3rd December 2004, 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by hongsien
Wha!That's disgusting!5% we all make noise...what more if you are earning as much as a doctor?The taxes are so high!!!
3rd December 2004, 08:48 PM
it is not govt issues, if i may correct. it is a citizen's obligation to pay taxes to the country, legislated by law. oh dear, i sound so pro-govt.
3rd December 2004, 08:53 PM
If this is not your regular activity, ie selling photograhic equipment, can be considered as capital again and hence not taxable.
Originally Posted by Gaffar King
3rd December 2004, 09:04 PM
well, to give you an analogy to illustrate eg. an used car dealer vs a car owner. the product is the same, ie, a car but the scale and frequency differs. also, the motive is different too.
3rd December 2004, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by reachme2003
In other words..just in case the IRA or GOVT is monitoring all this. LOL heheh
OT abit .....same thing with all this talking about using Photoshop this and that. How many here dare to admit they are using a pirated version? heh. I use an original as it is my ricebowl but how many hobbist here can justify paying more then $900 for an original (even upgrade will cost a few hundreds) just to dabble in it in the privacy of their home?
Just thinking out loub....as I following this thread today and jus want to see who dare to be frank. heheh.......There is taxes to be paid and there is taxes to BE paid.
For those who want to register a sole proprietor company to legalise it all and declare your profit for taxation purposes, you might not need to pay if your earnings are low. That's all good and fine. Especially to chase for payment by legal means if your clients does not pay. But that does not mean you are not imposed to top up your medi-shield. Depending on how much you make, CPF board will issue you a letter to top it up. Compulsory. If you don't you can renew your business licence the next year till it is paid and it will follow you till you pay for it.
Tax and death are unavoidable but sometime you just also need to be smart and not over paid for things or situation you are not required to. If I selling something like a lens from my collection. Where is it that I made a profit by selling it at a lost? Why do I need to declare? I am using money I already have been taxed a portion and it is with this "free" money that I bought a new lens and plus GST. I dont see why I should even think of declaring it when I bought it at say $1000 and now selling it away for $500.
Last edited by sammy888; 3rd December 2004 at 09:35 PM.
3rd December 2004, 09:24 PM
yours is big OT. maybe open a new thread.
3rd December 2004, 09:25 PM
Basically, if it is a business, trade or vocation, it is taxable. But if this is your recreation, then not taxable though someone might pay you a ang pow or token. I think we have to look at the facts of each case before an answer can be given.
3rd December 2004, 09:30 PM
yes, every case is different, and will be looked into on its own merits. this, must sound familiar, right?
3rd December 2004, 09:35 PM
Have you started work? so you intend not to pay income tax? Don't earn personal income. Start a business....
Originally Posted by jodie_tan
3rd December 2004, 09:41 PM
what is the difference? still your hard earned $$.
3rd December 2004, 10:23 PM
so you can save on taxes.... eg... company car/transport for the business owner- expense
Originally Posted by reachme2003
for income earners - your own car. not expenses in the income tax sense.
3rd December 2004, 10:29 PM
Using pirated software is a "BIG" topic by itself as some don't see the hooohah about copyrights and moral issues (stealing etc)
Originally Posted by sammy888
Some do admit they are using pirated version and even share among their friends.
For those who cannot afford (or not willing to spend) and don't want to use pirated software, will use PS elements that comes with their DSLR. It's a hobby what, spend what you can afford loh.
3rd December 2004, 10:33 PM
but, for co, their tax rate is much higher than individuals'.
Originally Posted by Snowcrash
for individuals, their own car or related expenses cannot be claimed usually it is because they are not used for work.
4th December 2004, 08:37 AM
Join Date: Aug 2004
Income tax from part-time photography assignments ?
Originally Posted by Rev
To answer the question, one has to examine the revenue law and interpret the wordings of the taxing Acts with strictness.
Whether you will be taxed or not depend …
The principal statute governing revenue law is the Income Tax Act, Chapter 134 (as revised).
If a person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed. If he cannot be brought within the letter of the law, he is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be.
Income tax imposed under Section 10(1)(a) on the gains or profits of any trade, profession, vocation or business apply to the person carrying out the trade, profession, vocation or business.
Whilst the words “trade, profession, vocation and business” are not defined in the Act, they do share a common feature that the transactions or activities are repetitious.
So in broad term, gains from isolated transactions are generally not regarded as taxable under Section 10(1)(a). However, where the transactions are undertaken in such a manner that they appear to possess the usual characteristics of a trade or profession, the gains or profits derived therefrom could become taxable under Section 10(1)(a).
Hope the above explains.
5th December 2004, 02:33 AM
In summary, taxation is up to the individual's sense of duty & responsibility to the country. And from garykoh's post, income from photography assignments is taxable if it appears to possess the usual characteristics of a trade or profession.
If I were doing photography fulltime, my income would be my trade - photography. And I would definitely declare taxes.
However, part-time photography is a kind of a grey area because it appears to bears the characterstics of a trade or profession yet one could argue this is not a trade nor profession because my main income is instead from a fixed yearly source eg. employment with a company of a different trade.
So part-time photography could be viewed as a hobby? Income is irrelevant and not taxable because it is not my trade nor profession, I do not depend on this for a living, it is a angbao from people who wish to purchase my services or product here & there because they like my work from my expensive hobby? And this angbao could vary from $1K to $3K to $4K every month or 2 months etc etc etc...
Thinking about it, the IRAS doesnt have the time nor resources to audit each & every hobbyist photographer or painter earning probably $3K a year in extra income unless they are registered full time as a legit business doing a specific trade or profession. Thus it would be more 'justified' to go after the rich folks & rich companies instead to get their 'taxpayers' money...
I'm surprised nobody asked this before. Maybe alot of people get ang-baos instead?! hehe.
Last edited by Rev; 5th December 2004 at 02:39 AM.