SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Lee Woon Shiu and Cheung Kuan Swan (Catherine), DBS Private Bank
5. Anti-Avoidance and Anti-Evasion Measures 5.1 Definition and Identification of Tax Fraud, Evasion, Tax Avoidance and Abusive Schemes In Singapore, tax fraud and tax evasion are generally viewed as criminal offences involving the deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of facts to reduce tax liability. Tax fraud usually implies a higher degree of deception, while tax evasion refers more broadly to actions taken to illegally avoid paying taxes. These offences typically involve falsifying records, making false declarations, or omitting income. Here is how the tax-related terms are generally defined. • Tax evasion – unlawful conduct intended to avoid paying tax, typically involving the misrepresenta - tion or concealment of income or other relevant information. Such actions constitute a criminal offence under the ITA. • Tax fraud – a more serious form of tax evasion involving deliberate deception and criminal intent to obtain a financial advantage. • Tax avoidance – the lawful arrangement of financial affairs to minimise tax liability. Although law - ful, aggressive tax avoidance schemes that lack commercial substance and are primarily designed to secure tax benefits may be challenged by IRAS under general anti-avoidance provisions. • Abusive schemes/arrangements – tax planning strategies that exploit legislative loopholes to obtain tax advantages that are inconsistent with legislative intent and often lack genuine economic substance. Singapore’s ITA includes a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) under Section 33, which empowers IRAS to disregard, vary, or adjust arrangements that have been entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. Legal criteria and indicators for identifying abusive tax schemes or arrangements often include the following.
• Dominant purpose test – whether the arrange - ment’s dominant purpose is to obtain a tax benefit. • Artificiality of the arrangement – whether the arrangement lacks commercial substance or appears overly complex relative to its stated com - mercial objective. • Lack of economic substance – whether transac - tions generate tax benefits without corresponding genuine economic activity or risk. • Circular flow of funds – whether funds are routed through multiple entities without a clear business rationale. • Abuse of tax treaty provisions – using treaty ben - efits in a manner that is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty (treaty shopping). 5.2 Anti-Avoidance Mechanisms Singapore implements a comprehensive set of meas - ures to address tax avoidance and to strengthen tax compliance, including measures relevant to tax eva - sion and fraud. • General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), Section 33 of the Income Tax Act – this provision empowers IRAS to disregard or adjust arrangements entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit. • Specific anti-avoidance provisions – the Income Tax Act contains targeted rules addressing issues such as transfer pricing, related-party transactions and thin capitalisation. Although Singapore does not prescribe formal thin capitalisation rules, inter - est deductibility is subject to tests of commerciality and purpose, as well as transfer pricing rules. • Transfer pricing rules and documentation – Singa - pore maintains robust transfer pricing guidelines aligned with OECD standards, requiring related- party transactions to be conducted at arm’s length. Businesses are also required to prepare and main - tain appropriate transfer pricing documentation. • Exchange of information (EOI) – Singapore actively participates in international EOI mechanisms under its double taxation agreements and various multilateral arrangements, enabling the exchange of information with other tax jurisdictions to help detect non-compliance. • Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – Singapore
394 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook