Case and status
Low Kim Hock of Seng Kim Hock Engineering Works was convicted of false information without reasonable excuse to obtain a higher PIC payout of S$17,760 in October 2016. He was connected to machinery supplier Ng Cheow Chai’s scam.
Facts, amounts and outcome
The court imposed a S$5,000 fine and S$35,520 penalty, twice the payout wrongly obtained. A separate charge concerning benefits of criminal conduct was considered in sentencing. IRAS explains that claimants, vendors and consultants can face action for PIC abuse. This is a historical scheme case; an inflated claim is not made legitimate by a supplier’s documents or a consultant’s involvement.
Historical PIC conditions and abuse
The PIC case concerns genuine qualifying productivity expenditure and the applicable local-employee requirement. False invoices, inflated prices, sham purchases or listing people who did not work for the business do not meet those conditions. The release warns that claimants, suppliers, consultants and promoters may each be liable for their own conduct. Its discussion of PIC payouts and bonuses describes a historical scheme rather than an invitation to apply for a current grant.
Disclosure, reporting and rewards
IRAS encourages taxpayers to correct past errors and report suspected tax malpractices. The release says disclosure may be considered when deciding enforcement action; it is not a blanket promise of immunity. Where the release describes informant rewards, qualifying information leading to otherwise lost tax recovery may attract 15% of recovered tax, capped at S$100,000, at IRAS’ discretion. Informant identities are kept confidential. Use the official release links for its reporting and disclosure channels.
Official source
This report is independently written from the IRAS release dated above. Case status, policy announcements and historical figures refer to that release.
Read the complete IRAS release ↗