yong collected monthly advertising fees of $300 from each customer, and this was subsequently increased to $400 from mid-2014.

IRAS’ investigations revealed that he had with wilful intent to evade tax declared a net trade income of only $60,000 for YA 2014 when his net trade income earned in YA 2014, after the deduction of business expenses, was $150,317.38. The allowable business expenses incurred included the web-hosting fees and online advertising fees that Chue Chia Yong paid to several online forum platforms.

IRAS Warns Against Tax Evasion

IRAS works closely with other law enforcement agencies and participates in multi-agency task forces to fight against serious tax crimes. The authority will not hesitate

TAX EVASION 2015011

IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Partnership tax and GST evasion

29 Aug 2014: Managing Partner Guilty of Tax Evasion, Sentenced to Jail

Mdm Chua Guat, former managing partner of a business in wholesale trade of general hardware, pleaded guilty to two charges of making false entries in her individual income tax returns for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2005 and 2006. She was sentenced to ten days imprisonment per charge, which she will serve concurrently, and ordered to pay back taxes and penalties of $236,420.12. In default of paying the penalty of $177,315.09, which is three times the amount of income tax evaded, Chua Guat would have to serve an additional six months of jail term. Chua Guat also committed other income tax and GST offences which were compounded by IRAS. As a result, she had to pay $110,745.17 in back taxes and $437,098.89 in penalties for
these tax offences.

Deliberate Scheme to Evade Tax: Information provided by an anonymous informant helped IRAS in uncovering this case. IRAS’ investigations revealed that Chua Guat underreported her income in her YA2005 and YA2006 individual income tax returns by $161,030 and $160,650 respectively. At the time of offence, Chua Guat, as the principal partner of Chuan Kok Trading Co (“CKTC”), was responsible for the financial matters of the business, including the maintenance of accounts and submission of the partnership’s income tax returns.

For both Years of Assessment, Chua Guat had engaged an accounting firm to prepare CKTC’s statement of accounts and income tax returns. Although Chua Guat had full knowledge of the business activities and kept detailed records of the Partnership’s sales in CKTC’s “2004 and 2005 Sales Books”, she deliberately omitted some of the sales when passing CKTC’s accounts to the accounting firm for their preparation of CKTC’s statement of accounts and
income tax returns.

By failing to declare CKTC’s sales in full and declaring only partial amounts in the partnership’s statement of accounts and tax returns to IRAS, CKTC’s income was understated by $483,091 and $481,950 in YA 2005 and YA 2006 respectively. This in turn reduced Chua Guat’s share of divisible profit from the partnership and she wilfully declared only these lower amounts of income in her individual income tax returns.

Tax Offences by Other Partners of CKTC: Chua Guat’s other two partners, while not involved in the operations and preparations of accounts for CKTC, also under-reported their share of partnership income in their individual income tax returns. Their offences were compounded by IRAS and they had to pay a total of $253,298.97 in back taxes and $257,160.61 in penalties. Other Income Tax Offences Committed by Chua Guat. During the investigation, IRAS also uncovered other income tax offences committed by CKTC. Chua Guat inflated business expenses in the accounts of CKTC so as to claim more tax deductions than CKTC was entitled to. This also resulted in Chua Guat under-reporting her share of partnership income by another $278,087 and she had to pay $220,776.90 in additional taxes and penalties.

GST Offences by Chua Guat: As a GST-registered business, CKTC was required to file GST returns but due to Chua Guat’s omission of CKTC’s sales, she consequently failed to report the GST output tax for the omitted sales of CKTC. For this offence, Chua Guat had to pay $327,067.16 in penal tax and the GST that has not been accounted for. For all the tax offences that Chua Guat has committed, she had to pay a total of $784,264.18 in taxes and penalties.

IRAS Takes a Serious View of Tax Evaders: IRAS takes a serious view of taxpayers who do not comply with the need to submit proper income tax returns or have a wilful intent to evade tax. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. The authority will not hesitate to bring offenders to court. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Corporate tax and GST evasion

21 Nov 2014: Roasted meat wholesale company convicted of tax evasion

Xing Wang Ji Roasted Meat Wholesale Pte Ltd (“Xing Wang Ji”) was convicted in Court today for failing to declare sales income amounting to approximately $3.5 million in its Income Tax Returns for Years of Assessment (“YAs”) 2005 to 2007, and for understating output tax totalling more than $220,000 in its GST returns. One of its directors, Peh Tian Poh (⽩添宝), was also convicted of assisting Xing Wang Ji to evade tax.

The court ordered Xing Wang Ji to pay a fine of $42,000. Peh Tian Poh was sentenced to 6 weeks’ jail and ordered to pay a total of $354,961.76 in taxes and penalty. Company Collaborated with Customers Who Wished to Avoid Paying GST

Xing Wang Ji was a GST-registered business in the supply of roasted and barbecued meats. It had to charge and account for GST on the supply of its products. However, Xing Wang Ji allowed customers who had specifically expressed their intention not to pay GST, to avoid GST payment on their purchases.

Investigations revealed that Xing Wang Ji had issued two types of sales invoices – standard sales invoices as well as non-standard sales invoices. The latter omitted essential particulars such as the company name and address, GSTregistration number as well as the amount of GST collected. The non-standard sales invoices were issued when Xing Wang Ji’s customers expressed that they did not wish to pay GST for their purchases. These sales were recorded separately in exercise books, which were discovered during investigations. Only partial sales records (excluding the sales evidenced by the nonstandard sales invoices) were handed to Xing Wang Ji’s part-time bookkeeper for the preparation of accounts to be submitted to IRAS.

Peh Tian Poh, who was responsible for issuing some of the non-standard invoices to Xing Wang Ji’s customers, was involved in making records of sales transactions in the exercise books, mainly during the Chinese New Year period and the Chinese Seventh Lunar Month Festival. He was one of the directors who omitted the non-standard invoices when giving the sales records to the part-time bookkeeper. IRAS is reviewing the appropriate action to be taken against the other director who was involved in the tax evasion.

Evasion of Income Tax and GST Consequently, Xing Wang Ji failed to report the correct income earned from the sales of roasted and barbecued meats in its Income Tax Returns for YAs 2005 to 2007. This resulted in under-reporting of income totalling approximately $3.5 million for Xing Wang Ji and correspondingly, income tax undercharged of $110,600 for the three YAs.

As a result of the deliberate omission of information submitted to the part-time bookkeeper, Xing Wang Ji failed to correctly report output tax for the omitted sales of Xing Wang Ji. GSTregistered businesses can offset the GST they pay for their purchases (input tax) against the GST they collect from sales (output tax) and pay the net difference to IRAS. In this case, Xing Wang Ji had understated the output tax due by $223,335.13, and the resultant amount of GST undercharged was $152,901.97.

TAX EVASION 2015012

IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Partnership tax and GST evasion

14 Jun 2013: IRAS Audits Uncover Tax Cheats Leading to 2 Weeks Jail

Two partners caught for income tax and GST offences were ordered to pay back taxes and penalties of over $2.3 million. One of them was jailed for two weeks.

Teo Chwee Guan, the 55-year-old partner of Chwee Guan Joss Paper Sticks & Candles Trading Co. (“CGJ”) pleaded guilty to two charges of under-reporting his share of the partnership’s profits in his income tax returns for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2009 and 2010.

Teo was sentenced to two weeks’ jail and was also ordered by the court to pay penalties of $135,727.74. This is three times the amount of income tax he had evaded. In default of the penalties, Teo would have to serve an additional four months of jail term.

Other than the above, Teo has to pay a further $215,438.67 as penalties for other income tax offences compounded by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). His partner in CGJ, who similarly under-reported his share of the partnership’s profit, had his offences compounded for
$347,654.55 – three times the amount of income tax evaded. The 32-year-old partnership is also guilty of GST fraud. GST-registered businesses can offset the GST they pay on purchases (input tax) against the GST they collect from sales (output tax) and pay the net difference to IRAS.
However, over nine years, CGJ understated its output tax amounting to $357,615.73. For this GST offence, IRAS has imposed penalties of $1,072,847.19 on the partnership, three times the amount of output tax understated. For all these offences, the two partners have to pay back income
tax and GST of $590,556.05 and penalties of $1,771,668.15, totalling more than $2.3 million. Partnership Understated its Profits and Output Tax: IRAS’ investigations revealed that CGJ had understated its profits for YA 2009 and 2010 by $70,372.08 and $434,635.95 respectively. CGJ
kept accounts of these figures in six record books and classified them as “Special Sales” and “Special Purchases”. Teo deliberately omitted them from the CGJ’s statement of accounts for YA2009 and YA2010. Correspondingly, he and his partner under-reported their share of partnership profit in
their income tax returns for these two years.

The GST offence was uncovered by IRAS’ regular audits conducted on businesses. Using data analytics, IRAS has the capability to detect, identify and prosecute business owners who omit paying their income taxes or who underdeclare their GST output tax.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax
returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Sole proprietorship tax evasion

12 Apr 2013: Sole-proprietor jailed for omitting business income from his tax returns

For omitting his business income from his income tax returns, Kong Kim Soon 59, was sentenced to 6 months’ jail and ordered to pay a penalty of
$563,537.88. Kong, who was the sole-proprietor of Catalyst Technologies (‘Catalyst’), pleaded guilty to three charges of omitting business income from his income tax returns with the wilful intent to evade tax. Three remaining charges were taken into consideration for sentencing. In default of payment of the penalty, Kong would have to serve an additional 6 months’ jail sentence.

Catalyst was in the business of selling plastic components primarily used in the consumer electronics industry.

Failure to declare business income:

All individuals must declare in their annual individual income tax returns all sources of income. This includes all income that they derive from carrying on a business or a trade as sole-proprietors. Their business or trade income will be added to all other personal income which they have derived and the total income is subject to tax at progressive personal income tax rates.

IRAS’ investigations revealed that Kong had omitted business income as the sole-proprietor of Catalyst from his income tax returns for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2006 to 2008, with the wilful intent to evade tax. The total sum of omitted business income over three years amounted to $1,034,984.35. This had resulted in Kong being undercharged a total of $187,845.96 in taxes for the YAs 2006 to 2008.

Kong was aware that Catalyst had been making profits in the said YAs but he had failed to declare the profits from Catalyst in his income tax returns.

The omissions were uncovered as a result of regular Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) audits conducted on businesses. Using data analytics, IRAS identifies businesses that pose greater compliance risks for audit.

TAX EVASION 2015013
IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Sole proprietorship and GST evasion

26 May 2011: Specialist eye consultant and surgeon convicted for tax evasion

Doctor Chiang Currie, 55, a specialist eye consultant and eye surgeon was jailed for six months and ordered to pay a penalty of $117,888.30 for under-declaring income tax amounting to $149,591.00 in her tax returns for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2006 and 2007. Doctor Chiang was convicted for one charge under Section 96A and one charge under Section 96 of the Income Tax Act. A third charge was withdrawn and compounded.

Section 96A was enacted in 2003 to deter serious tax evasion such as preparation or maintenance of false books of accounts or other records. A person convicted under this section may be liable to pay a penalty of four times the amount of tax evaded, and a fine of up to $50,000 or a jail term of up to five years or both.

Doctor Chiang owns and operates International Eye Clinic (“IEC”), and keeps records of the business operations using a computer program. Investigations revealed that she instructed her staff to download the actual income records of IEC onto a portable hard-disk daily, and would delete some payment records of her patients from the hard-disk, in particular those that were transacted in cash terms. The file with the incomplete payment records were then uploaded onto the office’s desktop computer. She based her tax reporting on the incomplete payment records and consequently under-declared her business income for 2006 and 2007. For the two charges, the total tax evaded amounted to $29,529.30.

Businesses must keep records to support declarations: IRAS would like to remind all businesses to keep proper records and accounts of all their transactions. Businesses must keep their records up-to-date and ensure that the records support their income tax and/or GST declarations.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Sole proprietorship tax evasion

6 May 2011: Sole proprietor jailed for under-reporting profits

Mr Ng Choon Tat Henry (“Ng”), 54, was jailed for 3 weeks and ordered to pay a penalty of $941,169.96, three times the taxes evaded, for under-reporting profits of Full Skil Wire Cut Services (FSWC) amounting to $1,457,059 for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2000 to 2002. In default of payment, he would be sentenced to 4 months’ jail.

FSWC was in the business of designing and manufacturing of tools, dies and moulds as well as metal stamping. Ng was the sole proprietor of FSWC from 1 April 1994 to 20 July 2004.

Investigations revealed that Ng had deliberately underreported his income in his income tax returns for YA 2000, 2001 and 2002 by overstating the cost of sales so as to reduce the net profits of his business. Ng pleaded guilty to two charges of tax evasion. As Ng was cooperative during the investigation, the third charge was taken into consideration in sentencing. The total tax evaded for the two charges amounted to $313,723.32.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Corporate tax evasion

3 Aug 2012: Company pays penalty of a quarter million for tax evasion

Positive Engineering Pte Ltd (宝利⼯程私⼈有限公司, “PEPL”), a company that specialises in fabricating and installing aluminium panels and fire-rated doors as well as non-building construction services, was convicted of tax evasion for Years of Assessment (YA) 2008 and 2009. PEPL was ordered to pay a fine of $12,000 and a penalty of $250,990.92, three times the total amount of tax evaded.

Company did not report Income to evade Tax: In the course of its business, PEPL sold scrap materials to a scrap dealer from 2007 to 2008. Investigations revealed that over these two years, PEPL had neither kept records nor issued sales invoices to the scrap dealer for these transactions. Some of the sales proceeds were not deposited into PEPL’s bank account but either kept by Madam Ng Chan Kheng, one of the company directors, or deposited into her personal bank account held jointly with another director.

Subsequently, PEPL failed to report the income earned from the sale of the scrap materials in its audited accounts and Income Tax Returns for YA 2008 to 2009. This resulted in under-reporting of income totalling $464,798 for PEPL and correspondingly, tax undercharged of $83,663.64 for both YAs.

Businesses Should Keep Proper Records: IRAS would like to remind all businesses to keep proper records and accounts of all their transactions to support their income tax declarations. This includes issuing serially numbered sales invoices for the goods or services provided by them, as well as ensuring that all earnings are accurately reflected in the accounts and duly reported in their Income Tax Returns.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion. Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Sole proprietorship tax evasion

22 Nov 2012: Remisier Convicted for Tax Evasion For under-reporting her income to IRAS, Ms Teo Joo Hiang (“Teo”), 52, a remisier, was sentenced to 1 week’s jail. She also had to pay a penalty of $192,926.76, three times the amount of tax evaded. Teo was unable to pay the penalty and would serve an additional 5 months and 2 weeks’ jail. Two other charges were withdrawn and compounded for a sum of $ 93,380.13.

This is the first case where a remisier has been charged under the Income Tax Act for tax evasion.

False Entries in income Tax Returns over Two Years: Teo pleaded guilty to two charges of making false entries in her income tax returns for the Years of Assessment (YA) 2009 and 2010. IRAS’ investigation revealed that she had declared brokerage income of $417,084, a sum significantly lower than the $945,474 brokerage income she earned from Phillip Securities Pte Ltd. Teo had evaded a sum of $64,308.92 in taxes.

Tax Reporting for Remisiers:

IRAS wishes to remind all remisiers that they should include all income such as brokerage income, performance bonus and bad debts recovered in their tax returns. They should only claim for tax deductions in respect of expenses that are incurred wholly and exclusively to produce their income. These may include bad debts that are written off, entertainment expenses etc. Claims for such expenses must be supported by invoices and receipts or other relevant documents. Remisiers may wish to refer to the common filing mistakes made by remisiers.

Avoid Costly Tax Mistakes:

IRAS recognises that some companies and individuals make mistakes in their tax reporting because they are negligent or unaware of their tax obligations. IRAS views such mistakes differently from tax evasion. In the spirit of encouraging voluntary compliance, IRAS imposes lower penalties for such mistakes disclosed voluntarily by taxpayers.

pliance risks for audit.

TAX EVASION 2015014
IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Corporate tax evasion

4 March 2011: Second Company Convicted of Abusing Tax Exemption Scheme

Global Marine Boiler and Engineering Pte Ltd (GMBE) was convicted of tax evasion for under-reporting profits amounting to $780,152 for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2008. GMBE was ordered to pay a penalty of $421,282.08 and a fine of $8,000. GMBE supplies, manufactures and repairs marine equipment and engines. It is the second company to be convicted in court for evading tax through abuse of tax exemption scheme for new start-ups under section 43(6A) of the Income Tax Act. In Oct 2009, Steel Forming & Rolling Specialists Pte Ltd (SFRS) became the first company to be convicted for abusing the tax exemption scheme.

Investigations revealed that GMBE set up 4 shell companies in Dec 2006 for purpose of abusing the tax exemption scheme for new start-ups. The 4 companies had no employees except for the directors themselves. There was no work or services performed by the 4 companies for GMBE. Nevertheless, GMBE included fictitious expenses amounting to $780,152 in its audited statements of accounts for the year 2007, purportedly as management fees, commission, labour and service charges paid to the 4 shell companies.

Although the 4 companies had reported their income based on the fees purportedly charged to them, each company paid a negligible amount of tax. This is because the first $100,000 of their chargeable income was exempted from tax under the tax exemption scheme. Through setting up 4 shell companies and including fictitious expenses in its accounts, GMBE had artificially lowered its profits by $780,152 and evaded income tax of $140,427 for the YA 2008.

IRAS has detected cases where shell companies have been used to take advantage of the tax exemption scheme for new start-ups. These companies have no business activities and have few or no employees. Their accounts usually show relatively few transactions and low capitalisation.

The abuse of the tax exemption generally takes the following forms:

  1. Allocating the income of a profitable company to a few shell companies.
  2. Charging fees or expenses to an existing profitable business without any bona fide commercial reasons.

The effect of these forms of arrangement is an overall reduction of tax for the profitable company and the shell companies

25 June 2010: Company operating dormitories and managing foreign workers convicted for tax evasion
Mini Environment Service Pte Ltd (“MES”), which operates dormitories and manages foreign workers, has been found
guilty of tax evasion. It has pleaded guilty to three charges and has been ordered to pay a fine of $12,000 and penalty
totalling $256,585.95. The penalty is three times the amount of tax undercharged of $85,528.65.

Investigations revealed that MES had included fictitious expenses amounting to $371,684 in its statements of
accounts for 2001 and 2002. These comprised sub-contract fees purportedly charged by various sub-contractors when no work or services were performed by the companies for MES.

MES consequently claimed false tax deductions on the basis of these fictitious fees and under-reported its profits by
the same amount of $371,684 in its income tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2002 and 2003.

MES was brought to court for 12 charges of preparing false statements of accounts and under-reporting its income for
the Years of Assessment 2002 and 2003. The Comptroller proceeded on three charges and agreed to withdraw and compound the remaining nine charges for $1,095,646.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Individual tax evasion

12 Oct 2010: Businessman jailed for omission of rental income

Mr Goh Ah Bah, a 52-year old businessman, was found guilty of omitting to declare his rental income in his income tax returns for Year of Assessment 2005, which amounted to $139,040.38. He was sentenced to 1 week’s jail and ordered to pay a penalty of $74,065.80 after pleading guilty to one charge. In default of payment, he would be sentenced to 3 months’ jail.

Mr Goh owns a number of properties including HDB shop-houses. He had deliberately not declared the rental income he received from these properties in his income tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2000 to 2006. He has committed seven tax offences for omitting to declare rental income totaling $511,707.98. He pleaded guilty to one offence. The other six offences have been compounded by the Comptroller of Income Tax at 3 times the tax under-declared.

IRAS detects non-reporting of rental income through various means including reviewing tenancy records and property ownership records. Taxpayers should report the total rent from their property including the rent on furniture and fittings and service charges received from the tenant. Those who have not done so should report their rental income to IRAS immediately. More details on what to look out for when reporting rental income can be found at http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page.aspx?id=160.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Corporate tax evasion

26 Nov 2010: Finance Executive and Company Convicted of Tax Evasion

Mr Toh Joo Hock (51), the Finance Executive of T.E. Fasteners Pte. Ltd. (“TEFPL”), a business dealing in the wholesale, import and export of fasteners, was found guilty of assisting TEFPL to evade tax on income of $1,639,060 for the Years of Assessment 2006 to 2008. He was jailed 2 weeks and ordered to pay a penalty of $735,036.

Investigations revealed that Mr Toh Joo Hock had created fictitious entries in the accounts of TEFPL when there were no such business transactions by TEFPL. He also deliberately inflated the purchase amounts so as to under-report TEFPL’s net profit in its income tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2006 to 2008. TEFPL, for wilfully evading tax, was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to pay a fine of $6,000 for the first charge and $6,000 for the second charge. The company was also ordered to pay a penalty of $735,036. A third charge was taken into consideration in sentencing.

Businesses must keep records to support declarations:
IRAS would like to remind all businesses to keep proper records and accounts of all their transactions. Businesses must keep their records up-to-date and ensure that the records support their income tax and/or GST declarations.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

TAX EVASION 2015015
IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Stamp duty evasion

7 May 2014: Former legal secretary jailed six weeks for forging stamp certificates

Juliana bte Abu Bakar (“Juliana”), a former legal secretary, was sentenced to six weeks jail today. Juliana was found guilty of three charges of using counterfeit stamp certificates, and was sentenced to six weeks’ jail for each charge, with two of the sentences to run concurrently. Another two charges, one for using a counterfeit stamp certificate and another for counterfeiting a stamp certificate, were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

Forging Stamp Certificates and Misappropriating Stamp Duty:
Juliana was a conveyancing secretary with a law firm from June to 8 November 2012. Acting on a tip-off, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) investigated several property sale and purchase transactions handled by Juliana. Investigations revealed that Juliana forged three stamp certificates and handed them over as genuine stamp certificates to the banks offering mortgage loans for the transacted properties.

When processing property conveyance transactions, Juliana would ask the property buyers to hand over the amount of stamp duty in cheque with the payee’s details left blank, explaining that she would fill in the payee’s name later. When Juliana received the cheques from the buyers, she filled in her own name as the payee instead, and deposited these cheques into her personal bank account. She then used the unlawfullygained funds to pay off her personal debts and sometime later, she would pay the stamp duty that she had misappropriated and the late payment penalties to IRAS. Juliana was aware that once the banks approve the mortgage loan, the property conveyancing process would be complete. The buyers would not be aware that their money had not been used to pay the
stamp duty to IRAS on time as originally intended.

Crime to Use Counterfeit Stamp Certificates: Stamp duty is paid on documents or agreements relating to properties.
These include tenancy or lease agreements, options to purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. A stamp certificate is issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty relating to the document or agreement has been paid. IRAS takes a very serious view of any individual or business that deliberately forges stamp certificates and knowingly misrepresents counterfeit “certificates” as genuine. They may face penalties of up to $10,000 and/or up to three years’ imprisonment. Penalties of up to four times the stamp duty payable may also be imposed for late or non-stamping of documents.

Online Check on Stamp Certificate Authenticity: IRAS reminds potential property buyers and tenants to check the authenticity of the stamp certificates in their possession by visiting the e-Stamping website, https://estamping.iras.gov.sg (Stamp Duty Resource > Check Stamp Certificate Authenticity). An authentic stamp certificate should bear the full details of the stamp duty payment, description of the document, address of the property, stamp duty amount, and date of document. All these details should also match the information shown on the e-Stamping website.

If the stamp certificate appears dubious or incomplete, please contact IRAS to verify the authenticity of the stamp certificate

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

Stamp duty evasion

6 Sep 2013: Six weeks jail for property agent who forged stamp certificate

A property agent who pleaded guilty to using a counterfeit stamp certificate was sentenced to six weeks jail today. Formerly with the Dennis Wee Group and Prestige Realty Global Pte Ltd, Tang Yong Yeow Daniar (29 years old) was also convicted of cheating for his role in multiple rental scams.

Tenant Cheated of Her Rent and Stamp Duty: In July 2012, Tang offered to rent a property at 4 Rochor Road to a tenant as part of a rental scam. Tang then collected $3,520 in advance from his prospective tenant, including $120 purportedly for the stamp duty on the rental agreement.

The prospective tenant requested the stamp certificate from Tang when the handing over of the property did not take place as scheduled. Using a genuine stamp certificate obtained from a previous property transaction, Tang forged the stamp certificate by altering property details such as the address, name of the landlord and tenant, stamp duty amount, stamp certificate issued date, and date of document. The counterfeit stamp certificate was then given to the
tenant.

Realising that she had fallen for a rental scam when the property failed to be handed over a second time, the tenant lodged reports with the Police and Council for Estate Agencies.

21 Jan 2013: Property Agent Jailed 12 Weeks for Using Fake Stamp Certificates

Sng Chin Lee (43 years old), a property agent, was jailed 12 weeks today after he pleaded guilty to four charges involving the use of counterfeit stamp certificates in the property rental transactions that he had handled. Another two charges, one for using a counterfeit stamp certificate and another for counterfeiting a stamp certificate, were taken into consideration for sentencing.

This is the third case where a property agent has been charged under the Stamp Duties Act for passing counterfeit stamp “certificates” off as genuine. Stamp duty is a tax payable on documents or agreements relating to properties, such as tenancy or lease agreements, option to purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. Upon payment of stamp duty, a stamp certificate will be issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty has been paid relating to the document or agreement.

Between July to Oct 2011, Sng collected amounts meant for stamp duty payments from the tenants for most of the transactions he handled. He kept the money for his personal use instead of paying over the amount to IRAS. Our investigation found that Sng created the counterfeit stamp “certificates” by copying and amending a genuine stamp certificate obtained from a previous property transaction he had handled. Subsequently, he used five of the counterfeit stamp “certificates” by presenting them to the property agents or landlord. They were unaware that the stamp “certificates” they received from Sng were fake. The sixth counterfeit stamp certificate was found in his
Personal Computer

TAX EVASION 2015016
IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Stamp duty evasion

18 Jan 2013: Property Agent Jailed Two Weeks for Using Fake Stamp Certificates

Koh Siew Buay (50 years old), a property agent, was jailed two weeks today after she pleaded guilty to three charges involving the use of counterfeit stamp certificates. Another charge was taken into consideration for sentencing. Koh used three counterfeit stamp “certificates” in the property rental transactions that she had handled, and her actions
resulted in her underpaying the Commissioner of Stamp Duties $532.00 in taxes.

This is the second case, in as many months, where a property agent has been charged under the Stamp Duties Act for
passing counterfeit stamp “certificates” off as genuine. Stamp duty is a tax payable on documents or agreements relating to properties, such as tenancy or lease agreements, Option To Purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. Upon payment of stamp duty, a stamp certificate will be issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty has been paid relating to the document or agreement.

Koh Siew Buay’s Crime Uncovered by IRAS’ Forensics: Between Jan to Jun 2011, Koh collected the full amount of stamp duty payable from the tenants for three rental transactions she handled but entered shorter rental periods and lower rental amounts into the e-Stamping system. Koh was then issued three stamp certificates based on the incorrect details she had submitted.

With these stamp certificates, Koh created three counterfeit stamp “certificates” that reflected the higher stamp duty amounts actually payable and presented them to the tenants of the properties, illegally pocketing the difference between what they had paid to her and what she had paid to IRAS. The tenants were unaware that the stamp “certificates” they received from Koh were fake or that their agent had understated the stamp duty payable to IRAS.

Although Koh initially denied that she had created and used the counterfeit stamp certificates, IRAS’ forensics team was able to successfully extract copies of the genuine and counterfeit stamp certificates from her computer. Faced
with the evidence, Koh eventually admitted to the offences. Tax Crimes Involving the use of Counterfeit Stamp Duty
Certificates

IRAS takes a very serious view of using counterfeit stamp duty “certificates”. In this case, Koh Siew Buay’s clients had
trusted her, a property agent, to pay the stamp duties they had handed her to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties.
Instead, she underpaid the Government the sum of $532 and pocketed the money for herself.

Any individual or business that deliberately counterfeits stamp certificates and knowingly misrepresents that such
counterfeit stamp “certificates” are genuine will have to face penalties of up to $10,000 and/or up to three years’
imprisonment. Stiff penalties of up to four times the stamp duty may also be imposed for late or non-stamping of
documents.

Online Check on Stamp Certificate Authenticity Members of the public can go to the e-Stamping website
https://estamping.iras.gov.sg (“Stamp Duty Resource” > “Check Stamp Certificate Authenticity”) to check on the
authenticity of the stamp certificates in their possession. If the stamp certificates are authentic, the full details of the
stamp duty payment, including the document description, property address, stamp duty amount and the date of
document will match those shown on the website. If no details can be found on the website, or if there are
discrepancies in the details, please contact IRAS to have the authenticity of the stamp certificate verified.

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

15 May 2012: Property Agent Jailed 12 weeks for Using Fake Stamp Certificates

Mr Desmond Tan Hock Heng (24 years old), a property agent, was jailed 12 weeks today after he pleaded guilty to five charges involving the use of counterfeit stamp certificates. Another three charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.

Desmond Tan cheated the Commissioner of Stamp Duties of $3,694.00 using eight counterfeit stamp “certificates” in seven property rental transactions. This is the first case where a property agent has been charged under the Stamp Duties Act for passing counterfeit stamp “certificates” off as genuine. Stamp duty is a tax payable on documents or
agreements relating to properties, such as tenancy or lease agreements, Option To Purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. Upon payment of stamp duty, a stamp certificate will be issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty has been paid relating to the particular document or agreement.

Deleted Counterfeit “Certificates” but Uncovered by IRAS’ Forensics: Desmond Tan was a property agent with the Dennis

Wee Group (DWG) in 2008. He joined the HSR Property Group (HSR) from 7 Jul 2010 to 14 Apr 2011.
He subsequently re-joined DWG on 19 Apr 2011 but left again in Aug 2011.

Using a genuine stamp certificate obtained from a previous property transaction he had handled in Jan 2011, Desmond Tan forged eight stamp certificates by altering property details such as the addresses, names of the landlords and tenants, stamp duty amounts, stamp certificate issued dates, and dates of documents.

He used these eight counterfeit stamp “certificates” for seven rental transactions that he handled by presenting
the counterfeit stamp “certificates” to the landlords, agents of the landlords and tenants of the properties. They were unaware that Desmond Tan had not stamped the tenancy agreements and that the stamp “certificates” they received were fake. In addition, the tenants were ignorant of the fact that Desmond Tan did not pay over to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties the stamp duties they had paid to him.

Although Desmond Tan deleted the original and counterfeit stamp certificates, we were able to leverage on our forensic capabilities and tools to successfully recover these “certificates” from his desktop computer and laptop.

Tax Crime Involving Non-Stamping or Stamp Duty Fraud:

IRAS takes a very serious view of non-stamping and stamp duty fraud. In this case, Desmond Tan’s clientshad trusted him, a property agent, to pay over their stamp duties to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties. Instead, he had not only let his clients down, he had defrauded the Government of taxes.

Any individual or business that deliberately counterfeits stamp certificates and knowingly misrepresents that such counterfeit stamp “certificates” are “genuine” will have to face penalties of up to $10,000 and/or up to three years’ imprisonment. Stiff penalties of up to four times the stamp duty may also be imposed for late or

It is a serious offence for tax evasion.Taxpayers are also ultimately responsible for the information declared in their income tax returns. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to
four times the amount of tax evaded. In certain situations, jail terms may also be imposed.

TAX EVASION 2015017
IRAS observation of tax evasion related offences

Corporate tax evasion using shell entity and falsified records

25 Sep 2015: Project Manager Used Shell Entity and Falsified Records to Evade Tax

Tang Lai Seng, 51, a former project manager of Yongsheng Engineering Pte Ltd, was sentenced to 7 months in jail for wilfully omitting $321,968 in his Income Tax Returns for Years of Assessment (“YAs”) 2011 and 2012, thereby evading $41,568.06 in income tax. He was also ordered to pay a penalty of $166,272.24, four times the amount of tax evaded. Shell Entity and Falsifying Records to Under-Declare Income Earned

Tang Lai Seng was employed as a project manager by Yongsheng Engineering Pte Ltd (“YEPL”) from May 2009 to February 2012. He was to receive a share of profits from a project in Sin Ming Drive (the “Sin Ming Drive Project”) as part of his remuneration.

In Aug 2010, Tang Lai Seng set up a sole proprietorship, TLS Enterprise, for the sole purpose of evading income tax on his share of the profits from the Sin Ming Drive Project. This was a shell entity without any business transactions.

IRAS’ investigation revealed that Tang Lai Seng had approached representatives from two construction entities, and entered into schemes with them to create fictitious contracts for non-existent construction services, to support claims by TLS Enterprise for expenses. TLS Enterprise would issue invoices to YEPL for sub-contracting works for his share of the profit in the Sin Ming Drive Project, and claim expenses for works allegedly carried out by two construction companies through 8 fictitious invoices over the Years of Assessment 2011 and 2012. As a result, Tang Lai Seng under-declared his income by $321,968, and the amount of tax undercharged was $41,568.06. Summary of Offences

Tang Lai Seng pleaded guilty to two charges under Section 96A for falsifying records resulting in tax evasion. Section 96A was enacted in 2003 to deter serious tax evasion such as preparation or maintenance of false books of accounts or other records. A person convicted under this section is liable to pay a penalty of four times the amount of tax evaded, and a fine of up to $50,000, or a jail term of up to five years, or both.

Corporate withholding tax evasion

4 Mar 2015: Event Promoter First to be Convicted of Failure to Declare and Pay Withholding Tax

LAMC Productions Pte Ltd (“LAMC”), a local promoter for concerts and entertainment-related events, was ordered by the Court to pay a penalty of $256,212 for failing to declare and pay tax of $85,404, which the company had withheld from the fees paid to non-resident public entertainers. The penalty is three times the tax amount. LAMC was also fined $25,000 by the Court. This is the first case where a company was prosecuted and convicted for such an offence.

LAMC Productions Withheld Tax But Failed to Declare and Pay IRAS

IRAS’ investigation revealed that LAMC engaged internationally renowned artistes such as Stereophonics, Pussycat Dolls, Lady Gaga, Keanne and Dionne Warwick to perform in Singapore in 2008 and 2009. After making payments to the non-resident public entertainers’ management companies and withholding tax of $85,404 on these payments, LAMC failed to declare and pay the withholding tax to IRAS.

IRAS Warns Against Tax Evasion

IRAS takes a serious view of non-compliance and tax evasion. There will be severe penalties for those who wilfully evade tax. Penalties for tax evasion can be up to four times the amount of tax evaded. Jail terms may also be imposed

Stamp duty & GST evasion

30 Nov 2015: Former Property Agent Jailed 5 Weeks for Using Counterfeit Stamp Certificate and Unlawful Collection of GST

A former property agent, Cheong Sai Chong (“Cheong”), was convicted for using a counterfeit stamp certificate in a property rental transaction and for issuing an invoice showing a Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount of $315 when he was not authorised to do so. He was sentenced to 5 weeks’ jail and ordered to pay a total penalty and fine of $2,145. IRAS’ Review Exercise Discovered the Counterfeit Stamp Certificate

Stamp duty is payable by the tenant on the lease or agreement for the lease of any immovable property. In Sept 2013, IRAS reviewed the compliance rate of stamp duty for tenancy agreements and found that the tenancy agreements for certain properties had not been stamped, and stamp duty had not been collected. Investigations revealed that Cheong, whose real estate licence had expired on 1 July 2012, had collected money from the tenant of a rental property to pay for the stamp duty. He then created a counterfeit stamped certificate and handed it to the tenant. Unlawful Collection of GST

Cheong was also paid an agent’s commission by the landlord for arranging the tenancy agreement for the said property. Although he was not authorised to collect GST, he charged GST and provided an invoice showing the GST amount on his commission fee. Cheong admitted that the invoice he created was a counterfeit of the invoice from Dennis Wee Realty Pte Ltd (of the Dennis Wee Group), which was authorised to collect GST.

Court Sentences

Cheong pleaded guilty to one charge of using counterfeit stamped certificate in a property rental transaction that he had arranged. He also pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful GST collection. The court sentenced Cheong to 5 weeks’ jail and was ordered to pay a penalty of $945, three times the amount of GST unlawfully collected, and a fine of $1,200.

Severe Penalties for Unlawful Collection of GST

It is a serious offence for businesses that are not GSTregistered to charge and collect GST from their customers. Offenders face a penalty of 3 times the amount of tax unlawfully collected, and a fine of up to $10,000 for each offence.

Crime to Use Counterfeit Stamp Certificates Stamp duty is paid on documents or agreements relating to properties. These include tenancy or lease agreements, options to purchase, and sale and purchase agreements. A stamp certificate is issued to certify that a certain amount of stamp duty relating to the document or agreement has been paid.

IRAS takes a very serious view of any individual or business that deliberately forges stamp certificates and knowingly misrepresents counterfeit “certificates” as genuine. They may face fines of up to $10,000 and/or up to three years’ imprisonment