Khoo Puay Pin Joanne

Khoo Puay Pin Joanne is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2012 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in income taxation and taxation. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated expertise across 5 primary practice areas, with significant experience in income taxation and taxation.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Income taxation	3 cases	33% of total caseload	Highly Specialized94% relevance score	Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 33% of their total caseload.
Taxation	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Revenue Law	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Khoo Puay Pin Joanne has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ong Sim Ho	2 cases	67% of cases	BML v Comptroller of Income Tax: Deductibility of Interest on Shareholder Bonds(Aug 2018) BQY & BQZ v Comptroller of Income Tax: Income Tax on Property Resale Profits(Mar 2018)
Drew & Napier LLC	1 cases	33% of cases	AQQ v Comptroller of Income Tax: Tax Avoidance, Income Tax Act s 33(Dec 2012)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Khoo Puay Pin Joanne's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.7 parties avg	2.7	67%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	22.7 parties avg	2.7

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Khoo Puay Pin Joanne's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(67%)	67%
Won	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	20,000.00	20,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BML v Comptroller of Income Tax: Deductibility of Interest on Shareholder Bonds 28 Aug 2018 BML (Appellant)Lost	28 Aug 2018	BML (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of $20,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the Taxpayer to the Comptroller of Income Tax. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	BQY & BQZ v Comptroller of Income Tax: Income Tax on Property Resale Profits 28 Mar 2018 BQZ (Appellant)Lost	28 Mar 2018	BQZ (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed.
3	AQQ v Comptroller of Income Tax: Tax Avoidance, Income Tax Act s 33 17 Dec 2012 AQQ (Appellant)Won	17 Dec 2012	AQQ (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed. The Comptroller did not exercise his powers under s 33(1) fairly and reasonably when he disregarded both the dividend income and the interest expenses. The Comptroller should not have disregarded the dividend income and should have allowed a portion of the interest expenses while requiring the appellant to account for withholding tax. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.