Monthly Tax Deduction as Final Tax: The Case of Malaysian Employees
Keywords:Monthly tax deduction, Final Tax, Withholding Tax, Employment Tax, Malaysia
Malaysia introduced Monthly Tax Deduction (MTD) as final tax system so that salaried earners can be excluded from reporting their employment income. However, the system is voluntary, and the take-up rate is low. This study was undertaken to examine employees’ issues on MTD’s implementation as the final tax system in Malaysia. This study comprises a case study on MTD implementation at two institutions that remain anonymous due to confidentiality. Data were collected from 64 responses from open-ended questionnaires to employees at both institutions. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. Findings from the analysis revealed that employees’ hesitation to such a system is more apparent. There are three main issues discovered from this study which are: lack of knowledge on MTD as final tax among employees, a burden on claiming tax reliefs and the accuracy of MTD calculation; and employer’s readiness. The findings provide evidence to the IRBM. It will provide a good foundation for the IRBM to strategise mechanisms to enhance the system’s implementation. For instance, the information on low readiness among employers may call for a roundtable discussion between the tax authority and employers. This would help both parties to discuss possible ways to resolve the issue. Other implications and recommendations for policymakers were also discussed in this paper.
Abdul, M. (2001). Personal income tax non-compliance in Malaysia. (Ph.D.), Victoria University, Melbourne.
All-Party Parliamentary Taxation Group (2009). Pre-populated returns Briefing Paper (September). Washington: Technology Policy Institute.
Bankman, J. (2005). Simple filing for average citizens: The California ReadyReturn. Tax Analysts, 1431-1439. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/2005-11952-1.pdf
Bobek, D. D., & Hatfield, R. C. (2003). An investigation of the theory of planned behavior and the role of moral obligation in tax compliance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15(1), 13-38.
Bobek, D. D., Hatfield, R. C. & Wentzel, K. (2007). An investigation of why taxpayers prefer refunds: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 29(1), 93-111.
Boning, W. C. (2018). Paying Taxes Automatically: Behavioral Effects of Withholding Income Tax. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Danish Ministry of Taxation. (2008). Tax in Denmark 2008. http://www.skm.dk/foreign/english/taxindenmark2008/
Davidson, S. (2009). Should Australian taxpayers lodge annual tax returns? Occasional paper (April). Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs.
Dircksen, J. (2005). California’s ReadyReturn program: Fool’s gold in the Golden State. National Taxpayers Union, (153). http://www.ntu.org/in-your-state/california/californias-ready-return.html
Doxey, M., Lawson, J., & Stinson, S. (July 2019). The Effects of Prefilled Tax Returns on Taxpayer Compliance. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3285519 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3285519.
Evans, C. (2004). Diminishing returns: The case for reduced annual filing for personal income taxpayers in Australia. Australian Tax Review, 33(3), 168-181.
Evans, C. (2008). Taxation compliance and administrative costs: An overview In M. Lang, C. Obermair, J. Schuch, C. Staringer & P. Weninger (Eds.), Tax compliance costs for companies in an enlarged European community (Vol. 19, pp. 447-468). The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Evans, C., Ritchie, K., Tran-Nam, B., & Walpole, M. (1997). A report into taxpayer costs of compliance. Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Evans, C., & Tran-Nam, B. (2010). Managing tax system complexity: Building bridges through pre-filled tax returns. Australian Tax Forum, 25(2), 245-274.
Evans, C., & Tran-Nam, B. (2011). Australia. In F. Vaillancourt (Ed.), Pre-filled personal income tax returns: A comparative analysis of Australia, Belgium, California, Quebec, and Spain. Quebec: Fraser Institute.
Gale, W. G., & Holtzblatt, J. (1997). On the possibility of a no-return tax system. National Tax Journal, 50(3), 475-485.
Gelman, M., Kariv, S., Shapiro, M. D., & Silverman, D. (2019). Rational Illiquidity and Excess Sensitivity: Theory and Evidence from Income Tax Withholding and Refunds: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gillitzer, C., & Skov, P. E. (2018). The use of third-party information reporting for tax deductions: evidence and implications from charitable deductions in Denmark. Oxford Economic Papers, 70(3), 892-916.
Highfield, R. (2006). Pre-populated income tax returns: The next “big thing” in the reform of the administration of Australia’s personal income tax system? In M. McKerchar & M. Walpole (Eds.), Further global challenges in tax administration (pp. 331-357). Birmingham: Fiscal Publication.
Ibrahim, I. (2013). Electronic filing of personal income tax return in Malaysia: Determinants and compliance costs. (Ph.D.), Curtin University.
Ibrahim, I., & Pope, J. (2011). The viability of a pre-filled income tax return system for Malaysia. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 17(2), 85-101.
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. (2005). IRAS: New pre-filled e-filing screen and filing deadline extended. Retrieved 19 December 2010, from http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/news.aspx?id=986
IRBM. (2019). Employer MTD calculation. Retrieved 7 September 2019, from http://www.hasil.gov.my/bt_goindex.php?bt_kump=50&bt_skum=1&bt_posi=1&bt_unit=8&bt_sequ=7#
Kleven, H. J., Knudsen, M. B., Kreiner, C. T., Pedersen, S. & Saez, E. (2010). Unwilling or unable to cheat? Evidence from a randomised tax audit experiment in Denmark NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Klun, M. (2009). Pre-filled income tax returns: Reducing compliance costs for personal income taxpayers in Slovenia. Financial Theory and Practice, 33(2), 219-237.
Leigh, A. (2006). Three ideas on tax reform. Progressive Essay. http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/ProgressiveEssayTax.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development. (2006). Using third-party information reports to assist taxpayers meet their return filing obligations— Country experiences with the use of pre-populated personal tax returns. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development. (2008). Third-party reporting arrangements and pre-filled tax returns: The Danish and Swedish approaches. Paris: OECD.
Ramli, S. (2017). Factors influencing the intention to use final tax among employment income taxpayers in Klang Valley, Malaysia. (Master Project Paper), Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Saad, N. (2011). Fairness perceptions and compliance behaviour: Taxpayers’ judgments in self-assessment environments.
Slemrod, J. B. (2004). Written testimony submitted to the committee on ways and means. Subcommittee on oversight Hearing on Tax Simplification (Vol. One Hundred Nine Congress, pp. 44-47). Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives.
Slemrod, J. B. (2006). Taxation and big brother: Information, personalisation, and privacy in 21st-century tax policy. Fiscal Studies, 27(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2006.00025.x
Young, R. (2010). IRS Should not Prepare Taxes It Collects, Valley News, p. A.8.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright of all articles published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) belongs to their respective authors. Site users are permitted to download and print the articles for personal use. Further reproduction and/or distribution is not permitted, except for brief excerpts or quotations intended for inclusion in some other original works. In this case, proper attribution must be made to the author/copyright holder, and the place of publication must be acknowledged. Altering, editing or otherwise modifying the content of information obtained from the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) is a breach of copyright.
While you retain the copyright of your original material, by publishing in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) , you will have agreed to the following contractual terms:
- The article is the original work of the stated author(s).
- The work has not been published previously.
- If the Article contains copyright material owned by others, written permission has been obtained from the copyright owner(s) to republish such material in any print or electronic medium and that you have included appropriate acknowledgement of such rights in the Article.
- The author agrees to grant a non-exclusive license to the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) to communicate the work to the public.
- The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) may use the article for publicity purposes.
- The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) may publish the article on third-party sites.
- Any subsequent publication of the article by the authors will carry the acknowledgement: First published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) [http://ipjaf.omjpalpha.com]
The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) has taken all reasonable measures to ensure that material contained in this website is the original work of the author(s). However, the Journal gives no warranty and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of the material; no reliance should be made by any user on the material. The user should check with the authors for confirmation.
Articles published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) do not represent the views held by the editors and members of the editorial board. Authors are responsible for all aspects of their articles except the editorial screen design.