MCST Nos 1298 & 1304 v Chief Assessor: Property Tax on Common Property in Shopping Centre
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan Nos 1298 and 1304 (MCST) appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Valuation Review Board, which had dismissed their appeal against the Chief Assessor and Comptroller of Property Tax's decision to include certain areas in the common property of Centrepoint Shopping Centre in the valuation list for property tax. The MCST argued that these areas, licensed for use by various parties, did not constitute taxable property under Section 6(1) of the Property Tax Act and that assessing them for tax would result in double taxation. The High Court dismissed the MCST's motion, ruling that the spaces were taxable as tenements and that there was no double taxation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs to be paid by the Management Corporation Strata Title Plan Nos 1298 and 1304 to the Chief Assessor and the Comptroller.
1.3 Case Type
Tax
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that areas of common property in a shopping center licensed for use are taxable under the Property Tax Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Assessor | Respondent | Government Agency | Won | Won | Tham Siok Peng of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore |
| Comptroller of Property Tax | Respondent | Government Agency | Won | Won | Tham Siok Peng of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan Nos 1298 and 1304 | Appellant | Corporation | Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tham Siok Peng | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore |
| Oommen Mathew | Haq and Selvam |
| Gopinath Pillai | Tan Peng Chin LLC |
4. Facts
- The MCST manages the common property of Centrepoint Shopping Centre.
- The Chief Assessor included seven areas in the common property in the valuation list.
- The Comptroller issued notices to the MCST to inform them that tax was payable on each of the Spaces.
- The MCST had granted licenses to various parties to use the Spaces.
- The Spaces are used to place automated teller machines, retail kiosks, pushcarts and a weighing scale.
5. Formal Citations
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan Nos 1298 and 1304 v Chief Assessor and Comptroller of Property Tax, OM 600003/2002, [2005] SGHC 219
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tax payable from this date due to the completion of the building for 176 Orchard Road #B1-K1 | |
| Annual value of property proposed at $1,200 with effect from this date for 176 Orchard Road #B1-K1 | |
| Annual value of property proposed at $18,000 with effect from this date for 176 Orchard Road #01-K9 | |
| Case Number OM 600003/2002 | |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 came into operation | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxability of Common Property
- Outcome: The court held that the Spaces are taxable under s 6(1) of the Property Tax Act as tenements.
- Category: Substantive
- Double Taxation
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of double taxation.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Tax Law
- Property Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmer (Surveyor of Taxes) v Trustees of the Late William Cotton | N/A | Yes | [1915] AC 922 | N/A | Cited to argue that the Spaces are not tenements because there must be some physical separation, presumably by walls. |
| Russell v. Coutts | N/A | Yes | Russell v. Coutts [9R.261] | Scotland | Cited for the definition of 'tenement' as a part of a house so structurally divided and separated as to be capable of being a distinct property or a distinct subject to lease. |
| Grant v. Langston | N/A | Yes | Grant v. Langston [[1900] AC 383, at p 397] | N/A | Cited in relation to the structural division of a tenement. |
| Chief Assessor & Comptroller of Property Tax v Van Ommeren Terminal (S) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the erection or placing of kiosks, ATMs and mobile carts add to the enjoyment of the land and the Spaces have become part of the land. |
| Cho Chih Yee v Chief Assessor | N/A | Yes | Cho Chih Yee v Chief Assessor [1969] 2 MLJ iii | N/A | Cited to support the argument that shop units are taxable because they come within the meaning of tenements. |
| International Associated Co Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor, Singapore | N/A | Yes | International Associated Co Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor, Singapore [1980–1981] SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that shop units are taxable because they come within the meaning of tenements. |
| Intercontinental Properties (Pte) Ltd v Chief Assessor, Singapore | N/A | Yes | Intercontinental Properties (Pte) Ltd v Chief Assessor, Singapore [1980–1981] SLR 561 | Singapore | Cited to express the view that each flat in a building was deemed to be a “building” by virtue of s 9(3) of the Property Tax Act (Cap 144, 1970 Rev Ed), which is in pari materia with s 10(3) of the PTA. |
| Re Objection No 1186 of 1962 | N/A | Yes | Re Objection No 1186 of 1962 [1962] MLJ cxxxviii | N/A | Cited to support the argument that no estoppel could be raised to hinder the exercise of the law. |
| Maritime Electric Company, Limited v General Dairies, Limited | Privy Council | Yes | Maritime Electric Company, Limited v General Dairies, Limited [1937] AC 610 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that no estoppel could be raised to hinder the exercise of the law. |
| The London County Council v The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Erith in the County of Kent, and the Assessment Committee of the Dartford Union | House of Lords | Yes | [1893] AC 562 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that the rate was payable even if the tenement could not be let out. |
| The Owens College v The Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock | Court of Appeal | Yes | The Owens College v The Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock (1887) 18 QBD 403 | N/A | Referred to in the judgment of Lord Herschell LC in Erith. |
| Assessment Committee of the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar v Roberts | House of Lords | Yes | [1922] 2 AC 93 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that the rate was payable even if the tenement could not be let out. |
| Yat Yuen Hong Co Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor | N/A | Yes | Yat Yuen Hong Co Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor (1959–1986) SPTC 135 | N/A | Cited for the three limbs of the definition of 'building'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 2(6)(c) of the Property Tax Act | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (Act No 47 of 2004) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common Property
- Property Tax
- Tenement
- Annual Value
- Valuation List
- Chief Assessor
- Comptroller of Property Tax
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan
15.2 Keywords
- property tax
- common property
- shopping centre
- tenements
- valuation list
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Revenue Law | 95 |
| Property Law | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Property Tax
- Revenue Law