What clients say about working with us.

Director with undisclosed rental income

A company director had not declared rental income from two properties over three assessment years, partly through misunderstanding of his obligations and partly due to inadequate advice from a previous accountant. LHDN had issued a query.

We reviewed the income records, established the correct rental treatment, and prepared a voluntary disclosure and response to LHDN's query. The written representation acknowledged the oversight, provided the corrected figures with supporting documentation, and requested remission of the enhanced penalty rate.

LHDN accepted the voluntary disclosure and applied the standard rather than enhanced penalty rate. The matter was resolved within four months of engagement. The client engaged us for the corporate retainer on his Sdn Bhd following the resolution.

Timeline: 4 months

Manufacturing Sdn Bhd with TP exposure

A mid-size manufacturer with a related-party supplier in China had no transfer pricing documentation. During a routine audit, LHDN requested the TP file. The company's accountants had no framework for preparing one.

Kevin led the preparation of a transfer pricing file that documented the intercompany transactions, selected the appropriate transfer pricing method, and benchmarked the pricing using public comparables. We explained to the client which aspects of their existing pricing were defensible and where we recommended adjustment going forward.

The TP file was submitted and accepted without further adjustment to the assessed tax. The company is now on the corporate retainer, and transfer pricing documentation is maintained on an annual basis ahead of any audit cycle.

Timeline: 6 months (file preparation) + ongoing

SCIT appeal on capital allowance dispute

A professional services firm had claimed accelerated capital allowance on fit-out expenditure that LHDN assessed as ineligible. A Notice of Additional Assessment was issued for a substantial amount. The firm had already submitted an initial objection that was rejected.

Azman reviewed the expenditure records and the applicable capital allowance provisions. Our analysis found that part of the expenditure was correctly classified while another portion was more defensible than LHDN's rejection suggested. We prepared a detailed SCIT appeal submission addressing each disputed item separately, with statutory and case law references.

The SCIT ruled in the client's favour on the primary items in dispute. The residual assessment was substantially reduced. We advised the client to accept the partial resolution rather than extend proceedings further — an assessment we explained in writing at the time.

Timeline: 11 months