please help me answer this question MALAYSIAN TAXATION

QUESTION 2 Rizalman Hanif was a Malaysian citizen employed by a Malaysian Company (M.Co). In the year of assessment 2018 (YA2018), he was resident within the meaning of Section 7 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (ITA), despite the fact that he was present in the United States of America (USA) for 302 days during YA2018. As part of his employment with M.Co., he was required to be in the USA for the period of time mentioned above. During this time, his wages and bonuses were paid into his personal account at his bank account in Malaysia. As his duties in the USA were incidental to the exercise of his employment with M.Co, the income arising therefrom was deemed derived from Malaysia pursuant to sections 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(c) of the ITA. He paid Malaysian tax on this income, as well as federal and state taxes in the USA. He sought unilateral relief in respect of the federal tax suffered in the USA amounting to RM1,798,38. The claim was made pursuant to paragraph 15 of Schedule 7, ITA. The Inland Revenue Board (IRB) did not allow the claim on the basis that the income was not foreign income, as it was deemed derived from Malaysia pursuant to section 13(2), ITA. The issue here is unilateral relief available to Rizalman Hanif pursuant to paragraph 15, Schedule 7, ITA? Discuss by providing your argument and facts based on whether or not the unilateral relief is available to Rizalman Hani. (20 Marks) QUESTION 2 Rizalman Hanif was a Malaysian citizen employed by a Malaysian Company (M.Co). In the year of assessment 2018 (YA2018), he was resident within the meaning of Section 7 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (ITA), despite the fact that he was present in the United States of America (USA) for 302 days during YA2018. As part of his employment with M.Co., he was required to be in the USA for the period of time mentioned above. During this time, his wages and bonuses were paid into his personal account at his bank account in Malaysia. As his duties in the USA were incidental to the exercise of his employment with M.Co, the income arising therefrom was deemed derived from Malaysia pursuant to sections 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(c) of the ITA. He paid Malaysian tax on this income, as well as federal and state taxes in the USA. He sought unilateral relief in respect of the federal tax suffered in the USA amounting to RM1,798,38. The claim was made pursuant to paragraph 15 of Schedule 7, ITA. The Inland Revenue Board (IRB) did not allow the claim on the basis that the income was not foreign income, as it was deemed derived from Malaysia pursuant to section 13(2), ITA. The issue here is unilateral relief available to Rizalman Hanif pursuant to paragraph 15, Schedule 7, ITA? Discuss by providing your argument and facts based on whether or not the unilateral relief is available to Rizalman Hani. (20 Marks)