AXY v Comptroller of Income Tax: Judicial Review of Tax Information Exchange

The Singapore High Court heard an application by AXY, AXZ, AYA, and AYB against the Comptroller of Income Tax, concerning the Comptroller's decision to issue notices for information to banks in Singapore following a request from the National Tax Service of the Republic of Korea under a bilateral tax convention. The applicants sought judicial review of the Comptroller's decision. The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to establish an arguable case that the Comptroller's decision was illegal or irrational.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Tax

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court reviews Comptroller's decision to issue notices for tax information exchange, dismissing the application for judicial review.

1.7 Decision Date

1 March 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Intervener	Government Agency	Application dismissed	Neutral	Jocelyn Teo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ruth Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Comptroller of Income Tax	Respondent	Government Agency	Application dismissed	Won	Li Yourui Charles of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Nai Thiam Siew Patrick of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Pang Mei Yu of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Koh Meng Sing Alvin of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
AXY	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Meng SC of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lim Ying Min of WongPartnership LLP Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn of WongPartnership LLP Samuel Lim Si Wei of WongPartnership LLP
AXZ	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Meng SC of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lim Ying Min of WongPartnership LLP Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn of WongPartnership LLP Samuel Lim Si Wei of WongPartnership LLP
AYA	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Meng SC of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lim Ying Min of WongPartnership LLP Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn of WongPartnership LLP Samuel Lim Si Wei of WongPartnership LLP
AYB	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Meng SC of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lim Ying Min of WongPartnership LLP Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn of WongPartnership LLP Samuel Lim Si Wei of WongPartnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aedit Abdullah	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jocelyn Teo	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ruth Yeo	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Li Yourui Charles	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Nai Thiam Siew Patrick	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Pang Mei Yu	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Koh Meng Sing Alvin	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Tan Chee Meng SC	WongPartnership LLP
Ho Pei Shien Melanie	WongPartnership LLP
Lim Ying Min	WongPartnership LLP
Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn	WongPartnership LLP
Samuel Lim Si Wei	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

The National Tax Service of the Republic of Korea (NTS) requested information from the Comptroller of Income Tax.
The request was made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Convention between Singapore and the Republic of Korea.
The information sought included bank account details of individuals and companies.
The Comptroller issued notices to banks in Singapore to disclose the requested information.
The Applicants sought judicial review of the Comptroller's decision to issue the notices.
The Attorney-General intervened in the application.
The Applicants argued that the Comptroller acted illegally and irrationally in issuing the Notices.

5. Formal Citations

AXY and others v Comptroller of Income Tax, Originating Summons No 106 of 2014, [2017] SGHC 42

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1969-11-06	Convention between Singapore and Republic of Korea concluded.
2010-05-24	Protocol Amending the Convention signed.
2013-06-28	Protocol Amending the Convention took effect.
2013-09-23	NTS submitted a letter of request for information to the Comptroller.
2013-11-07	The Comptroller wrote to NTS seeking clarifications regarding the Request.
2013-12-16	NTS replied to the Comptroller's letter.
2014-01-17	The Comptroller sent a second letter to NTS requesting further evidence.
2014-01-21	Meeting between staff members of the Comptroller and NTS held in Korea.
2014-01-21	NTS made a specific request for information relating to a bank account of one of the companies with OCBC.
2014-01-21	NTS provided documents seeking to address the Comptroller’s further queries raised in its Second Letter.
2014-01-21	The Comptroller issued notices for the disclosure of banking activity relating to the Applicants to Woori Bank.
2014-01-27	The Comptroller issued notices for the disclosure of banking activity relating to the Applicants to UBS AG and OCBC.
2014-02-11	The Applicants filed the present application in Originating Summons No 106 of 2014.
2016-08-04	The AG applied to intervene in this application.
2016-09-14	Hearing date.
2016-09-15	Hearing date.
2017-03-02	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Judicial Review of Comptroller's Decision
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Illegality
  - Irrationality
  - Improper delegation of discretion
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 1 SLR 616
  - [2015] 2 SLR 420
  - [2014] 1 SLR 345
  - [2015] 5 SLR 1222
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 14
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 557
  - [2010] 1 SLR 273
  - [1985] AC 374
  - [2013] 4 SLR 801
  - [2012] 3 SLR 690
  - [2013] JRC 262
  - [2013] JCA 239
  - [2008] 3 SLR 340
  - [1997] 1 SLR(R) 52
  - [1948] 1 KB 223
  - [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
  - [2014] 1 SLR 13
  - [2013] 2 SLR 844
Exchange of Information Regime
- Outcome: The court clarified the roles of the Comptroller and the court in the EOI regime.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 1 SLR 616
  - [2015] 2 SLR 420
Interpretation of Article 25 of the Convention
- Outcome: The court held that the Comptroller is entitled to take the foreign tax authority's statements at face value in determining whether the Eighth Schedule requirements are satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Foreseeable relevance
  - Compliance with Eighth Schedule

8. Remedies Sought

Prohibitory order against the Comptroller
Quashing order against the Notices
Stay of proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

Tax Litigation
Judicial Review

11. Industries

Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
AXY v Comptroller of Income Tax	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 616	Singapore	Cited to describe the EOI regime as a key aspect of global cooperation in the fight against tax evasion.
ABU v Comptroller of Income Tax	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 420	Singapore	Cited for the history of the legislative framework for the EOI regime in Singapore.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the standard for leave for judicial review.
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1222	Singapore	Cited for the standard for leave for judicial review.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 294	Singapore	Cited for describing the standard for leave as a very low threshold.
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda	N/A	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 133	Singapore	Cited for the underlying purpose of the leave application.
Kang Ngah Wei v Commander of Traffic Police	N/A	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 14	Singapore	Cited as an example of local courts striking out unmeritorious cases at the leave stage.
Pang Chen Suan v Commissioner for Labour	N/A	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 557	Singapore	Cited as an example of local courts striking out unmeritorious cases at the leave stage.
ACC v CIT	N/A	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 273	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in judicial review, the court is concerned not with the merits of the decision but the process by which the decision has been made.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service	N/A	Yes	[1985] AC 374	United Kingdom	Cited for the definition of illegality in judicial review.
Comptroller of Income Tax v BJY	N/A	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the requesting State need not show that the requested information is demonstrably relevant.
Comptroller of Income Tax v AZP	N/A	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 690	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that foreseeable relevance requires some clear and specific evidence that there is a connection between the information requested and the enforcement of the requesting state’s tax laws.
APEF Management Company Limited v The Comptroller of Taxes	Royal Court of Jersey	Yes	[2013] JRC 262	Jersey	Cited for the proposition that a court should set aside a notice for information if the taxpayer could bring to its attention evidence which on its face wholly undermined the very foundations upon which the requests had been made.
Volaw Trust v Office of the Comptroller of Taxes	N/A	Yes	[2013] JCA 239	Jersey	Cited to equate Jersey’s appeal with Jersey’s judicial review.
Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 340	Singapore	Cited for the general proposition that an authority must apply its own mind to the exercise of its statutory discretion and cannot delegate its decision-making authority to another person or body.
Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and another	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an authority must exercise its discretion itself after considering various relevant factors and cannot abrogate this responsibility by taking orders from other statutory boards unless it is under a legal duty to do so.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation	N/A	Yes	[1948] 1 KB 223	United Kingdom	Cited for the definition of irrationality as a ground for judicial review.
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs	N/A	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited for the definition of irrationality as a ground for judicial review.
Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs	N/A	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the standard if unreasonableness is pragmatically fixed at a very high level.
Comptroller of Income Tax v BKW	N/A	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 13	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the strict confidentiality obligations placed on the Indian tax authorities would serve to allay any concerns regarding prejudice arising from the disclosure of information.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 844	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is also public interest in ensuring that statutory powers are exercised lawfully.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) s 105D	Singapore
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) ss 65B	Singapore
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) s 105F	Singapore
Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) s 47	Singapore
Trust Companies Act (Cap 336, 2006 Rev Ed) s 49	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Exchange of Information
EOI
Judicial Review
Foreseeable Relevance
Comptroller of Income Tax
National Tax Service
Convention
Illegality
Irrationality
Improper Delegation

15.2 Keywords

Tax
Exchange of Information
Judicial Review
Singapore
Korea

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
International Tax Cooperation	95
Income taxation	90
Judicial Review	80
Administrative Law	75

16. Subjects

Tax Law
Administrative Law
International Law