Corporate Services for Your Business in Singapore
WhatsApp
WeChat⌄
Apex Gateway WeChat QR code

Scan to contact us on WeChat

Mobile: +65 8585 9090Email: [email protected]
Taxes · PDF

Ruling 1/2021: Joint-Venture Shareholdings and Related-Party Control

IRAS’s 4 January 2021 ruling examines ownership, consolidation and decision-making control in a three-shareholder joint venture before deciding related-party status.

Source checked · 11 October 2026 · Document date: 4 Jan 2021 Advance ruling · case-specific

The ownership chain

Overseas, mutually independent companies X, Y and Z created overseas company B; B wholly owned Singapore-incorporated and tax-resident company A. Each shareholder held more than 30% but less than 40% of B’s ordinary shares, carrying one vote per share. The diagram’s ownership chain is therefore X/Y/Z → B → 100%-owned A. The source does not give precise percentages within those bands.

Independence and majority ownership checks

X, Y and Z were unrelated, with no common directors or significant common shareholders. They neither controlled one another nor shared a controlling person. None directly or indirectly held over 50% of A or B. There was also no person owning over 50% of both a particular shareholder and A/B. These facts excluded the stated direct and common majority-control routes.

Subsidiary and financial-statement checks

Neither A nor B was a subsidiary of X, Y or Z. Neither was or would be consolidated into any of their accounts under standards equivalent to FRS 110. No other person consolidated a particular shareholder together with A/B under an equivalent standard. The conclusion therefore relied on the absence of control indicated by consolidation as well as the share ratios.

Board and shareholder decisions

None of X, Y or Z could exercise control over A or B through board or shareholder resolutions. Together with the ownership and consolidation facts, IRAS found no shareholder controlled A, and A and any of those shareholders were not controlled by a common person. The percentage bands should not be treated as a standalone rule that sub-40% interests can never confer control.

Decision and historical scope

A was not a related party of X, Y or Z for sections 34D, 34F and 13(16) of the then Income Tax Act. Although the submitted question highlighted 34D and 13(16), the ruling expressly also covered 34F. Summary 1/2021 binds only its applicant and transaction and is not revised for later changes in law or interpretation.

Official source

This article independently explains the substantive contents of the official PDF, including the relevant conditions, procedures and annexes. The linked document remains the authoritative source for its original wording, and later changes should be checked separately.

Read the official PDF ↗
Contact Us