The Tribunal's position as well as the case for the Government was strongly criticized in an article published in the December 1995 issue of this journal. This article is a reply to those criticisms. This article looks at the question of trading in the Singapore and Malaysian contexts. The focus in on transactions in real property. It seeks to establish that, contrary to what has been argued, an isolated transaction in real property can amount to the carrying on of a trade or a business under the Singapore Income Tax Act.
Reference is made to relevant Malaysian cases on the matter.
A proper assessment of these factors is most crucial so as to steer clear of the pitfalls of trading. According to this approach, the claim would be barred on a contractual level because the assured cannot be the author of his own loss, and on a broader level, because the law will not allow him to benefit from his own criminal acts. This paper examines the question of whether this approach can be applied in toto in Singapore. It will be argued that the Beresford approach may not be appropriate in the local legislative framework and cultural background. Arjunan Winding up proceedings have the potential to expose the company to ultimate dissolution.