Najib fails to stay RM1.69b tax suit

 

Najib Abdul Razak has failed to get a stay on a court ruling related to the government’s RM1.69 billion tax suit against him.

In effect, this meant that the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) can proceed with its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against the former prime minister.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court this afternoon dismissed Najib’s application to stay its summary judgment ruling in the IRB’s tax suit against him.

The court also ordered the former premier to pay RM15,000 in costs.

Judge Ahmad Bache communicated his decision via email to the legal teams acting for the former premier as well as that of the IRB.

Najib had sought to stay the summary judgment pending disposal of his appeal at the Court of Appeal. The appeal, which will be heard on June 16, seeks to overturn the summary judgment.

On July 22 last year, the High Court allowed the IRB’s application for summary judgment in its RM1.69 billion tax suit against Najib.

In effect, this meant that the High Court allowed the tax suit against him, without undergoing a full trial where witnesses need to testify.

At present at a separate Kuala Lumpur High Court, the IRB has ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against Najib over his failure to pay the tax arrears.

According to a copy of the brief grounds of judgment made available to the media this afternoon, Ahmad ruled that Najib raised no strong grounds to justify a stay of the summary judgment when the defendant failed to prove the existence of special circumstances to justify the stay.

The judge noted that a stay is not necessarily because the plaintiff-government would still have the monetary ability to compensate Najib if the former premier succeeds in a separate tax-reassessment appeal with the Special Commissioner of Income Tax (SCIT).

Ahmad said that there is no unquantifiable loss that Najib could not recover from the government if the former succeeds in his appeal.

“On the other hand, the defendant has not shown any cogent evidence to prove the plaintiff’s inability to compensate. All these reasons merit consideration and that the balance tilt in favour of the plaintiff to not granting the stay,” he ruled.

“All is not lost for the defendant as he can still negotiate with the plaintiff for some payments to be made pending the disposal of the hearing at the SCIT.

“Learned senior counsel for the revenue/plaintiff had indicated to this court that whilst the defendant may have made some efforts in meeting the plaintiff’s officials for discussions but to date, no efforts have been made to making any form of payments to the plaintiff perhaps in the form of instalments.

“This court believes that the plaintiff through IRB is always open for discussion regarding payment. More often than not, IRB subscribes to a payment scheme whereby the taxpayer will be allowed to pay by instalments, agreed upon by both parties in a ‘win-win’ situation.

“This court takes judicial notice of this good and noble practice because about 90 percent of income tax cases registered before this court in one calendar year were settled in that fashion, avoiding unnecessary trials and saving judicial time.

“Credit must be given to IRB officers who are amenable to discussions with taxpayers, during this difficult time because of the pandemic, whilst enforcing the trite and settled law that payments which amount to be agreed upon, by both parties by instalments, be made first within the stipulated time.

“This form of settlement can still be arranged and agreed upon by the defendant and the plaintiff, pending disposal of his appeal at the SCIT,” Ahmad said.

When contacted today, Najib’s counsel Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee confirmed the decision issued by Ahmad this afternoon.

The lawyer added that the former premier’s legal team would first proceed with the main appeal before the Court of Appeal this Wednesday, before deciding whether to apply for the Court of Appeal to stay today’s High Court decision.

During the High Court hearing of Najib’s stay application last Friday, his legal team had claimed that the bankruptcy proceedings against him were politically driven.

However, the IRB’s senior revenue counsel Norhisham Ahmad countered that the board was just performing its duty to execute court rulings in tax suits. - Mkini