KUALA LUMPUR – The Inland Revenue Board’s (IRB) apparent enforcement efficiency is now being questioned after allegations have surfaced regarding its overzealous attempts to bar citizens from leaving the country.
Speaking to The Vibes on condition of anonymity, several Malaysians shared their vexing experience with discrepancies in IRB’s system, claiming that the ordeals have cost them thousands of ringgit and countless hours of mental anguish.
One of them, Raju (not his real name), had to fork out over RM10,000 when his passport was flagged at an airport here last month due to alleged issues with his income tax fillings, leading to him nearly missing his flight overseas for an important business meeting.
He said that when he was stopped at the immigration counter, the Customs Department attendant had given him the contact number of an IRB officer, who informed him that he had not settled separate income tax payments for two companies.
However, Raju said that he was confused by the allegations as a monthly deduction plan had already been established with auditors for the first payment – with the first month’s instalment having already gone through – while he was unaware about the payment for the second company.
They (IRB) said that they had sent the second company a letter regarding the payment a few months ago, but we did not receive anything of the sort,” he asserted, adding that the IRB officer had then asked for about 65% (which was more than RM10,000) of the total sum to be paid on the spot.
“The experience was very stressful and upsetting to me as a tax-paying citizen,” he lamented.
Politicians charged in court can travel, but common people can’t?
Raju stressed that while the officer in charge of his situation was “helpful”, the debacle should not have happened in the first place, as he believes that the board had failed to update its system.
He also alluded to there being double-standards in the enforcement of IRB’s control over who can or cannot leave the country.
“Politicians who owe the nation billions of ringgit with ongoing court cases related to income tax issues can get their passport to travel,” he said.
I have paid taxes for over 60 years now. I am not a defaulter and have never faced issues like this, but I am immediately barred from leaving the country.”
Raju added that since his return home, his attempts to get in touch with the board to clarify the situation have been futile so far.
‘IRB ghosted me after forcing me to cough out more money’
Meanwhile, Damia (not her real name), who also faced similar struggles as Raju after she had left Malaysia to work overseas, had been forced to cough up over RM7,000 – a majority of which she has lost hope in recovering.
Noting that the board had never responded to her email informing them that she would be earning an income outside of the country, she said that she was barred from leaving Malaysia five years later because IRB had flagged her for not filing her taxes, causing her to miss her flight.
“They (IRB) said that I never told them about my earnings overseas and they also claimed that I owed them more than the amount I had paid during the four years I was submitting my taxes here,” she said.
They told me to pay the outstanding balance first and they would get back to me later once they have done the calculations,” she said.
Damia added that she had no choice but to hand over the amount that was demanded to catch the next flight back to the country she was working at then.
From the around RM7,000 paid, Damia only managed to get back less than RM2,000 two years later after numerous emails to multiple IRB officers and branches, including their main headquarters.
She also questioned the motives behind her being held from leaving the country, saying: “Why did it take them (IRB) all these years and a possible economic downturn to suddenly claim that I was underpaying them?”
“Where is my statement of accounts? If they can detail line by line where I underpaid then I can understand, but until today, I don’t know where my leftover RM5,000 has gone,” she said, pointing out that her online IRB account has no records of her paying the offset.
“The whole encounter was mentally taxing and I still feel cheated by my own country. I did everything I could based on the circumstances, but they (IRB) still had the power to restrict my movement and stop me from going anywhere,” she lamented.
‘I paid them out of fear, but I didn’t owe them that much’
Another victim, Josephine, said that IRB’s sword of Damocles had hung over her like a shadow about ten years ago, causing her to give in and subscribe to a one-year instalment plan when IRB slapped her with a bill of over RM20,000 as it claimed she had under-declared her earnings.
Labelling the claim as being “ridiculous”, she said that she had then brought all of her documents and receipts to its office, where an attendant had told her that the board will look over the matter and get back to her later.
She, too, has not heard from IRB since, despite doing her best to contact them through persistent emails.
I only paid them (more than RM20,000) because I was afraid of being barred from travelling outside the country and I wanted to avoid trouble for myself,” she said.
“If you look at my records, I could not possibly have been earning that much to owe them such a large sum.
“It was very frustrating to lose that much money and at that time, I was very angry, but as time went on, I had no other choice but to give up.
“It is all well and good whenever they want to get us to pay, but when mistakes are made, they should at least make an effort to rectify the situation.”
The Vibes is in the process of reaching out to IRB for their response to the issues raised.
The board has recently faced challenges of its own, with its appeal against the high court’s decision on its right to access and audit a client’s account maintained by a law firm being recently dismissed by the Federal Court.
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired the seven-member bench, said the contents of the client’s account related to the monies belonging to the client were covered by solicitor-client privilege. – The Vibes, July 29, 2022
.jpeg)
