Our cars are costing us our homes!

WHEN I first started my job as an architect in the 1960s, I was on a three-year contract with a monthly salary of RM628. I bought my first car, a Peugeot which cost RM7,724, equivalent to approximately one year of my salary. The car became my reliable companion for 14 years. Those were the good old days, when a car could be bought with just one year of a fresh graduate's salary.

Circumstances have since changed. Today, for a fresh graduate to own a car in Malaysia, it will easily cost him four years of his salary to purchase a foreign car, and even a local car costs around two years of his salary. If we take into consideration his living expenses and other commitments, it may take him even longer to settle his car loan. Hence, it has left him with very little option but to take the maximum car loan financing tenure of nine years.

In the table illustration below, a fresh graduate in the Washington D.C. earning about RM11,000 (about US$3,500) per month can easily buy a Japanese Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla worth RM50,000 as it is only 0.4 times of his yearly salary.

On the other hand, a fresh graduate in Malaysia earning about RM2,500 per month needs to pay RM120,000 if he would like to buy the same type of car. It costs him four times his gross yearly salary. This ratio is 10 times higher than his US counterpart.

For youths in Malaysia, buying a car is more expensive both in real terms, and in terms of debt-to-income ratio. In reality, it means they have to either purchase a car with lower price tag or commit to a longer term loan to own a car, which cost them the opportunity of owning a home.

This situation requires our youth to choose between buying a car or a house first, and many have committed to own a car first, considering our public transportation system is still in the process of being improved.

Many fresh graduates in Malaysia who start to serve their car loan tend to delay their plan of purchasing a home.

Unfortunately by the time they can afford to purchase a home, be it three, five or nine years later, the price of a property would have escalated due to among other things, inflation, higher construction cost and higher land prices.

While it may be safe to say that their salary would also increase, generally speaking the increment may not aligned to the rate of inflation. In most cases, owning a home will be a huge debt lasting 30 to 40 years of housing loan repayment.

What can be done differently to change the circumstances? Is there a better way for them to financially plan their future? These are questions that Malaysian youths ought to consider before purchasing any big-ticket items.

Let's look at the table again. It also lists the median price for three-bedroom apartments in the suburbs of these cities. The median price of an apartment in the Klang Valley is around RM300,000, equivalent to 10-year gross income of our fresh graduates. The affordability level is more favourable compared to other Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Thailand. The prices of same size apartments in Jakarta and Bangkok range from RM350,000 to RM400,000, and costing their fresh graduates 13 to 18 years of gross yearly income to purchase a house.

Therefore, when it comes to the question of home affordability in Malaysia, we are blessed compared to our regional peers.

However, there are many factors that contribute to the challenge for our youths to own a house. Two primary factors are the additional financial commitment of purchasing a car, and the relatively lower income level in our country compared to our Western counterparts.

When fresh graduates spend a substantial amount of their salary paying for a car, they are left with little savings to own a house, and their house affordability level decreases over the years as prices rise due to inflation.

Clearly the income level of our graduates has to rise, to enable better quality of living and higher affordability level, which is the current government's focus to make Malaysia a high income nation by 2020.

Perhaps it is also time to re-look at our national car policy and how it has affected the house affordability level in Malaysia. From the numbers above, it is clear that our cars are costing us our homes.

Food for thought  By DATUK ALAN TONG

> FIABCI Asia Pacific chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was FIABCI World president in 2005/06 and was named Property Man of The Year 2010. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. (email at feedback@bukitkiara.com) 

Related post:

'No’ to property price speculation

Houses prices hardly fall

New tax rules create a quandary for lending to family members

CHARGING below market interest gets you in trouble with the taxman or the law against money-lending.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.

This advice by Polonius, the King's adviser to his son in Shakespeare's Hamlet remains good advice today.

But good advice, it is said, is least heeded when most needed.

Lending money gives rise to risk of default, a stark reminder of today's global phenomenon.

At a personal level, it can lead to the loss of a friend, a relative remaining one only by virtue of blood ties.

The term “relative” is defined in our tax law to include a wide network of family members including a nephew, a niece, a cousin and somewhat incredibly “an ancestor or lineal descendant.”

How the latter is to be determined, the law has not made clear, leaving the conundrum perhaps to the wisdom of the courts.

In many cases, loans between family members are below-market loans.

By this is meant that the lender charges either no interest or a rate that is less than the “market rate” also known as the “arm's length” rate.

This is in breach of the tax law, which requires a loan to a related party including a relative to be at the market rate of interest.

This requirement has been made clear by a recent Government Gazette setting out rules on transfer pricing as the rules do not state that such loans must be in the context of carrying on a business or must be used in a business.

Thus when you make a below market loan to a relative, driven entirely by altruistic reasons and devoid of any business considerations, the tax law treats you as having derived imputed' income from your borrower and would proceed to levy tax on that imputed income.

This phantom income on which tax is levied equals the market rate you should have charged less the interest you actually charged.

This means that you must report the imputed interest as taxable income in your tax return failing which you will be in default of the tax law.

If you were to consider avoiding this unfavourable tax outcome by being somewhat hard-hearted and charged interest to your relative, then you are in breach of the Moneylenders Act.

The law here precludes the charging of any interest since you are not a licensed moneylender.

A moneylender under this law is any person who “lends a sum of money to a borrower in consideration of a larger sum being repaid to him”.

So this puts you, the lender, setting out to help a financially distressed relative, on the proverbial “horns of a dilemma”.

You are in the untenable position of breaking one or the other law.

This state of affairs seems to run counter to any coherent tax policy objective.

In the United States, the lending of money below market rate historically occurred without tax consequences.

Through a series of court cases over several years culminating in a case in 1984, the court held that the lender's right to receive interest is a “valuable property right” and where such a right is transferred by way of an interest-free loan, it is in the nature of a gift subject to “gift tax”.

But the point here is that the taxing of the interest-free loan is because of the existence of a gift tax.

We do not have such a tax in Malaysia and taxing imputed interest, as this measure is generally known, between related individuals not conducting business transactions, is a retrograde step.

We had long repealed a similar imputed income provision, which treated a person owning an unoccupied house as having an income source, even where no income exist.

Business related loans follow similar concepts, but here the law is entirely understandable and justified where the intent is to avoid tax.

If company A makes an interest-free loan to its subsidiary which is a tax exempt pioneer company, then this leads to tax results which are not reflective of transactions between commercial parties.

Not charging interest inflates the subsidiary's tax exempt profits enhancing its capacity to pay tax exempt dividends, without a corresponding tax liability on the lending parent had interest been charged.

Here the existence of a “tax shelter” where one entity has either tax exempt status or a tax loss position, can lead to tax leakage, the reason for the arm's length rule.

Interest-free business lending between related companies can also lead to anomalous results.

This is a consequence of the divergence between the tax treatment and the new accounting standards for public listed companies.

The taxman will require tax to be imposed on the lender on the imputed market rate interest.

Whereas if such a company lends RM100,000 to its subsidiary interest - free to be repaid in equal instalment over five years and the market interest rate is 10%, the accounts will reflect the lender as having a debt of RM75,816, which is the discounted amount at the inception of the loan.

Over the period of the loan, the borrower will be shown as having paid interest of RM 24,184 which will equal the discount.

Thus the books of both companies will be recorded as if interest had been paid as shown in the table.

Since these are book entries and there are no costs incurred or income earned, they have no tax consequence.

This reflects the economic substance of the loan transaction as distinct from the strict legal substance, the mainstay for tax.

This fundamental difference in concept tends to make attempts at convergence between the accounting and tax treatments particularly problematic.

The more pressing issue is doing away with the taxing of imputed interest on non-business lending between relatives, a measure which seems unjustified.

Kang Beng Hoe is an executive director of TAXAND MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd, a member firm of TAXAND, the first global organisation of independent tax firms. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the firm. Readers should seek specific professional advice before acting on the views. Beng Hoe can be contacted at kbh@taxand.com.my