HSBC vs. Chief Assessor: Property Tax, Annual Value, and Valuation of Plaza Singapura Cinema Complex
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd, as trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust, appealed against the Chief Assessor's valuation of the annual value of a cinema complex within Plaza Singapura. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Chief Assessor's valuation methodology and the Valuation Review Board's decision. The primary legal issue concerned the appropriate method for determining the annual value of the property for property tax purposes.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Tax
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on property tax assessment for Plaza Singapura cinema. Key issue: annual value calculation. Court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chief Assessor | Respondent | Government Agency | Valuation Upheld | Won | Pang Mei Yu of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) Quek Hui Ling of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) Chong Wai Teng Victoria of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Kay Kheng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Soh Zi Qing Jeremiah | WongPartnership LLP |
| Pang Mei Yu | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) |
| Quek Hui Ling | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) |
| Chong Wai Teng Victoria | Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Law Division) |
4. Facts
- The subject property is located on the seventh floor of Plaza Singapura.
- The subject property consists of ten cinema halls, office space, and retail space.
- The appellant is the trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust.
- The respondent is the Chief Assessor.
- The dispute concerns the annual value of the subject property for the year 2008.
- Golden Village leased the subject property and carried out fitting-out works.
- The Chief Assessor assessed the annual value at $3,292,000.
5. Formal Citations
- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust)vChief Assessor, , [2019] SGHC 95
- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust)vChief Assessor, Tribunal Appeal No 9 of 2018, Tribunal Appeal No 9 of 2018
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| GV leased the subject property from PSPL. | |
| Appellant acquired Plaza Singapura. | |
| Assessment year in issue. | |
| Appellant filed notice of objection against annual value. | |
| Valuation Review Board hearing began. | |
| Valuation Review Board hearing concluded. | |
| VRB issued written judgement. | |
| High Court hearing. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal. | |
| Appellant filed an appeal. | |
| Written grounds for decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Annual Value Assessment
- Outcome: The court upheld the Chief Assessor's methodology for determining the annual value.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGHC 95
- [2015] 4 SLR 529
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 521
- [1968] 2 MLJ xxxii
- [2016] SGVRB 1
- [2017] SGVRB 1
- (1990) HKCU 344
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 569
- (1872) LR 7 CP 328
- [2012] 3 SLR 933
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 354
- [1902] AC 157
- [1997] 1 WLR 687
- [1954] 1 QB 70
- [1990] 2 FLR 327
- [1988] 1 SLR(R) 141
- [1923] 2 Ch 74
- [1932] NZLR 1060
- [2013] 3 SLR 339
- [1937] 2 KB 445
- [1956-1986] SPTC 1
- [1920] AC 273
- [1900] AC 150
- [1940] 2 KB 494
- [1971] 1 MLJ 43
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 326
- Onus of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the onus of proof lies on the appellant to show that the Chief Assessor's decision was wrong.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 4 SLR 529
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 521
- [1968] 2 MLJ xxxii
- [2016] SGVRB 1
- [2017] SGVRB 1
- Fixture vs Chattel
- Outcome: The court held that the fitting-out works were fixtures and should be included in the assessment of annual value.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 569
- (1872) LR 7 CP 328
- [2012] 3 SLR 933
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 354
- [1902] AC 157
- [1997] 1 WLR 687
- [1954] 1 QB 70
- [1990] 2 FLR 327
- [1988] 1 SLR(R) 141
- [1923] 2 Ch 74
- [1932] NZLR 1060
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of the 2008 Valuation List
- Revision of the annual value to $2,265,000
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Taxation
- Property Valuation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport SDPR) & ors | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited to support the interpretation of section 103(1) of the Evidence Act in the context of court proceedings. |
| Aspinden Holdings Ltd v Chief Assessor & anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 521 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the assessable entity should be valued according to its physical nature, condition, and usage (rebus sic stantibus). |
| Cho Chih Yee v Chief Assessor | Valuation Review Board | Yes | [1968] 2 MLJ xxxii | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the onus of proof lies on the appellant to show that the Chief Assessor's decision was wrong. |
| Wave House Singapore Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor | Valuation Review Board | Yes | [2016] SGVRB 1 | Singapore | Cited to show the VRB's consistent approach to burden of proof in property tax appeals. |
| HSBC Institutional Trust (Singapore) Ltd (As Trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust) v Chief Assessor | Valuation Review Board | Yes | [2017] SGVRB 1 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that the present Appellant had previously accepted that the onus is on the appellant to show that the Chief Assessor's decision was wrong. |
| Kwong Fat Loong Shipyard v Commissioner of Rating and Valuation | Hong Kong Lands Tribunal | Yes | (1990) HKCU 344 | Hong Kong | Cited to support the principle that different components of a property can be valued using different methods. |
| Pan-United Marine Ltd v Chief Assessor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 569 | Singapore | Cited for the fixture test and the enhancement test in determining whether items are part of the land for property tax purposes. |
| Holland v Hodgson | Court of Common Pleas | Yes | (1872) LR 7 CP 328 | England | Cited as the locus classicus on the application of the fixture test. |
| Chief Assessor v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 933 | Singapore | Illustrates how the fixture test and principles in Pan-United have been applied by the Singapore High Court. |
| Chief Assessor & another v Van Ommeren Terminal (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 354 | Singapore | Provides an example of how the High Court approached the issue of whether structures constituted fixtures or chattels. |
| Leigh v Taylor | House of Lords | Yes | [1902] AC 157 | England | Discussed in relation to the argument that tenant's fittings should be considered chattels. |
| Elitestone Ltd v Morris & another | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 687 | England | Cited to support the objective inquiry into whether a structure has become part and parcel of the land. |
| Billing v Pill | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 QB 70 | England | Discussed in relation to the temporary purpose of annexation. |
| Ball-Gyumer v Livantes & another | Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory | Yes | [1990] 2 FLR 327 | Australia | Discussed in relation to the intention of the parties and security of tenure. |
| Material Trading Pte Ltd v DBS Finance Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 141 | Singapore | Cited to show that physical attachment is only one consideration in determining whether annexation has taken place. |
| Vaudeville Electric Cinema Ltd v Muriset | High Court | Yes | [1923] 2 Ch 74 | England | Cited to support the argument that cinema seats can be considered fixtures. |
| Colledge v HC Curlett Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1932] NZLR 1060 | New Zealand | Cited to support the argument that cinema seats can be considered fixtures. |
| Chief Assessor v Glengary Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 339 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the annual value is an objective exercise and the actual rent may not be decisive. |
| Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Assessment Committee for the No 7 or Houghton and Chester-le-Street Area of the County of Durham | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1937] 2 KB 445 | England | Cited for the principle that rental comparison requires truly comparable properties. |
| Chartered Bank v The City Council of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1956-1986] SPTC 1 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the use of actual rents as evidence of annual value. |
| Port of London Authority v Assessment Committee of Orsett Union & Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1920] AC 273 | England | Cited for the conceptual basis of the Profits Method. |
| Cartwright v The Guardians of the Poor of the Sculcoates Union in Kingston-Upon-Hull | House of Lords | Yes | [1900] AC 150 | England | Cited for the concept of the hypothetical tenant in the Profits Method. |
| Barking Rating Authority v Central Electricity Board | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1940] 2 KB 494 | England | Discussed in relation to the use of hindsight in the Profits Method. |
| Collector of Land Revenue v Alagappa Chettiar | Privy Council (from Malaysia) | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 43 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to intervene in findings of fact made by a lower court. |
| First DCS Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor & another | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 326 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate judge should be slow to intervene in findings of fact made by a lower court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Property Tax Act (Chapter 254, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Chapter 134, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Annual Value
- Property Tax
- Valuation List
- Fixture
- Chattel
- Profits Method
- Rental Comparison Method
- Rebus Sic Stantibus
- Fitting-out Works
- Tenement
- Hypothetical Tenant
- Amortisation
- Rate of Return
15.2 Keywords
- Property Tax
- Annual Value
- Valuation
- Cinema Complex
- Plaza Singapura
- HSBC
- Chief Assessor
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Revenue Law | 90 |
| Property Tax | 80 |
| Valuation List | 70 |
| Annual Value | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Evidence | 30 |
| Onus of Proof | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Property Tax
- Valuation
- Revenue Law