PaTriCKLiM Diary

(a) Personal = RM5,000 (a further relief of RM5,000 if the taxpayer is a disabled person) (b) Wife = RM3,000 (a further relief of RM2,500 if the wife is a disabled person) (c) Medical expenses of parents up to a maximum of RM5,000. Medical expenses for serious illnesses for individual, wife or child up to a maximum of RM5,000. (d) Expenditure for purchase of basic support equipment for the individual, his wife, child or parent who is disabled the up to a maximum of RM5,000 (e) Unmarried children below the age of 18 = RM800 per child The maximum relief for unmarried children (regardless of age) receiving full-time education in universities and institutions of higher education in Malaysia is four times the normal relief. (f) Incapacitated children RM5,000 per child (g) Contributions to the Employees Provident Fund and insurance or takaful premiums for life policies are allowed a maximum total tax relief of RM5,000. A further tax relief of RM2,000 is given for insurance or takaful premiums with respect to medical and educational purposes.

A married woman whose income is separately assessed generally has her overall tax liability reduced,although this may not always be the case. The separate assessment covers all her income sources. She may, however, elect for joint assessment, in which case, the husband is given a wife relief of RM3,000.

According Malaysia income  tax act 1967, foreigner is entitled to any personal relief in tax payment .Non resident is liable to 30% direct tax .However , Non-resident employee who work in malaysia for less then 60days in calender year are exempted for tax . Beside this, those non-resident are entitle to claim tax rebate for selected item as show below :

(a)			Special classes of income  - use of moveable property  - technical advice, assistance  or services  - installation services on the  supply of plant, machinery, etc.  - personal services associated  with the use of intangible  property	10%
(b)			Services of a public entertainer	15%
(c)			Interest	15%

For the following types of income, nonresident individuals are subject to a withholding tax which is a final tax.

Mr.Siau is a business man and he is Malaysian citizen .Mr.Siau have business in both country , which is Malaysia and Indonesia . He receive income form both country which is Malaysia and Indonesia. Discuss Whether a not Mr.Siau entitle to the income from both country .

In the case whether Mr.Siau entitil to the tax for source from both county.According to the Income Tax Act 1967.Foreign source remitted into Malaysia or income derive from foreign county are exempted from tax under para 28 schedule 6 of the income tax Act 1967 .But income derive from Malaysia are taxable .

Mr tong insures his shop against fire for Rm1000,000 in 1 may year 2010 with ING insurance berhad .During the time Mr tong purchase the insurance, the insurer ask for the purpose of the shop, Mr tong said the shop is for selling flower . In fact the behind the shop is rent for the used of car workshop. On 3 Oct 2010 the Mr Tong  shop is on fire . In this incident , whether a not Mr tong still entitle for the compensation under fire insurance ?

In this case , Mr tong is fail to disclose the fact which is  material that the part of the shop is used for repair services . This case is similar to the case" Goh choi leng v public life co" which is not disclose information that is material.  As your knowledge workshop usually keep many engine oil which is easily  cause  fire . Due to failure to  disclosed fact which is material , the contract is voidable by ING insurance company . Mr tong Might not entire to this  compensation against fire insurance .

Mr Chan buy life  insurance on April 2008, during the time he buy the insurance , insurer ask Mr Chan whether he is health and he is non smoker and non- alcoholic ? He answer he is non-smoker and non-alcoholic .In 2 month later  , Mr Chan become a smoker and after he bought the insurance due to the failure in business . After  4 month Mr Chan involve  in car accident and dead  . In this case ,whether a not  Mr Chan family  entire to the  compensation for the life insurance ?

In this case, Mr Chan family not fraud from no to provide disclose information which is material  , this because Mr.tong involve in smoking and drinking after  he buy the insurance . According to rules of insurance  , Mr.tong have 6 month period to updated he personal info to the insurance company . so in this case, Mr tong no fraud  for  non-disclose information which is consider material or late update he personal information . So M r Chan family still entitle for this compensation under life insurance .

The word Uberrimae fidei is souce from latin  , it carry the same meaning as " utmost good faith" . Principle of  Uberrimae fidei always apply under the law of contract (especially in insurance) in the case  of one party is under a fundamental duty to disclose all the material fact and surrounding circumstances that could influence the decision of the other party to enter into the agreement .This because insurance contract is based dupon mutual trust and confident between the insurer and insured. Non-disclose or partial-disclose information which is material fact will cause the agreement to be voidable.

But non-disclose information which is not material will not cause the fracture  of  the contract .

Dr.Lim start up the Clinic business in 2005, the business is grow up due to the good services provide by this clinic . At 2007, Dr.Lim own the Hospital Tawaka due to the extension of his business .Giving the name of hospital as Tawaka Behad . Unfortunately , at the year 2008 Dr.Lim attack from stroke , and doctor  advise him to retire and have more rent in the house . Due he health problem and the case Dr.lim don't have any children . At year 2009 ,DR. Lim sold the hospital Tawaka to SIME behad .The worker form Tawaka  protest to have more benefit  due to the change of shareholder . the point is whether a not the change in company share holder will cause the change in company structure?

In case of Sime behad with  worker from Tawaka hospital . It's similar to the case of " abdul aziz bin Atan v ladang rengo malay eastate SDN. BHD. According to the company act 1965,  incorporated company is legal separate entity from his shareholder and employee  . The change of company shareholder will not cause in  company structure  . So Tawaka worker have no right  to claim for more benefit from the new shareholder  .

Mr David and Mr CK are best friends . In year 2006 there start up the fruit import business . The business is going well when the get a contract to supply fruit to tesco  .  Without the knowledge of CK, Mr David try to make some secret profit by allocated some share in stock market  using the capital  of company . Unfortunately crisis happen in year 2007 and Mr David loss all the share . At the same time company need capital turnover .  Mr ck know the later when the debtor come to him .In this case whether a not Mr. Ck liable for the debt and loss cause by the Mr.David ? what are the legal action can Mr.CK take against him ?

The case  above same with the case" salomon V salomon ".According  to the company act 1965, company are separate legal entity that separate and distinct from its members and shareholder. In this case , Mr ck are not liable for the lose cause by Mr.David . Mr CK can bring the case to the court and apply injunction against Mr.David  to freeze all asset belong to him   .

Memorandum and Articles of association are primary legal document of a company ,by which company will conduct daily business , however this  the content which of which must not infringe or over-ride any of the previous and requirement of the company act 1965 .

The contents of the Memorandum and Articles include :

• The name of the company (which must end with the words “Sendirian Berhad” if it is a private company, or just “Berhad” if it is a public company);
• The situation of the company’s registered office;
• The objects of the company, i.e the nature of business intended to be carried out;
• That the liability of the members is limited
• The nominal amount of the authorized share capital with which it is proposed to register the company and the division of such capital into shares of a fixed amount; and
• The association clauses

 Both Memorandum and Articles of association have to be filed to the suruhanjaya syrikat malaysia at the time of incorporation or there is any change thereafter. The “Memorandum of Association” must be signed by at least two subscribers; duly dated. The signature of each subscriber must be witnessed by a third person. Each of the subscribers must undertake to subscribe for one or more shares of the company.

One day , jaw saw a banner hanging in front of cassette outlet in alamanda which reads :"BIG SALE!, LATEST TOO PHAT"S ALBUM IS FOR GRAB WITH 50% DISCOUNT ! LIMITED STOCK !HURRY !"After reading it jaw immediately run into the outlet and said she want the album at the said discount price . unfortunately the shop owner said the cassette is now sold at normal price .Can jaw sue the shop owner for breach of contract ?

In this case Jaw cannot sue the shop owner for breach of contract . Section 2 (a) of the contracts Act 1950 states that when one person signifies to another , his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything , with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to the act or abstinence , he said to make a proposal . An offer is different from an advertisement .

In majumder v. attorney -general of Sarawak , the federal court held that an advertisement in the news paper for the post of a doctor was an invitation to treat .

Therefore , applying the above principles , the advertisement by cassette outlet is not an offer to contract but is a mere invitation to treat .

Wei and Chong went supermarket one day to buy some glossary . In the supermarket Wei looked at the good which on display and decided to purchase 3 bottles face creams which were on offer . She took the bottles to counter and paid for it .As they leaving the supermarket , the cashier come up and told them they have to return the good . In this case whether a not Wei return the bottles to cashier ?

For my own opinion , Wei have the right not return the good to cashier. According to contract act 1950. In this situation the contract is binding . This legal principal is clearly illustrated in "pharmaceutical society of great britian Vs boots cash chemist Ltd " on the beginning , Wei looked at the good display on is only the invitation to treat , when Wei decided to buy the face cream . The contract is not yet make between Wei and cashier .This situation change when Wei took the bottles to counter and she paid for them, then only the  contract is make .

In this case , cashier have no right to took back the face creams from Wei . In order for the face creams to get back from Wei , supermarket might offer Wei good compensation in order to get back face creams from Wei.

Marital Rape means husband rape wife . Traditional it consider no legally possible for the husband to rape wife unless the "wife " is minor or under age . It believe that marriage is a consent to sexual intercourse and cannot be revoked by any party. So marriage license is simply call "license to RAPE " .In fact Marital Rape is not recognize in Malaysia Law . According  Muslim , Quran say that wife duty is to submit to the husband sexual need and therefore no such thing as marital rape in Malaysia law .

Many Malaysia doubt that ISA in is a necessary evil? whether a not ISA Malaysia Should be Abolish? The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) ( Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia . This  legislation was enacted after Malaysia gained independence from Britain in 1957. The ISA allows for detention without trial or criminal charges under limited, legally defined circumstances.(source from Wikipedia) . ISA is apply not just in Malaysia but in many other foreign county  and it work well.

Supposedly ISA is an act to protect country from terrorist attack ,but now ISA become a tool to solve political problem .Many people undertake by ISA are student, joneallist , news reporter , leader of opposition party but not terrorist. So STOP FOOLED  that don't to repeal ISA because want to protect you and me .

Geena run unregistered online investment portal.from her home in KL she manage to get people to deposit money to her account . After all she was discovered to scam money and she attempted to flee with the money but arrested  in airport because she held fake passport .

 In this case , geena liable under criminal law , this because having a fake passport and attempt to scam money from unregistered portal is consider a crime . According to the malaysia law any person who "intent to obtain for any other person a passport, internal travel document, or an endorsement or visa on a passport, knowingly makes any false statement or produces any document which to his knowledge is false in any particular "Shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than RM$10,000 but not more than RM$50,000 and imprisonment for a term of not less than 1 year but not more than 5 years.