Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor: Income Tax Act Offences & Sentencing Framework
Tan Song Cheng and Lin Shaohua appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against their sentences for offences under s 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. See Kee Oon J heard the appeals, addressing the need for a sentencing framework for such offences. The court substantially endorsed the Prosecution’s proposed framework, finding the sentences were not manifestly excessive and dismissing the appeals.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeals against sentences for Income Tax Act offences. The High Court developed a sentencing framework, dismissing the appeals as not manifestly excessive.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Christopher Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Zhi Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Charis Low of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Song Cheng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Lin Shaohua | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Zhi Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Charis Low | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Weijin | N S Kang |
| Leon Tay | N S Kang |
| Tay Xi Ying | N S Kang |
| Andrew Wong Wei Kiat | Fortis Law Corporation |
| Tan Tse Chia Patrick | Fortis Law Corporation |
| Yip Jian Yang | Fortis Law Corporation |
| Caitlyn Wee | Fortis Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Tan Song Cheng, director of TNTPL and precedent partner of TAS, falsely reduced TNTPL’s reported sales revenue between 2008 and 2014.
- Lim, with Tan Song Cheng's approval, transferred revenue to other entities to avoid GST registration.
- Tan Song Cheng agreed to falsely reduce TAS’s net profit in 2009 and 2011, under-reporting his share of trade income.
- Tan Song Cheng failed to declare holiday reimbursements from TNTPL as a performance reward.
- Lin Shaohua, precedent partner of FCC and YHFT, instructed Lucy to reduce reported sales figures from 2009 to 2015 to avoid GST registration.
- Lin Shaohua’s reported partnership income in 2016 was reduced, leading to under-reporting of her personal income.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2021] SGHC 138
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| TNTPL's sales revenue exceeded $1 million; Lim falsely reduced TNTPL’s report sales revenue. | |
| Tan Song Cheng agreed to Lim’s false reduction of TAS’s net profit. | |
| Tan Song Cheng agreed to Lim’s false reduction of TAS’s net profit. | |
| TNTPL's sales revenue exceeded $1 million; Lim falsely reduced TNTPL’s report sales revenue. | |
| Lin Shaohua instructed Lucy to reduce the reported sales figures for FCC and YHFT to below the $1 million threshold. | |
| Tan Song Cheng was sentenced by the District Judge. | |
| Lin Shaohua was sentenced by the District Judge. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Tax Evasion
- Outcome: The court developed a sentencing framework to guide sentencing for offences under s 96(1) of the ITA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Under-reporting of income
- False declaration of income
- Failure to report income
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court endorsed the Prosecution’s proposed five-step sentencing framework based on a harm-culpability analysis.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sentencing benchmarks
- Harm-culpability analysis
- Totality principle
- One-transaction rule
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act
- Violation of s 61(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act read with s 74
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Tax Evasion
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chng Gim Huat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 360 | Singapore | Addressed the sentencing approach for s 96(1) of the ITA offences. The court found that this case did not lay down a benchmark sentence for s 96(1) ITA offences, and should not have been regarded as a sentencing guideline judgment as such. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Adapted sentencing framework from this case for offences under s 96(1) of the ITA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Song Cheng | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2020] SGMC 50 | Singapore | DJ’s grounds of decision for Tan Song Cheng's sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lin Shaohua | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2020] SGMC 53 | Singapore | DJ’s grounds of decision for Lin Shaohua's sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Onn Ping Lan | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2005] SGMC 8 | Singapore | Offender pleaded guilty in the midst of trial to 20 counts of tax evasion. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chew Tiong Wei | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 59 | Singapore | Offender pleaded guilty to 28 charges which included three counts for tax-related offences. |
| Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Bearing in mind the need for caution in relying on sentencing precedents without fully-reasoned grounds or explanations as to how the sentencing judge reached a sentencing decision. |
| Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 115 | Singapore | The courts should generally seek to utilise the full spectrum of possible sentences. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | The courts should generally seek to utilise the full spectrum of possible sentences. |
| Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 265 | Singapore | Consistency in sentencing encompasses both the issue of adopting a consistent methodology as well as reaching consistent sentencing outcomes. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 807 | Singapore | The use of a sentencing framework squarely deals with the former issue (adopting a consistent methodology). |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | Like cases should be treated alike. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Like cases should be treated alike. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | A “benchmark” approach to sentencing is characterised by the following features. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1099 | Singapore | In evaluating the seriousness of a crime, the court has to consider the harm caused by the offence and the culpability of the offender. |
| Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 606 | Singapore | Adapted the same framework, with suitable modifications, to offences of money-laundering under s 44(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Sentencing is neither a science nor an administrative exercise which can be determined with mathematical certainty. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | It would be inadvisable to attempt to derive a “mathematically perfect graph” to identify a precise point for the sentencing court to arrive at in each case. |
| Lee Shing Chan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1174 | Singapore | It would be inadvisable to attempt to derive a “mathematically perfect graph” to identify a precise point for the sentencing court to arrive at in each case. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Set out sentencing frameworks based on a specific metric notwithstanding the fact that the statutes in question had not set an upper limit. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Set out sentencing frameworks based on a specific metric notwithstanding the fact that the statutes in question had not set an upper limit. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | A guilty plea may therefore be quite inevitable and therefore of little or no mitigating value. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | A guilty plea may therefore be quite inevitable and therefore of little or no mitigating value. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | The total amount involved in the charges proceeded with and taken into consideration should be analysed as part of the totality of the offender’s conduct. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | In cases where an offender is convicted of multiple charges, the general rule is that consecutive sentences should be ordered for unrelated offences, subject to the totality principle, the one-transaction rule, and any statutory provisions that supersede the general rule. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | In relation to the totality principle, the court has to first examine whether the aggregate sentence is substantially above the sentences normally meted out for the most serious of the individual sentences committed, then proceed to consider whether the effect of the sentence on the offender is crushing and not in keeping with his past record and his future prospects. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Thian Earn | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 269 | Singapore | The categories set out in the sentencing matrix should not be regarded as “rigid or impermeable”. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | The Second Appellant’s personal circumstances did not create a dire and exceptional situation which compelled her to commit the offences. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) s 96(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) s 96(1)(i) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) s 61(a) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) s 74 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Income Tax Act
- Goods and Services Tax Act
- Tax evasion
- Sentencing framework
- Harm-culpability analysis
- Mandatory penalty
- General deterrence
- Sentencing benchmark
- Totality principle
- One-transaction rule
15.2 Keywords
- Income Tax Act
- Tax evasion
- Sentencing framework
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Income taxation | 95 |
| Taxation | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Tax Law
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing