LHDN（Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri，即马来西亚内陆税收局）尚未就电子发票中的 FOC（免费）项目或样品提供具体指导。
鉴于当局保持沉默，我们可以从不同的角度进行考虑：
1. 保守方法：
一些企业可能会选择为 “免费赠送” 的物品或样品开具电子发票。
这些发票一般需要发送验证。
尽管这些物品是免费的，但它们仍然代表了一种交易，可能会产生税务影响。
例如，如果一家化妆品公司向客户发送免费样品，则应开具价值为零的电子发票，详细说明发送的物品。
这有助于库存跟踪并确保业务透明度。
2. 实用的商业方法：
然而，从实际业务的角度来看，许多公司可能会选择不为 “免费赠送 “的物品或样品开具电子发票，尤其是在不涉及货币价值的情况下。
这种做法的理由如下：
a) 无价值交易： 由于没有货币交换，这不构成需要电子发票的交易。
b) 行政负担： 为每个免费样品开具电子发票可能会造成不必要的行政负担，特别是对于经常提供样品的企业。
c) 常见商业惯例： 提供样品而不开具正式发票是许多行业长期接受的商业惯例。
3. 替代文件：
除电子发票外，企业还可使用其他方法跟踪方便旗项目：
交货单或装箱单
内部库存管理系统
促销材料日志
4. 重要性考虑：
企业可根据方便旗物品的价值或数量设置阈值，只对重大赠品开具电子发票。
结论：
鉴于 LHDN 对这一具体问题保持沉默，企业在处理有关电子发票的方便旗物品时有一定的灵活性。
虽然为所有方便旗物品开具电子发票可确保最高的透明度，但这可能只对某些企业切实可行或有必要。
企业在电子发票系统中处理方便旗项目时，应考虑自身的具体情况、行业规范和风险承受能力。
即使不通过电子发票，也最好保留某种形式的方便旗项目文件，以支持库存管理和潜在的税务查询。
如有疑问，最好咨询税务专业人士或向 LHDN 寻求澄清。
LHDN (Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri, or Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia) has not provided specific guidance on FOC (Free of Charge) items or samples in the context of e-invoicing.
Given this silence from the authorities, there are different perspectives to consider:
1. Conservative Approach:
Some businesses might choose to issue e-invoices for FOC items or samples.
These invoices generally need to be sent for validation.
Even though these items are free, they still represent a transaction and may have tax implications.
For example, if a cosmetics company sends free samples to a customer, they should issue an e-invoice with a zero value detailing the items sent.
This helps in inventory tracking and ensures transparency in business.
2. Practical Business Approach:
However, from a practical business standpoint, many companies might choose to refrain from issuing e-invoices for FOC items or samples, especially when there’s no monetary value involved.
This approach can be justified based on the following reasons:
a) No Value Transaction: Since there’s no monetary exchange, this doesn’t constitute a transaction requiring an e-invoice.
b) Administrative Burden: Issuing e-invoices for every free sample could create an unnecessary administrative burden, especially for businesses that frequently provide samples.
c) Common Business Practice: Providing samples without formal invoicing is a longstanding and accepted business practice in many industries.
3. Alternative Documentation:
Instead of e-invoices, businesses might use alternative methods to track FOC items:
Delivery notes or packing slips
Internal inventory management systems
– Promotional material logs
4. Materiality Consideration:
Businesses may set a threshold based on the value or quantity of FOC items, issuing e-invoices only for significant giveaways.
Conclusion:
Given LHDN’s silence on this specific issue, businesses have some flexibility in handling FOC items concerning e-invoicing.
While issuing e-invoices for all FOC items ensures the highest level of transparency, it may only be practical or necessary for some businesses.
Companies should consider their specific circumstances, industry norms, and risk tolerance when handling FOC items in the e-invoicing system.
It’s always advisable to maintain some form of documentation for FOC items, even if not through e-invoices, to support inventory management and potential tax inquiries.
If in doubt, the best course of action is to consult with a tax professional or seek clarification from LHDN.
