Question 1
Madam Yeo bought a shophouse eleven years ago and sold it last month at a substantial gain. She has never bought or sold any other property. Her neighbour bought and sold four residential units in the past two years, each held for under nine months, and describes himself for tax purposes as a long-term investor.
Which of the following statements is/are correct?
- (i) Singapore imposes no general tax on capital gains from the sale of property.
- (ii) Whether the neighbour is trading is settled by how he describes himself.
- (iii) Rental income received from a property is chargeable to income tax.
- (iv) Where the seller is assessed as trading in property, the gain is brought to tax as income.
Show the answer and full explanation
Answer: A
The rule. Singapore imposes no general capital gains tax on property. But where the tax authority assesses a seller as trading in property rather than investing, the gain is charged as income. That assessment is made by the authority on the facts — frequency, holding period, financing, stated intention and conduct — and not by the taxpayer's own description. Rental income is separately chargeable to income tax.
Why A is correct. (i), (iii) and (iv) state the position. (ii) is false: how the neighbour describes himself does not settle the question. His pattern — four units in two years, each held under nine months — is exactly what draws the opposite conclusion.
The other options.
- B and C carry the false (ii). It is attractive because the stem gives the neighbour's self-description prominence and no authority contradicts him within the facts; a candidate reads it as an uncontested statement.
- D drops (iv), which candidates omit when they treat "no capital gains tax" as absolute.
Exam note. "No capital gains tax" is the rule; being assessed as a trader is the exception that swallows it for frequent sellers. Self-description carries no weight — conduct does.
Singapore imposes no general capital gains tax on property →