Case and status
Corbell Technology claimed capital allowances for CRM software costing S$31,800 although no such expenditure occurred, including a further S$95,400 under the historical PIC scheme. The company received a S$2,000 fine and S$24,023 penalty.
Facts, amounts and outcome
Director Tan Kee Hau also failed to file personal returns and omitted agent commissions. On proceeded counts he received S$2,600 total fines and S$54,008 official total penalties, plus S$57,131 back taxes. Two non-filing counts and one incorrect-return count proceeded, with four considered. Auto-included salary did not cover separate commission receipts; his YA 2013–2014 commissions were S$119,585 and S$71,246. The source distinguishes company deductions from personal income.
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 ↗