The recent High Court judgment in I&T Management Pvt Ltd v MIRA (2023/HC/A/131) passed on 21st July 2024, provides critical insights into the interpretation of Section 10(a) of the Business Profit Tax Act (Law number 5/2011) (“BPT Act”), specifically concerning the deductibility of expenditures in calculating taxable profits. This case highlighted the stringent criteria businesses must meet to qualify for deductions under the BPT Act.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
The High Court began by reiterating Section 3(b) of the BPT Act, which states;
“The taxable profits of the company are the full amount of its profits of that year, wherever the profits arise and whether or not they are received in or transmitted to Maldives, computed in accordance with this Act and without any other deduction than is authorised by this Act.”
High Court underscored the necessity of strict adherence to the provisions of the BPT Act when considering deductions.
Central to the court’s ruling was the interpretation of Section 10(a), which states that deductions may only be made for expenditures that are “wholly and exclusively” incurred for the production of income.
“Subject to this Act and in particular to Sections 10(c) and 10(d) below, deductions may not be made in computing any taxable profits for any tax year except in respect of expenditure incurred during that year wholly and exclusively for the purpose of production of income.”
The court underscored that merely demonstrating that an expenditure exists is insufficient; the nature and purpose of that expenditure must align strictly with the criteria outlined in the law.
Three-Pronged Test for Deductibility
The High Court established a three-pronged test that any expenditure must meet to qualify for deduction under Section 10(a):
The High Court provided two key examples to illustrate the implications of the “wholly and exclusively” test regarding deductible expenditures.
First, where a business owner travels abroad for a work-related purpose, such as attending a conference or meeting with clients. However, during this trip, the business owner also includes leisure activities, such as spending time on vacation with their spouse.
In this case, the High Court emphasized that the travel expenses would not qualify for deduction under Section 10(a) because the trip serves a dual purpose. While a portion of the expenses was incurred for business purposes, the inclusion of personal leisure activities means that not all costs can be deemed “wholly and exclusively” for the production of income. Since there exists a personal element in the trip, the expenditure does not meet the strict criteria laid out in the law.
In another example, the court examined an entertainment business that hosts an event with the intention of generating income. However, during this event, the business also provides benefits to a charitable organization.
The High Court ruled that the expenditures related to this event would not qualify for deduction because they do not fulfil the requirement of being incurred “exclusively” for the purpose of producing income. The involvement of a charitable aspect introduces a dual purpose into the expenditure, which disqualifies it from the criteria necessary for deduction under the BPT Act.
It is important to note that the three-pronged test established by the High Court in I&T Management Pvt Ltd v MIRA will remain in effect unless overturned by a subsequent ruling from either the High Court or the Supreme Court. This precedent sets a clear standard for the interpretation of deductions under the BPT Act.
Transition to the Income Tax Act
It is worth noting that the BPT Act has been repealed with the introduction of Income Tax Act (Law Number 25/2019). Under this new framework, businesses need not worry about the previous precedent going forward, as Section 17 of the Income Tax Act offers leniency regarding dual-purpose expenditures. This clause states:
“(b) Where an expense incurred by a person during an accounting period was not incurred for the sole purpose of deriving total income, the proportion of that expenditure which was incurred for the purpose of deriving total income shall be allowed as a deduction under section (a)”
This provision allows for a more flexible approach to deductible expenditures, accommodating situations where expenses serve both business and personal purposes.
Despite the shift to the Income Tax Act, businesses should remain vigilant regarding audits conducted under the BPT Act for taxable periods ending before 2019. The precedent established in the I&T Management case will still apply in these instances, necessitating careful documentation and compliance with the stricter criteria that previously governed tax deductions.
Conclusion
The High Court’s judgment in I&T Management Pvt Ltd v MIRA offers critical insights into the interpretation of Section 10(a) of the BPT Act, particularly regarding the deductibility of expenditures. While the introduction of the Income Tax Act has repealed the BPT Act and alleviated concerns surrounding the stringent “wholly and exclusively” test for taxable periods post-2019, it is essential to note that the implications of this judgment may still resonate in ongoing audits, objections, and court cases related to the BPT Act.
For businesses facing audits or legal proceedings involving the BPT Act, the precedents established by this ruling will likely influence outcomes, particularly for cases that scrutinize the deductibility of expenditures under Section 10(a). Therefore, careful documentation and compliance with the criteria set forth by the I&T Management case remain crucial for any taxpayer engaged in disputes related to the BPT Act.
Link: https://bit.ly/47IohCf