BLP v Comptroller of Income Tax: Special Levy for Retrofitting as Revenue or Capital?

In BLP v Comptroller of Income Tax, the High Court of Singapore addressed whether a special levy collected by BLP, a management corporation, from its members for retrofitting and upgrading its premises should be considered revenue or capital for tax purposes. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, allowed BLP's appeal, holding that the special levy was capital in nature because it was used for a project that strengthened existing assets and created new assets.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Tax

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed whether a special levy collected by a management corporation for retrofitting is revenue or capital, impacting tax liability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Comptroller of Income TaxRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedLost
Julia Mohamed of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Michelle Chee of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
BLPAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Julia MohamedInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Michelle CheeInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Tan Kay KhengWongPartnership LLP
Novella Chan YandianWongPartnership LLP
Jeremiah Soh Zi QingWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The appellant, a management corporation, sought to retrofit and upgrade its premises in 1997.
  2. The appellant obtained a loan of $11,600,000 to finance the project.
  3. The appellant collected a 'special levy' from subsidiary proprietors to finance the loan.
  4. The special levy was collected monthly over 13 years, from 1997 to 2010, totaling about $16.4 million.
  5. The appellant did not include the special levy contributions in its tax computation for the year of assessment 2006.
  6. The project included replacement of floor finishes, installation of a new building logo, and construction of ten new studio apartments.
  7. The complex was built more than 25 years ago, and no major retrofitting had been undertaken.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BLP v Comptroller of Income Tax, Tribunal Appeal No 21 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 127

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant sought to retrofit and upgrade its premises
Special levy collection began
Respondent raised the matter in a letter to the appellant
Appellant replied, seeking amendment to exclude the special levy
Special levy collection ended
Respondent raised an additional assessment
Respondent issued a notice of refusal to amend
Income Tax Board of Review found in favor of the respondent
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Revenue vs. Capital
    • Outcome: The court held that the special levy was capital in nature, not revenue.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 4 SLR(R) 161
      • [2010] 3 SLR 609
  2. Principle of Mutuality
    • Outcome: The court found that the principle of mutuality should prevail, and the appellant should not be deemed to carry on a business.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Reversal of the Income Tax Board of Review's decision
  2. Allowance of the appellant's appeal against the Board

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Tax Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Property Management

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Comptroller of Income Tax v IACourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 161SingaporeCited to define the revenue-capital divide, providing the 'purpose test' and 'temporary and fluctuating test'.
ABD Pte Ltd v Comptroller of Income TaxHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the 'Composite and Integrated Approach' to differentiate between revenue and capital expenditure.
Tan Hee Liang v Chief AssessorCourt of AppealYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 335SingaporeCited regarding a special levy collected for external upgrading works being for the purpose of maintenance or repair, but distinguished in the present case.
The Seaham Harbour Dock Co v Crook (HM Inspector of Taxes)House of LordsYes16 TC 333England and WalesCited and distinguished regarding government assistance for building an extension of a dock being considered capital.
St John Dry Dock v Minister of National RevenueN/AYes2 DTC 663CanadaCited and distinguished regarding a government subsidy for constructing a dry dock being a capital receipt.
Commissioner of Income Tax v Beldih ClubN/AYes[1986] 161 ITR 861N/ACited and distinguished regarding a donation for major repairs and renovations being a capital receipt.
Comptroller of Income Tax v BBOCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 609SingaporeCited to show that provisions of the Insurance Act do not determine whether gains are capital or revenue in nature.
BLP v The Comptroller of Income TaxIncome Tax Board of ReviewYes[2013] SGITBR 2SingaporeThe decision of the Income Tax Board of Review that was appealed in this case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Insurance Act (Cap 142, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Special levy
  • Management corporation
  • Retrofitting
  • Upgrading
  • Revenue
  • Capital
  • Principle of mutuality
  • Sinking fund
  • Management fund
  • Year of assessment

15.2 Keywords

  • tax
  • income tax
  • special levy
  • management corporation
  • retrofitting
  • capital
  • revenue

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Taxation
  • Income Tax
  • Strata Management