Mohd Nizam v Comptroller: Income Tax Arrears & Statutory Demand Dispute
In the High Court of Singapore, Mohd Nizam B Ismail applied to set aside a statutory demand served by the Comptroller of Income Tax for unpaid taxes from 2010 to 2012. Nizam argued that an agreement was reached with the tax authority for a revised instalment plan and that the tax authority was estopped from demanding full repayment. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Janice Wong Shi Hui, dismissed the application, finding no triable issues regarding the alleged agreement or estoppel.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Bankruptcy
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Mohd Nizam's application to set aside a statutory demand for unpaid taxes, finding no triable issues regarding an alleged agreement or estoppel.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comptroller of Income Tax | Defendant | Government Agency | Statutory Demand Upheld | Won | |
| Mohd Nizam B Ismail | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Janice Wong Shi Hui | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Teh Ee-Von | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| See Chern Yang | Premier Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff owed unpaid taxes for the Years of Assessment 2010, 2011 and 2012.
- The plaintiff had been in touch with IRAS since January 2012 regarding a repayment plan.
- The plaintiff was retrenched by his former employer on 15 January 2013.
- The plaintiff and IRAS agreed to a revised instalment plan of $1,000 a month until March 2013.
- The plaintiff and IRAS agreed to meet again in March 2013 to discuss future instalments.
- IRAS informed the plaintiff that further extended payment plans would not be considered.
- The defendant served a statutory demand on the plaintiff on 7 October 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Nizam B Ismail v Comptroller of Income Tax, Originating Summons Bankruptcy No 90 of 2013, [2014] SGHCR 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Divorce of plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff in touch with IRAS regarding repayment plan | |
| Plaintiff retrenched | |
| Meeting between plaintiff and IRAS; revised instalment plan agreed | |
| Meeting between plaintiff and IRAS; another revised instalment plan agreed | |
| Plaintiff informed of new case officer and that further extended payment plans would not be considered | |
| Defendant sent letter to plaintiff asking him to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account to meet the full payment | |
| Plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant referencing the Agreement | |
| Defendant wrote to the plaintiff reminding him to pay the outstanding amounts | |
| Plaintiff secured employment as a partner of a law firm | |
| Defendant offered to allow the plaintiff to pay his tax arrears by way of three monthly payments | |
| Defendant informed the plaintiff of a final payment plan | |
| Defendant wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors, informing them that the plaintiff would have an extension of time to pay the first monthly instalment | |
| Plaintiff proposed to make monthly instalment payments | |
| Plaintiff’s proposal was rejected by a letter from the defendant | |
| Statutory demand served on the plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff filed application to set aside the defendant’s statutory demand | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the agreement was unenforceable due to uncertainty, particularly the term requiring parties to reach a 'reasonable' agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement to agree
- Uncertainty of terms
- Lack of agreed process
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 738
- Promissory Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant was not estopped from claiming the debt because the promise was not sufficiently unambiguous and the plaintiff had reasonable notice that the defendant intended to enforce its strict legal rights.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unambiguous representation
- Reliance
- Inequitable conduct
- Reasonable notice
- Related Cases:
- [1972] AC 741
- [1992] 3 SLR(R) 275
- [1964] 1 WLR 1326
- [1994] 2 SLR(R) 287
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of statutory demand
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting aside statutory demand
10. Practice Areas
- Debt Recovery
- Bankruptcy Litigation
- Tax Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 703 | Singapore | Cited for the test to be applied in an application to set aside a statutory demand, which is the same as the test for summary judgment. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 370 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold for the court to determine if there is a triable issue. |
| HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust) v Toshin Development Singapore Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | No | [2012] 4 SLR 738 | Singapore | Cited regarding the enforceability of an agreement to negotiate in good faith, but distinguished on the facts. |
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that performance of a public duty is not sufficient consideration unless something extra is furnished. |
| Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 QB 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a factual benefit or detriment can constitute sufficient consideration in law. |
| Stilk v Myrick | King's Bench | No | (1809) 2 Camp 317 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the principle of consideration. |
| Foakes v Beer | House of Lords | No | (1884) 9 App Cas 605 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to the principle of consideration. |
| Re Selectmove Ltd | English Court of Appeal | No | [1995] 1 WLR 474 | England and Wales | Cited as a decision with similar facts, falling within the situation of a promise to perform an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor. |
| Fong Holdings Pte Ltd v Computer Library (S) Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 834 | Singapore | Cited as support for the principle that a factual benefit or detriment can constitute sufficient consideration in law. |
| Sharon Global Solutions Pte Ltd v LG International (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited as support for the principle that a factual benefit or detriment can constitute sufficient consideration in law. |
| Teo Seng Kee Bob v Arianecorp Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1114 | Singapore | Cited as support for the principle that a factual benefit or detriment can constitute sufficient consideration in law. |
| Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA and another v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1972] AC 741 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a promise must be sufficiently unambiguous, clear and certain for estoppel to be invoked. |
| Wardley Ltd v Bestland Development Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and another and other appeals | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 275 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a promise must be sufficiently unambiguous, clear and certain for estoppel to be invoked. |
| Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi (trading under the name and style of The Colony Carrier Co) v R T Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd | Privy Council (on appeal from Nigeria) | Yes | [1964] 1 WLR 1326 | Nigeria | Cited for the principle that promissory estoppel is generally suspensory in effect. |
| Ramnani Kishinchand Bulchand v Personal Representatives of the Estate of Roop Vaswani, deceased | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that promissory estoppel is generally suspensory in effect. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 97 |
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) rr 98(2)(b) |
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) rr 98(2)(e) |
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 98(3) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 14 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) s 89(4) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) s 85 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Statutory demand
- Income tax
- Instalment plan
- Agreement
- Estoppel
- Triable issue
- Good faith
- Reasonable agreement
- Consideration
- Promissory estoppel
- Tax arrears
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy
- Income Tax
- Statutory Demand
- Singapore
- Tax Arrears
- Agreement
- Estoppel
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Income Tax | 90 |
| Revenue Law | 85 |
| Bankruptcy | 75 |
| Statutory Demand | 70 |
| Estoppel | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy
- Taxation
- Debt