Yoursay: BN comm's reply to Rafidah raises even more questions
YOURSAY | âEven if the donation is not taxable, interest earned is income, and thus taxable.â
Rafidah asks Inland Revenue if it taxed Najib's RM2.6b
SusahKes: An entity has to obtain tax-exempt status from the Inland Revenue Board (IRB), if it wishes to be exempted from paying tax. Otherwise, every Tom, Dick and Harry could claim that their income is a donation.
If itâs like that, I will also start a company and appoint my âabangâ, âadikâ, âibuâ, and âbapaâ to become directors. All income will be recorded as donations, and I will even substantiate it by providing receipts that state as such.
Former minister Rafidah Aziz has raised a pertinent point - did the IRB investigate Malaysian Official 1âs (MO1) claim that it was donation? Does he have a tax-exempt status?
What is the nature of the donation ? If it was political, then what independent paperwork that IRB could access to confirm thereof? Did they do that?
Anyone who has been tax investigated will agree just how wide IRBâs powers are; they could literally look for money under your pillow.
Kim Quek: Yes, the IRB is duty bound to ask PM Najib Razak to declare the source and nature of that sum in his bank account.
Since this is such an important public issue, the IRB director-general has to immediately issue a public statement clarifying whether it has done so. If not, why not.
Anonymous 494481459995345: Tax and incoming donation aside, shouldn't there be Bank Negara regulations and forms that need to be filled up for sending amounts above US$10,000 out of the country?
Bank Negara should be able to clear the air with a quick check on when and where the money was âreturnedâ to.
Ultimately: Our tax department isn't so s mart after all. Even if the donation is not taxable, interest earned is income and thus taxable.
At 1% per annum, RM2.6 billion will fetch RM26 million a year, or RM2.1 million a month. So each month, just by putting a donation that size in a bank earns me more than I can make in a lifetime.
No need tax, ah?
Hopelessly: Good questions by Rafidah, but useless at the same time. This RM2.6 billion case is living proof how corrupted the Malaysia law enforcement institutions had become.
IRB is just another. Just wait for their creatively stupid excuses on why Najib is exempted from paying income tax.
Yours and My Malaysia: If now donations are tax exempted, I also want my salary to be declared as a donation. Can or not, IRB?
Najib returned almost entire RM2.6b 'donation', BN strategic comms claims
Goldee: What kind of donation needs to be returned, unless it was a loan?
The caretaker PM said he had used the money for GE13 because the Saudi government wants to ensure BN holds on to power. He said he did not use it for himself and part of it was returned to the donor.
Now BN's strategic communications team (BNSC) claimed it was mostly returned, if not all, to the donor.
Doesnât this contradict what the caretaker PM said?
Cogito Ergo Sum: The crux of the matter is this: the money transferred to Najibâs account is said to be from an Arab donor. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that the money came from 1MDB.
Whether it is returned or not is not the issue here. The BNSC should have shown proof that the money came from the donor and prove the DOJ version is false.
Stop beating around the âexchange rateâ bush to distract the people from the core issue.
Hang Babeuf: Why did Najib take the RM2.6 billion in the first place? What w ere his intentions, what was his thinking at the time?
And then, when did he later return the money (or "most of it")? What did he hope to achieve, what were his intentions and fears at the time?
With bad excuses, things don't get any better. They are just made worse.
Oscar Kilo: More questions - if âthe monies were necessary to fund Umno's machineryâ then why did you (Najib) return the donation?
And why did you take five months to return the donation? Why not return it within one week?
Gerard Lourdesamy: The point is tax was not paid while the money was sitting in Najib's private bank account for months.
Secondly, the DOJ has comprehensively proved that the original source of the money was 1MDB and not some fictitious Saudi donor. Thirdly, why hasn't Najib sued the Wall Street Journal if the allegations are not true?
BNSC, answer these questions first rather than quibble about bank charges and the exchange rate.
Najib, in his explanation, said that a substantial portion was returned to the alleged donor but not the full amount. What did he do with the portion of money not returned?
LÃ©on Moch: Note the word "almost" used by BNSC here. That means some parts have been retained, does it not? If so, what is so wrong with Rafidah's question?
SoFunny: This is a straightforward transaction - 'A' transferred to 'N', 'N' transferred back to 'A'. Shut them up by showing them the transferred slip or slips. Itâs as easy as that.
Why keep on talking and defending? Unless, of course, the accusers are right that things are very wrong.
Anonymous 2460431488547967: Idiots, if the donation is in US dollars, why would Najib convert the full sum to almost useless ringgit, and reconvert it back to US dollars on the w ay out?
Stupid is what stupid want you to believe.
Not Convinced: April 31 is the deadline for all Malaysians to file their income tax declaration. IRB has said there is no need to pay taxes for âdonationsâ.
Thank you for the clarification, IRB. I can now keep my money.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.Source: Google News