COURSE OUTLINE

1. Course Title: Revenue Law

2. Course Code: LAWS 2338

3. Credit Value: 3

4. Course Synopsis: The course introduces the main features of a sound system of
taxation; interpretation of taxing statutes; meaning and
scope of income; charges of income on various tax entities;
principles relating to the taxation of employment and
business income, the deduction of allowable expenditures,
capital allowances, corporate taxation and tax avoidance.
Other topics covered are filing of returns and assessments;
appeals and collection for recovery. An outline of real
property gains tax, sales tax and service tax are covered to
complement income tax as the main source of revenue.

5. SAF Elements: Through activities and assessment students will be

prepared to learn to provide solution to tax problems and tax planning, to
appreciate the objective of collecting revenue from various sources, which is
required for the provision of facilities for the benefit of the public at large and to
live together to advocate the importance of the citizen’s contribution to the public
purse. This enables them to internalise the elements of Amanah and Khalifah in
their future roles, to contribute to society, actualizing the spirit of Rahmatan lil
‘alamin.

6. Course Classification within the Curriculum: Elective

7. Prerequisite(s) (if any):

8. Co-requisite(s) (if any):

9. Course Learning Outcomes:

1
 Bloom’s Programme
Soft skills
No. Outcomes Taxonomy Outcomes
(KI)
C A P (PO)
1 Identify the quintessential 2 LL1 1
difference between the concept of CS3
income and capital as an CT3
important tool for the imposition EM1
of income tax.
2 Identify legal issues of taxation 3 CS3 2, 3, 8
relating to the individual and to CT3
business and the concept of zakat LL2
as taxation a shariah. EM2
3 Solve their legal problem by CS3 2, 3, 8
developing in applying tax CT2
principle to factual situations. TS1

Since July 2021

10. LO - Instruction Method - Assessment Alignment:

Outcomes Teaching-Learning Methods Assessment Methods

LO1 Lecture, Tutorials Final Examination, Mid-
Semester Test
LO2 Tutorial and self-directed learning Oral Presentation, Written
assignment
LO3 Group Discussion Assignment, Opinion
writing
LO4 Case Study, Problem based learning Oral Presentation,
Assignment

11. Assessment Methods Weightage:

2
 Assessment Methods Percentage

Midterm test 20

Presentation 15

Quiz 20

Participation 5

Final Examination 40

Total 100

Must-Pass Assessment Method (s) Percentage

Not Applicable -

Total 100

12. Course Content

Week Course Content Guided Independent

Learning Learning
SLT SLT

1 Introduction to Revenue Law 3 5

2 Tax Legislation; Charge to tax; Residence 3 5

3 Taxation of office/employment income 3 5

4. Taxation of office/employment income 3 5

5. Taxation of Business Income 3 5

3
 6. Taxation of Business Income 3 5

Mid-Semester Test

7 Taxation of Business Income 3 5

MID-BREAK 30th April - 8th May 2022

8 Taxation of Business Income 3 5

9 Capital Allowances: Plant & Machinery 3 5

10 Capital Allowances: Industrial Premises 3 5

11 Corporate Taxation 3 5

12 Tax Avoidance/Tax Evasion 3 5

13 Real Property Gains Tax, Sales Tax, Services Tax, 3 5

Online Sales Tax 2022

14 Administration of Tax 3 5

Revision 4
Final Examination 4

Total 42 78

Total SLT 120

13. References:

13.1. Required

1. Jeyapalan Kasipillai: A Guide to Malaysian Taxation, [5th Ed 2019] OUP

2. Sudharsanan Thillainathan et al: Veerinder on Taxation (5th Ed, 2020) CCH
3. Tang Siau Yan et al: The Law & Practice of Singapore Income Tax [3rd Ed,
2020] LexisNexis

13.2. Recommended Books

4
 1. Glen Loutzenhiser: Tiley’s Revenue Law [10th Ed, 2022] Hart Publications
2. Mohamed Arif & Yeah Kim: Malaysia's Taxation System: Contemporary Practices,
Issues and Future Direction [2020], Sunway University Press

Prepared by: Checked by:

Name: Dr. Mazlena Mohamad Hussain

Name: Dr Mohsin Hingun
Civil Law Department, AIKOL Head, Civil Law Department, AIKOL

Date: 26.8. 2022 Date: 26.8.2022

Since July 2021

LAWS 2338: Revenue Law

Teaching & Learning Method: Semester 1 2022-2023
1. Unless otherwise advised, all students must follow face to face lectures and tutorials.
Nevertheless, students must join Microsoft Team which will be specifically created for
LAWS 2338 Section 1 to facilitate the flow of messages and transmission of study
materials.

2. The method of assessment shall be as follows:

Assessment Methods Percentage Description

Midterm Test 20 This is an individual assessment which carries 20

marks. The topic that will be covered is anti-
competitive horizontal agreement under section 4 (1)

5
 and 4 (2) of the Competition Act 2010 (refer to
important dates)

Quiz 20 In the form of Multiple-Choice Questions – one

question carries 1 mark. The topic covers both section 4
and section 10 of the CA 2010 (refer to important
dates)

Presentation 15 Student will be given set of problematic question to

present in the class. No written submission is required
but students need to submit their slide presentation.
Students’ oral skills will be assessed based on the
rubrics. This is a group work.

Participation 5 5 marks will be given for students’ participation during

tutorial and presentation. This is an individual
assessment. Preparations and active discussions will be
required to score in accordance with rubrics for class
participation.

Final Examination 40

Total 100

6
 Content outline of the course / module and the SLT per topic
Weeks Topics (elaborate the sub-topic) Learning Task/Reading
Hours (author/page/ cases)

Week 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kheong, Chap 1, Veerinder 1.1

3+5
Brief History of Taxation in
Malaysia

Concept of Income Pool v Guardian Investment Trust Co.

Outline of the Income Tax Act Ltd (1921) 8TC 167
1967 Saunders v Pilcher (1949) 2 All ER
Other Sources of Revenue 1087
Keen v Martin (1934) 19TC 33
Paget v CIR (1938) 21TC 677
STU v CIT (1962) MLJ 220
MR Justice Pitney in the Supreme
Court in Eisner v Macomber 252 US
189

WEEK
2.0 Construction of Tax
3+5
Kheong, Chap 1; Veerinder 1.5-1.74
Legislation Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC [1921]
2
1 KB 64

Mangin v IRC (1971) AC 739

X, Trustee of Est of Y v CIT (1969) 1
MLJ 157
Empat Tin Dredging Ltd v DGIR
[1982] 2MLJ 46
Ramsay v IRC [1981] STC 174
Interpretation Act 1948/67 S 17A
Palm Oil Research and Dev Board v
Premium Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd
[2005] 3 MLJ 97
National Land Finance Coop Soc v
DGIR [1994] AMR 1
Exxon v Pengarah Hasil [2006] 1 MLJ
428
Kanowit Timber Sdn Bhd v Ketua
Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2008] 8
MLJ 186
Adam Smith : Canons of
Taxation

7
 Charging section and Territorial S 3 ITA
Scope of Taxation
Classes of Income
S4

Concept and Importance of Veerinder 7.1

Residence Section 7 ITA
(Individuals)

WEEK 3.0 Taxation of Office/ Kheong, Chap 10; Veerinder 7.2

3+5
3 Employment Income S 2; S 4(b)

Office Gt Rly Western Co v Bater (1920) 3 KB

266

Employer-Employee relationship Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v

Macdonald and Evans (1952)1 TLR
101
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister
of Pensions (1968) 2 QB 497
FCT v Walter Thompson (1944) CLR
227
Zuijs v Wirths Bros (1955) CLR 561

Gross Income from Employment: S.13(1)a

Perquisites Maxix v DGIR [2015] 1 MLRA 1

Emoluments Hochstrasser v Mayes

Pritchard v Arundale (1972) 47 TC 680

Gifts Owen v Seymour (1920)1 KB 500

Ball v Johnson (1971) 47 TC 155
Tips Moore v Griffiths (1972) TC 338

Offerings Calvert v Wainwright (1947) KB 526

Wright v Boyce (1958) 38 TC 160
Benefit Matches
Blakiston v Cooper (1909) AC 104
Bonus
Moorehouse v Dooland (1955) 36
Commission Denny v Reed (1933) 18TC 256

8
 Shares &Share Options
Mudd v Collins (1925) 9TC 299

Weight v Salmon (1933) 19TC 174

Vouchers
Laidler v Perry (1965) 42TC 351

Week 4 4.0 Payments, Benefits in Kind Kheong, Chap 10; Veerinder 7.3
3+5

Payment for Commencement Pritchard v Arundale (1971) 47TC 680

Riley v Coglan (1968), All ER 314
Pre-contractual payment Jarrold v Boustead (1964) 3 All ER 76

Payment for Continuing DVC v DGIR (1974) 3 MTJ 83

Hunter v Dewhurst (1932) 16TC 605
Prendergast v Cameron (1940) 23TC
122
Tilley v Wales (1943) 25TC 147
Compensation for loss of
employment S 13(1)e; Sch 6 para 15

Termination/contract expiry H v Comp of Inland Revenue (1974) 2

MLJ 135 PC
THH v Ketua Peng. HDN (2009)
MSTC 3,821

Restrictive Covenants S 13(1)e;

Higgs v Olivier (1952) 33 TC 136
Beak v Robson (1942) 25 TC 33 cf

Payment for loss of future Henry v Foster (16TC605)

earnings Allen v Trehearne (22TC15)
Williams v Simmons (55TC17).

KPDHN v Abdul Jalil Hassan 2010

MSTC
Benefits in kind

S. 13(1)b any advantage in Tenant v Smith (1892) AC 150

money or in money's worth Wilkins v Rogerson (1961) Ch133
Machon v McLoughlin (1926) 11 TC 83

9
 Clayton v Gothorp (1971) 47 TC 168
Heaton v Bell (1970) AC 728
Jenkins v Horn (1979) 52TC 114
Hartland v Diggines (1926) 10TC 247

Week 5 5.0 Deductions in connection Kheong, Chap 10; Veerinder 7.6

3+5
with employment S 33; S 38
Wholly and exclusively incurred:
Lomax v Newton (1953) 2 All ER 356
Owen v Burden (1972), All ER 129
Brown v Bullock (1961) 3 All ER 129
Lupton v Potts (1969) 3 All ER 1083
Nicoll v Austin (1935) 19TC 531
Elderkin v Hindmarsh (1988) STI 256
Lucas v Cattell (1972) 48TC 353
Halstead v Condon (1970) 46TC 289
Mansfield v FCT (1996) 31 ATR 367
Exempt income: Schedule 6 para 21-22

Week 5 6.0 Taxation of Business Kheong, Chap 4, 6; Veerinder Chap 6

3+5
Income
S 4(a); S 2
Business
CIR v Forth Conservancy Board
Trade (1931)16TC 103
Harrison v Griffiths (1963) AC1
Ransom v Higgs (1974) 3All ER 949
Simmons v IRC (1980) 1 WLR 1196

Leeming v Jones (1930) 15TC 333

Single isolated transactions
Adventure or Concern in the
Nature of Trade
Cape Brandy Syndicate v CIR (1927)
12TC 358
Wisdom v Chamberlain (1969) 1 All ER
332
DEF v CIT [1967] 1 MLJ 55
E v DGIR [1970] 2 MLJ 117
LKS v DGIR [1972] 2 MLJ 14
I Investment v CIR [1979] 4 MLJ 4
DGIR V ALB [1979] 1 MLJ 1
Sekong Rubber v DGIR [1980] 2 MLJ
198

10
 UN Finance v DGIR [1975] 1 MLJ 109
DGIR v Hui Thong Co [1981] 2 MLJ 33
DGIR v Khoo Ewe Aik Realty [1990] 2
MLJ 415

Week 6 7.0 Badges of Trade The Radcliffe Commission 1952

3+5

Profit seeking Motive Iswera v Ceylon Commissioner of

Taxation (1965) WLR 586
Rutledge v IRC (1929) 14 TC 490
Period of ownership Johnston v Heath 46TC 463
Turner v Last (1965) 42TC 463

Cape Brandy Syn v IRC Supra

Development or processing of
IRC v Livingstone (1926) 11 TC 538
asset
Rutledge v IRC, supra
Nature of the subject-matter
CIR v Fraser (1942) 24 TC 498

Organization and special skill

Martin v Lowry (1926) 11 TC 297
Cape Brandy Syn v IRC, Supra

Circumstance lending to
West v Philips (1958) 38 TC 203
realization
Leach v Pagson (1962) 40 TC 585
Frequency of transactions
Bolson v Farrelly (1954) 34 TC 161

Week 7 3+5
Test & Case Presentation
Week 7
8.0 Illegal Trading Mann v Nash (1932) 16 TC 523
3+5
Canadian Ministry of Finance v Smith
(1927) AC 193
DGIR v LTS (1974)1 MTJ 187
IRC v Aken (1988) STC 69

Mutual Trading Municipal Mutual Insurance v Hills

(1932) 16 TC 430
Styles v N. York Life Insurance Co
(1889) 2 TC 460
Jones v The S.W Lancs. Coal Owners'
Assoc. (1927) 11 TC 790
Carlisle v Silloth Golf Club v Smith

11
 (1913) 3 KB 75
Fletcher v IRC (1971) 3 All ER 1185

Profession CIR v Maxse (1928) 12 TC 41

Vocation Partridge v Mallandaine (1886) 18

QBD 276

Manufacture Aditya Mills Ltd v Union of India

(1989) STC 195

Week 8 9.0 Capital Receipts, Revenue

3+5
Evans Medical Supplies Ltd v Moriarty
Receipts (1957) 37 TC 540
Musker v English Electric Co Ltd
Sale of Technical Know-how
(1964) 41 TC 556
or secret processes
Wolf Electric Tools Ltd v Wilson (1968)
45 TC 326
Rolls Royce Ltd v Jeffrey (1962) 40 TC
443

Sekong Rubber Co Ltd v DGIR (1980)

2 MLJ 198
Daishowa v Kepong Wood (1980) 2
MLJ 198

Sums received by way of

Glenboig Union v IRC (1928) 12 TC
compensation for sterilization
427
of assets
Waterloo Main Colliery Co Ltd v IRC
(1942) 29 TC 35
Van den Berghs Ltd v Clark 19 TC 340
Imposition of restrictive
convenants
Higgs v Olivier (1952) 33 TC 136
Thompson v Magnesium Elektron Ltd
(1944) 26 TC 1
Murray v ICI Ltd (1967) 44 TC 175
Payments received for the
destruction of recipient's
Van Den Berghs Ltd v Clark (1935) 19
Profit-making apparatus
TC 390
Kelsall, Parsons v IRC (1938) 21 TC
Payments in lieu of trading
608
receipts
London and Thames Haven Oil v

12
 Attwooll (1976) 2 WLR 743
Burmah Steaming v CIR (1930) 16 TC
67
Payment for sale of business Short Bros v IRC (1929) 12 TC 955
assets

(e) Sums paid by way of Orchard Wine & Supply Co v Loynes

contributing towards (1952) 33 TC 97
taxpayer's business West v Philips (1958) 38 TC 203

(f) Unclaimed deposits CIR v Cola (1959) 38 TC 334

Evans v Wheatly (1958) 38 TC 216

Mortley v Tattersall (1938) 22 TC 51

3.5 Jays, The Jewellers Ltd v CIR (1947)
Trading Stock
29 TC 274
Elson v Price Tailors Ltd (1962) 40 TC
671

S.35 : Valuation of Trading stock

S.24 : Transfer of Trading stock

Sharkey v Wernher (1955) 36 TC 275

IRC v Lock, Russel & Co Ltd (1949) 29
TC 387
Jacgilden Ltd v Castle (1969) 45 TC
685
Petroleum Securities v Ayres (1962) 41
TC 389
Craddock v Zero Finances Ltd (1945)
27 TC 267
Dupple Motor v Ostile (1961) 39 TC
537
BSC Footwear v Ridway (1968) 47 TC
95
Min of National Revenue v Anaconda
(1956) AC 85 PC

Contributing towards CIR v Cola (1959) 38 TC 334

taxpayer's business Evans v Wheatly (1958) 38 TC 216

13
 Unclaimed deposits Mortley v Tattersall (1938) 22 TC 51
Jays, The Jewellers Ltd v CIR (1947)
29 TC 274
Elson v Price Tailors Ltd (1962) 40 TC
671

3+5 S 33, S 39; Veerinder Chap 10

Week 9 Adjusted Income
Capital expenditure – Revenue
Allowable Deduction expenditure

British Insulated v Atherton (1924) 10

TC 155
Vallamborosa Rubber Co Ltd v Farmer
(1907) 5 TC
529
Sun Newspaper Ltd v FCT (1938) 61
CLR 337
IRC v Carron (1966) 45 TC 18
Mallet v Stavely (1928) 13 TC 772

Strong v Woodfield (1905) 5 TC 215

Bentleys Stokes & Lowless v Beeson
(1951) 33 TC
Scope of Section 33 Smith’s Potato Est v Bolland (1948) 2
All ER 367
Copeman v Flood (1941) 1 KB 202
Bowden v Russell (1964) 42 TC 301
Edwards v Warmsley (1966) 44 TC
581
Smith v Incorporated Council of Law
Reporting (1914) 6 TC 477
Newsom v Robertson (1954) 33 TC
452
Horton v Young (1968) 47 TC 60
Re A Taxpayers (1969) 2 MLJ xvi
Syarikat KM Bhd v DGIR (1972) 1 MLJ
alterations, improvements, repair, 224
renew

Initial Repairs Law Shipping v IRS (1928) 12 TC 621

Odeon Associated Theatres v Jones
[1972] 2 WLR 331

14
 Jackson v Laskers Home Furnishers
Reconstruction (1943) 27 TC 69
Bullcroft Main Collieries v O’Grady
(1928) 17 TC 93
CIT v Straits Rubber Co (1961) MLJ
191
Lurcott v Wakely (1911) 1 KB 905
Samuel Jones v IRC (1951) 32 TC 513

Week 10.0 Capital Allowance Kheong, Chap 7; Veerinder 11.1, 11.2

3+5
10
Industrial Premises Bourke v Norwich Crematorium (1967)
44 TC 164
CIT v Processing Enterprise Ltd 37
SATC 109
Buckingham v Securities Properties
Ltd (1980) STC 166
Kilmarnock Equitable Co-operative
Society Ltd v IRC (1966) 42 TC 675
Sarsfield v Dixon Group Plc [1998]
STC 938
Ellerker v Union Cold Storage Co. Ltd.
1938 22(TC) 195
CIR v Leith Harbour & Docks Comnr
1941(24) TC 118
Vibroplant Ltd v Holland [1982] 1 All
ER 792
Blunson (H M Inspector of Taxes) v
The West Midlands Gas Board 33 TC
315
Kilmarnock Equitable Cooperative
Society Ltd v I RC 1966 S.L.T. 224
Bestway (Holdings) Ltd v Luff [1998]
S.T.C. 357
Inland Revenue v. Lambhill Ironworks
1950 SC 331
IRC v Saxone, Lilley & Skinner
(Holdings) Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 756
DGIR v C Company of Malaysia(1980)
10 MTJ 67

Plant and Machinery Yarmouth v France (1887) 19 QBD

15
 647
Munby v Furlong [1977] 1 ALL ER 953
Cole Bros v Phillips (1981) STC 683
CIR v Barclay Curle Ltd (1968) 45 TC
221
Rose & Co. Ltd v Campbell [1968] 1 All
ER 405

Hinton v Maden and Ireland Ltd [1959]

3 All ER 356

Jarrold v John Good & Sons Ltd [1963]

1 All ER 141
Benson v Yard Arm Club Ltd [1979] 2
All ER 336
Scottish v Newcastle Breweries Ltd
[1982] BTC 187
Thomas v Reynolds [1987] STC 135
Gray v Seymours Garden Centre
[1995] STC 706
Artwood v Anduff Car Wash Ltd [1997]
STC 1167
Bridge House v Hinder(1971) TC
Thomas v Reynolds (1987)STC 135
Shove v Lingfield Park (1991) Limited
[2004] EWCA Civ 391
ZF v Comptroller of Income Tax
[2010] SGHC 14 cf CA judgment
[2010] SGCA 48

Week 11.0 Corporate Taxation Kheong, Chap12; Veerinder 6.4

3+5
11 S8
Residence of Companies
Calcutta Jute Mills Co Ltd v Henry
Management & Control (1975) ITC 83
Swedish Central Railway Co Ltd v
Thompson (1924) 9 TC 342
Union Corp. v CIR (1952) 34 TC 207
Koitaki Para Rubber Est. Ltd v CIT
(1961) 64 CLR 15
De Beers Cons. Mines Ltd v Howe
[1906] AC 455
Stanley v The Gramophone and

16
 Typewriter Co. Ltd (1908) STC 358

The Imputation System[ to 31st
Dec 2013]
Single Tier System [Jan 1, 2014]
S 108
Omnibus Co Ltd v Govt of Malaya
(1963) MLJ 14
CIT v B&C Co Ltd [1966] 1 MLJ 286
R A Hill v Permanent Trustees Co
NSW (1930) AC 720

Corporate Distributions CIR v Trustees of J Reid (1946) TC

443

Knowles v Ballarat Trustees (1962) 2

CLR 212
Controlled Companies
S 139

Week 11.0 Estates, Trusts and Kheong, Chap 15;

3+5
11 Settlements
S 64
Estates
S 64(1),(2)
Apportionment of Income
S 64(3),(5),(6)
Annuities
S 74(5)
Responsibility of Executor
S 99
Appeal
S 61
Trusts Sch 1 para 2

Residence S 61(3)

Non Resident Trust S 61 (4), (5)

Beneficiaries Income S 61(1)c

S 61(4)a.,b
Set Off
S 110(8)
Charitable Trusts
Sch 6 para 13
Settlements

17
 S 65
Settlor, Relative Bulmer v IRC (1964) 44 TC 1
S65(1)

Arrangement Copeman v Coleman (1937)22 TC 594

IRC v Leiner (1963) 41 TC 589

Settlement on Relatives S 65(1)

Revocable Settlements S 65(2)

Deemed Settlor’s Income Woolfson v IRC (1947) 31 TC 141

IRC v Payne(1941)22 3 TC 317
Recovery of Tax from CIR v Warden (1937)22 TC 416
Trustees Chamberlain v CIR (1942)25 TC 317
S 65(3)

Week 12.0 Tax Mitigation; Tax Kheong, Chap 19; Veerinder Chap 17
3+5
12 Avoidance
IRC v Duke of Westminster
CIR v Challenge Corp [1986]STC 548
Lim Kar Bee v Duofortis Properties
Sdn Bhd [1992]2 MLJ 281
Anti-avoidance provision : S.90
Newton v FCT (1950) 98 CLR 1
Mangin v CIR [1971] AC 739
CIT v AB Estates Ltd [1967] 1 MLJ 89
WP Keighery v FCT (1957) 100 CLR
66
Mullens v FCT (1976) 6 ATR 504
Shutzkin v FCT (1977) 8 ATR 166
Peacock v FCT (1976) 6 ATR 677
Cecil Bros v FCT (1964) 111 CLR 430
Sabah Berjaya Sdn Bhd v Ketua
Pengarah Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri
[1999] 3 MLJ 145

Week 13.0 Zakat Levy

18
 13 3+5 Collection
Application
Administration

13.1 Administration of Income Kheong, Chap 20; Veerinder Chap 4

Tax

Week
3+5
14 Ss 77 – 89
PP v Choo Swee Huat (1963) MLJ 38
PP v Lee Seng Seh (1966) 1 MLJ 266

Assessments Ss 90 – 97

Rosette Franks v Dick (1953) TC 100

Rosette Principle UHG v DGIR (1974) 2 MLJ 33

Cenlon Finance v Ellwood (1962) 45

Discovery TC 176

O’Mullan & Co v Warmsley (1966) 42

TC 873
Fraud, Wilful Default or Hillenbraud v CIR (1964) 42 TC 617
Negligence Thurgood v Slarke (1968) 47 TC 130

X v CIR (1957) MLJ 110

Finality of Assessment
Edwards v Baistow [1956] AC 14
Appeals Re AB Ltd [1956] MLJ 197
HZHS v DGIR (1991) 1 MSTC 3230

Ss 98 - 102

Special Commissioners Ss 103 – 111

Collection and Recovery
Offences and Penalties
CIT v RST [1962] MLJ 216
Govt of Malaysia v DC [1973] 1 MLJ
112
CGIR v NP [1973] 1 MLJ 30
CIT v AB [1967] 1 MLJ 11
CIT v A Co Ltd [1966] 2 MLJ 282
Ss 112 – 126
PP v Phua Thian Kong [1971] 1 MLJ

19
 65
PP v Choo Swee Huat [1963] MLJ 28
NTS Arumugam Pillai v DGIR [1977] 2
MLJ 63

14. Other sources of Income Stamp Duty

Tax Real Property Gains Tax
Goods and Services Tax
Custom and Excise Duty
112
Continuous Assessment and Final 8
Exam
TOTAL 120

20
 LAWS 2338: Revenue Law
Teaching & Learning Method: Semester 1 2021-2022

3. Unless otherwise advised, all students must follow face to face lectures and tutorials. Nevertheless,
students must join Microsoft Team which will be specifically created for LAWS 2338 Section 1
to facilitate the flow of messages and transmission of study materials.

4. The method of assessment shall be as follows:

Assessment Methods Percentage Description

Midterm Test 20 This is an individual assessment which carries 20

marks, based on the taxation of employment income. In
consultation with the class the test date will be
scheduled to be held before the midsemester break.

Quiz 20 The quiz will be drafted in the form of 20 Multiple-

Choice Questions, each carrying 1 mark. It will be
based on the taxation of business income.

Presentation 15 Student will be given set of problematic question to

present in the class. No written submission is required
but students need to submit their slide presentation.
Students’ oral skills will be assessed based on the
rubrics. This is a group work.

Participation 5 5 marks will be given for students’ participation during

tutorial and presentation. This is an individual
assessment. Preparations and active discussions will be
required to score in accordance with rubrics for class
participation.

Final Examination 40

Total 100

1
 Rubric for Evaluation of Mid-term Test
Performance Levels Marks
Rubric Components (Points Scale)
4 3 2 1
Excellent Good Fair Poor 20
Originality of work 3 2 1 0
- Do students use their original ideas?

- Do students refer to original sources?

- Is there proper acknowledgement of

sources that students refer to?

Research skills 5 4 2 1
- Do students rely on correct and
adequate sources and literature?
- Are sources well-referenced?
- Do students use a systematic
footnoting style?
Content 8 6 5 3
- Do students identify the issues/state
the problem correctly?
- Is analysis of the applicable law
appropriate?
- Is the application of the law to the
given situation correct?
- Is the content descriptive or critical?
- Do students conclude with proper
answer, solution, comments or
criticism?
Organization and Language 4 3 2 1
- Do students use systematic structure
with cover page, table of contents,
introduction, main body, conclusion
and bibliography?
- Do students use sequential
organization of paragraphs that are
suited to proper transition of ideas?
- Do students use correct grammar?
- Do students use correct spelling,
choice of words, and punctuation?
- Are sentences clear and varied in
pattern?

20 15 10 5
Total

2
 AHMAD IBRAHIM KULLIYYAH OF LAWS
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
Rubrics & Scoresheet for Evaluation of Class Participation (5%)

INSTRUCTOR: _________________________________________ SECTION _______

Name:

Exemplary (5) Accomplished (4) Developing (2-3) Require improvement (1) Total
score

Level of • Proactively and regularly •Proactively contributes • Few contributions to • Did not contribute to class
Engagement contributes to class to class discussion, class discussion; discussion; fails to respond
and active discussion; Initiates asking questions Seldom volunteers but to direct questions
discussion on issues and respond to responds to direct
participation
related to class topic direct questions questions

Relevance of • Student is consistently •Student has read and • Student has read the • Student is not adequately
Contribution well-prepared; thought about the material but not prepared; Does not appear
to topic Frequently raises material in advance closely or has read to have read the material in
questions or comments of class only some of the advance of class
under
on material outside the assigned material in
discussion assignment advance of class

Preparation • Listens without interrupting •Listens and • Does not listen • Does not listen when
and incorporates and appropriately carefully and others talk, interrupts, or
expands on the responds to the comments are often makes inappropriate
contributions of other contributions of nonresponsive to comments
students others discussion • Contributions, when made,
•Contributions are relevant •Contributions are • Contributions are are off-topic or distract
and promote deeper always relevant sometimes off-topic class from discussion
analysis of the topic or distracting

1
 AHMAD IBRAHIM KULLIYYAH OF LAWS
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
RUBRICS & SCORESHEETS FOR PRESENTATION (15%)

INSTRUCTOR: _________________________________________ SECTION _______

Name: Appendix : Matric Number

EXCEPTIONAL GOOD AVERAGE POOR TOTAL

(13-15)
Knowledge & • Demonstrated a thorough
Content knowledge of the subject
(10) matter.
• Able to use audience questions
to further demonstrate
understanding of the topic.
• Shows how the analysis applies
to facts & Explains why the
analysis applies to facts
• Clear conclusion/ answers
• Includes all key facts and Uses
and applies legal principles
• Presentation is Organized
around issues and sub-issues
(10-12)
• Demonstrated a working
knowledge of the subject
matter.
• Able to satisfactorily
answer audience
questions and provided
additional information
upon request
• Somewhat shows how the
analysis applies to facts &
Somewhat explains why
the analysis applies to
facts
• Somewhat vague or
ambiguous conclusion
• Includes some key facts
and Lacks sufficient legal
principles
(6-9)
• Demonstrated a basic
knowledge of the subject
matter.
• Able to address audience
questions by repeating parts
of the presentation - did not
provide any additional
information.
• Somewhat shows how the
analysis applies to facts &
Lacks explaining why the
analysis applies to facts
• Organizes discussion around
unclear point & Unclear
conclusion
• Lacks sufficient key facts
and Lacks sufficient legal
principles
(0-5) SCORE
• Demonstrated little or
no knowledge of the
subject.
• Unable to answer
audience questions or
comment further on any
part of the presentation
• Confusing discussion
• Lacks showing how the
analysis applies to facts
&Lacks explaining why
the analysis applies to
facts
• Lacks key facts
• Lacks accurate legal
principles

Clarity & • Appropriate volume throughout • Spoke at an appropriate • Spoke quietly. Increased • Barely audible, even
Enthusiasm presentation. volume for most of volume briefly after being after requests to speak
(5) • Proper inflection throughout presentation. asked. up.
presentation. Spoke clearly and • Good inflection and • Showed some excitement • Sounded bored or
2
 understandably
• Appeared enthusiastic about
presentation at all times and
able to hold audience interest
for most of presentation.
Visual Aid • Visual aids were of exceptional
(5) quality. Contributed to the
quality or amount of
information being presented.
• Presenter handled visual aids
expertly but Did not present by
merely reading form notes of
visual aids.
enunciation. about the topic. uninterested.
Occasionally sounded • Attempted to modify behavior • Paid little attention to
monotone to engage audience on one or proper pronunciation
• Appeared enthusiastic more occasions. Lost • Showed little or no
for most of the attention of some audience enthusiasm about the
presentation and able to members. topic
hold audience interest
for most of presentation.
• Visual aids were of • Visual aids were marginally • Visual aids were
high-quality, related to related to the topic. unrelated to the topic,
the topic, and • Did not rely too heavily on or presenter failed to
contributed to the notes or visual aids. explain relevance of the
presentation. props.
• Handled visual aid • Read the notes or visual
smoothly. aids.
• Occasionally read the
visual aid and visual aids
used to guide discussion