Muhammad Danial Izzat bin Zulbahari

On the court record

Muhammad Danial Izzat bin Zulbahari appears in the corpus in revenue and tax litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), and concerned throughout with the judicial review of the Inland Revenue authority. One Court of Appeal matter, appearing for the respondent, concerned an appeal against a High Court decision that had affirmed the Special Commissioners of Income Tax: the point was whether loan debts waived during the relevant year of assessment should be treated as taxable income, notwithstanding the admitted fact that the taxpayer had already been fully taxed on the loan amount in an earlier year by treating the loan as gross income rather than deducting it as an operating expense. A second matter, in the High Court and appearing for the respondent, was a judicial review challenging notices of assessment and additional assessment issued in respect of the sale of the applicant's intellectual-property rights, where the Inland Revenue had treated the gains on disposal as revenue rather than capital and so subjected them to tax; the questions were whether factual issues arose warranting an appeal to the Special Commissioners, whether the notices were time-barred, whether the wrong test had been applied in characterising the gains as revenue or capital, and whether reasons had to be given where no statutory duty to do so was imposed. A third matter, again in the High Court and appearing for the respondent, was a judicial review of notices of assessment and penalty concerning the deductibility, as a revenue expense under section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967, of interest paid on loans taken to finance a share purchase, and whether the availability of a domestic remedy before the Special Commissioners barred judicial review where an error was alleged. Across the appearances the practice is that of a tax litigator engaged with the characterisation of receipts as capital or revenue, the deductibility of interest, and the interplay between judicial review and the statutory appeal to the Special Commissioners.