Key background

The Taxpayer sold its intellectual property rights ("IP Rights") in the form of technical know-how as part of a global restructuring ("IP Sale"). This transaction transformed the Taxpayer's business operations from a full-fledged manufacturer to a contract manufacturer. Post-restructuring, the Taxpayer was granted a license to continue using the IP Rights for contract manufacturing services. Following the global restructuring, the Taxpayer experienced reduced profits due to holding fewer functions, assets, and risks. The IRB initiated an audit and subsequently assessed the proceeds from the IP Sale as income, alleging that the proceeds represented compensation for the loss of the Taxpayer's income. Consequently, the IRB issued additional taxes and penalties amounting to approximately RM 311 million, nine years after the relevant year of assessment, thereby exceeding the 5-year time-bar under the ITA.

Court of Appeal's key findings

The Court of Appeal allowed the Taxpayer's appeal and set aside the IRB's assessment on the following grounds:

1. The "Badges of Trade" Test is the Appropriate Legal Standard for Distinguishing Between Capital and Income Receipts

The Taxpayer argued that the IRB failed to apply the common law Badges of Trade test when determining the proceeds from the IP Sale as income under Section 4(f) of the ITA, which pertains to gains or profits not classified under other categories of income in the ITA. To distinguish between capital and income receipts, the "Badges of Trade" test considers several factors:

1. Subject matter of the transaction
2. Period of ownership
3. Frequency of transactions
4. Alteration of property to render it more saleable
5. Methods employed in disposing of property
6. Circumstances responsible for sale.

The IRB contended that the "Badges of Trade" test was inapplicable, arguing it only applies to cases involving the disposal of land and "business income" under Section 4(a) of the ITA.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the "Badges of Trade" test is the correct standard to distinguish between capital and income receipts in Malaysia. It applies to the sale of a wide range of assets, including intellectual property rights, and covers all types of "income" under Section 4 of the ITA, including Section 4(f) invoked by the IRB.

Applying the "Badges of Trade" test, the Court of Appeal held that:

1. The Taxpayer was not in the business of selling IP Rights. The IP Rights were not stock in trade but capital asset used in the production of products sold by the Taxpayer
2. The Taxpayer held and developed the IP Rights for 9 years before its disposal, indicating a long period of ownership
3. The IP Sale was a one-off transaction
4. The IP Sale was conducted pursuant to a corporate restructuring exercise, rather than a profit-making exercise
5. No special efforts were made to attract purchasers
6. The IP Rights were sold on an as-is basis, and no alterations were made to increase their merchantability.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the proceeds from the IP Sale were capital in nature and therefore not taxable under the ITA.

Further, the IRB argued that because the assessment was made under the "catch-all provision" of Section 4(f) of the ITA, the "Badges of Trade" test was inapplicable. However, the Court held that the Badges of Trade test is indeed applicable when Section 4(f) is invoked. The Court clarified that Section 4(f) does not imply that any profit or gain is subject to tax. Rather, the operative word in the ITA is "income", meaning that Section 4(f) cannot be used as a blanket provision to tax all profit or gains. The profit or gain must first qualify as income to be taxable.

2. No Legal Basis for the IRB's Alleged 'Outright Sale Test'

The IRB contended that the proceeds from the IP Sale should be considered income, arguing that there was no "outright sale" of the IP Rights. Their reasoning was twofold: first, the Taxpayer continued to use the IP Rights after the sale; and second, the IRB claimed that no legal title to the IP Rights was transferred to the purchaser.

However, the Court of Appeal closely examined the agreements between the parties and found that the terms of the sale agreement explicitly indicated the transfer of IP rights in exchange for consideration. Thus, the Taxpayer had indeed sold the IP Rights and subsequently used these rights as a licensee under a separate contract for services, specifically for contract manufacturing.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed the IRB's argument regarding the necessity of a legal title transfer. The Court emphasized that technical know-how inherently relies on secrecy for its value and is not protected by registration but by confidentiality and contract law.

Consequently, the Court determined that the IRB's claim of "no outright sale" lacked merit and was unsupported by any credible legal authority.

3. Valuation Method Irrelevant to the Capital Nature of IP Rights

The Taxpayer valued the IP Rights using the "discounted cash flow" method, which projects future cash flows generated from the use of these rights. The IRB argued that this valuation method indicated the proceeds were compensation for the loss of income.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the valuation method used to appraise the IP Rights had no impact on their capital nature. Furthermore, the Court justified the Taxpayer's reduced profit margin post-restructuring, noting that the Taxpayer no longer owned the IP Rights and therefore appropriately assumed fewer functions, risks, and assets as a contract manufacturer.

4. "Negligence" Argument Insufficient to Lift Time-Bar

The IRB issued the tax assessment nine years after the relevant year of assessment, exceeding the 5-year time-bar period under the ITA. To justify lifting the time-bar, the IRB argued that the Taxpayer was negligent by: (1) declaring the proceeds of the IP Sale as capital rather than income; and (2) failing to provide the valuation report of the IP Rights during the audit stage.

The Court of Appeal found that the Taxpayer had made full and transparent disclosure of the capital receipt in its tax returns and had sought professional advice in doing so. Thus, a mere disagreement in the tax treatment of the returns could not constitute negligence.

Furthermore, since the IRB had not requested the valuation report during the audit, there was no negligence on the Taxpayer's part. The IRB should have presented the reasons for the alleged negligence at the time of issuing the time-barred assessment, not afterward. Therefore, the IRB failed to establish the negligence exception required to lift the time-bar.

Key takeaways

This case represents a pivotal moment in Malaysian tax jurisprudence, affirming the "Badges of Trade" test as the appropriate legal standard for distinguishing between capital and income receipts for the disposal of all types of assets, including intellectual property rights. The Court of Appeal's ruling further supports the position that businesses utilizing intellectual property rights as capital assets, generating profits through their use, will have such capital disposals deemed non-taxable under the ITA.

This decision also delineates the limitations of the IRB's authority to issue assessments beyond the 5-year time-bar period based solely on allegations of "negligence." The "negligence" justification should be used judiciously to lift the time-bar. This clarification enhances legal certainty and provides greater protection for businesses operating in Malaysia.

Additionally, this case underscores the critical importance of a well-planned and carefully drafted sale agreement. The agreements in this case were pivotal in substantiating the sale of the IP Rights. By relying on professional advice, the proceeds from the IP Sale were correctly treated as a capital receipt and thus non-taxable. The proactive measures adopted by taxpayers today will be instrumental in establishing a defensible position against future tax audits and disputes.

* * * * *

© 2024 Wong & Partners. All rights reserved. Wong & Partners, member of Baker & McKenzie International. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.