Desktop VersionSite MapContact UsShare RSS
  • Default font size
  • Bigger font size
  • Biggest font size

Status of Tax Cases

Status of Tax Cases as at 29 February 2024


Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Inland Revenue Ordinance

Cases finalized:-

Cases finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Dairy Farm Establishment
 
[CACV 544/2018]
Application for judicial review against the Commissioner’s decision ordering that tax should be held over on the condition that TRCs be bought.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 234/2018]
 
CA
By a judgment dated 8 October 2018, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s application for judicial review. The Commissioner has filed an appeal to CA. The appeal was heard on 12 December 2019 and 15 September 2020. CA dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal.
 
The Dairy Farm Company, Limited for Dairy Farm Establishment
 
[CACV 544/2018]
 
Application for judicial review against the Commissioner’s decision ordering that tax should be held over on the condition that TRCs be bought.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 234/2018]
CA
By a judgment dated 8 October 2018, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s application for judicial review. The Commissioner has filed an appeal to CA. The appeal was heard on 12 December 2019 and 15 September 2020. CA dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal.
 
Suen Hung Shan

[CACV 147/2020]

 
Whether the decision of the Board of Review, which refused to grant extension of time to the Taxpayer to appeal, is a decision made under Section 68 of the IRO.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 3/2017]
 
 
CA
CA handed down the judgment on 31 December 2020 and allowed the Commissioner’s application to strike out the Taxpayer’s appeal.
Suen Hung Shan
 
 
Whether the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal to CFI was late.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 1/2020]
 
CA
By a judgment dated 7 December 2020, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s application.
Cheng Hung Kit
 
 
Whether the Taxpayer has received the remuneration.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 4/2020]

CA
By a judgment dated 3 May 2021, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal.
Perfekta Enterprises Limited
 
Whether an "Initial Payment" received under a property development agreement should be chargeable to Profits Tax.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 1/2016]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 115/2017]
 
CFA
By a judgment dated 12 July 2019, CFA allowed the Taxpayer's appeal.
Poon Cho Ming, John

[FACV 1/2019]

Whether payment in lieu of a discretionary bonus and gain realized by the exercise of share options vested upon termination of employment should be chargeable to Salaries Tax.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 2/2015]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 94/2016]

CFA
By a judgment dated 14 November 2019, CFA dismissed the Commissioner's appeal.
Leung Chun Kwong
 
Application for judicial review against, inter alia, the CIR’s Tax Decision not to recognize the “marriage” of the Taxpayer having a same-sex spouse for the purposes of the IRO.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 258/2015]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 126/2017]

CFA
CFA handed down the judgment on relief and costs on 6 September 2019.
Excelter Investment Limited
 
Whether it was unlawful for the Board of Review to decide that the Taxpayer’s appeal was out of time.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 166/2016]
CA
By a judgment dated 22 July 2021, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal in respect of CFI’s refusal to grant leave for judicial review against the Board of Review’s decision.
 
Ubiquiti Networks International Limited

[HCAL 874/2021]

Application for judicial review against the Commissioner’s decision ordering that tax should be held over on the condition that TRC be bought.

CFI
By a judgment dated 25 January 2022, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.
Newfair Holdings Limited

[HCIA 1/2021]
Whether the Taxpayer carried on a business in Hong Kong and whether the Taxpayer’s profits of the business arose in or were derived from Hong Kong.
 
CFI
By a judgment dated 20 April 2022, CFI granted leave to appeal to the Taxpayer and allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal.
Heath Brian Zarin

[CACV 75/2020]

[CACV 366/2021]
Whether certain payment received after termination of employment chargeable to Salaries Tax.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 4/2019]
 
CA
By a judgment dated 11 March 2020, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal on Ground 3.  The Commissioner has appealed to CA.  By a judgment dated 29 June 2021, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal on Ground 2.  The Commissioner has appealed to CA.  The appeals (combined Ground 2 and Ground 3) were heard on 25 February 2022.  By a judgment dated 16 March 2022, CA dismissed the Commissioner’s appeals.

Mr. Wilson Mark Andrew

[CAMP 290/2021]

Whether 3 sums, the 2010 incentive bonus, the pension entitlement and variance of stock valuation paid upon termination of the Taxpayer’s employment should be taxable.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 5/2020]

CA
By a judgment dated 15 July 2021, CFI declined the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal. The Taxpayer has filed an appeal to CA. By a judgment dated 20 May 2022, CA declined the Taxpayer’s application.
Richard Paul Forlee, M.A.
 
 
Whether certain share awards and dividends received on those shares chargeable to Salaries Tax.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 1/2019]

CA By a judgment dated 24 August 2021, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal.  The Commissioner has filed an appeal to CA.  The appeal was heard on 5 July 2022. By a judgment dated 22 July 2022. CA dismissed the Commissioner's appeal.
Koo Ming Kown Murakami Tadao
 
Validity of section 82A additional tax assessments issued to two taxpayers, in the capacity as director of a limited company.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 1/2017]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 602/2018]

CFA
By a judgment dated 20 July 2021, CA dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal. The Commissioner has filed an appeal to CFA.  The appeal was heard on 5 July 2022.  By a judgment dated 5 August 2022, CFA dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal.
KWP Quarry Company Limited
 
[FAMV 125/2022]
Deductibility of overburden removal costs incurred in quarrying activities.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 102/2016]
 
[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 256/2017]
 
CFA
By an order dated 8 September 2022, CFA dismissed the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal.
Ren Rong t/a Wah Yung Engineering Company
 
Application for judicial review against the Board’s refusal to extend the time to lodge an appeal.
CFI
By a judgment dated 15 September 2022, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s application.
Besins Healthcare (Hong Kong) Limited

[HCAL 227/2022]

Application for judicial review against the Commissioner’s refusal to refund the excess TRCs purchased.
CFI
By a judgment dated 28 September 2022, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s application. 
Lo Wa Ming, Patrick


[CACV 235/2021]

The basis of income apportionment under section 8(1A)(c).  Whether CIR’s “day in, day out” formula as an apportionment method for calculating exempted income is consistent with and/or in contradiction to and/or in any event leads to an arbitrary or unjust result under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1A)(c) of the IRO.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 2/2020]

CA
By a judgment dated 17 May 2022, CA partly allowed the Commissioner’s appeal and remitted the case back to the Board of Review.
China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited
 
 
Deductibility of amortisation of upfront lump sum spectrum utilisation fees.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 2/2017]
 
CA
By a judgment dated 3 November 2022, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal.
Dr. The Honourable Leung Ka-Lau

[FACV 5/2023]
Whether a sum received by the Taxpayer from the Hospital Authority because of its default to grant rest days or holidays is taxable.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 3/2020]
 
[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 278/2021]
 
CFA
By a judgment dated 10 November 2023, CFA allowed the Commissioner’s appeal.

Cases not yet finalized:-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Mr. Grewal, Randeep S
 
 
Whether the taxpayer’s employment income should be assessed on a time-apportionment basis.
CFI
By a judgment dated 6 December 2023, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal.
Chapman Development Limited
 
 
Whether management fee paid to a related BVI company is wholly deductible.
CFI
By a judgment dated 4 April 2023, CFI granted leave for the Taxpayer to appeal.
Patrick Cox Asia Limited
 
 
Whether upfront payment and royalties were sourced from Hong Kong and alternatively, whether the upfront payment was a capital receipt.
CA
By a judgment dated 19 October 2023, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal. The Taxpayer has filed an appeal to CA. The appeal will be heard on 18 April 2024.
Samsung SDI (Hong Kong) Limited
 
Locality of commission income and trading profits.
CFI
By a judgment dated 17 November 2023, CFI granted leave for the Taxpayer to appeal.

 

 back to top


Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Estate Duty Ordinance

Cases finalized:-

Cases finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Deceased's name

TANG Wing-cheung

[CAMP 69/17]

Appellants

TANG Siu-wing and TANG Chui-yuk Angela

Whether a promissory note payable to the deceased by a Hong Kong company was dutiable.
 
[Previous CFI Case No. HCED1/13]
Court of Appeal
By a judgment dated 23 October 2017, the Court of First Instance dismissed the duty payer’s appeal.  The duty payer’s application for leave to appeal was refused by the Court of First Instance on 24 November 2017 and the Court of Appeal on 20 March 2018.
Deceased's name

KUNG WONG Sau-hin

[HCED 1/11]

Appellant

KUNG Kwok-wai David

 
Whether the assessed value of the deceased’s interests in various private companies, NT lots and estate of her predeceased husband were excessive, and whether the debt due by the deceased in the form of promissory note was deductible.
Court of First Instance
By a judgment dated 22 July 2021, the Court of First Instance partly allowed the duty payer’s appeal.

Case not yet finalized:-

Case not finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Deceased's name

JAN Yun-bor

[HCED 1/04]

Appellant

KAO Kim John

Whether payment from the deceased to her son out of the proceeds of sale of her Taiwan property amounted to gifts inter vivos.
Court of First Instance
Date of hearing not yet fixed.  For the invitation to the appellant to withdraw the appeal, no reply was received from him.

 back to top


Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Stamp Duty Ordinance

Cases finalized:-

Cases finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2155/2020]

Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2156/2020]

Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2157/2020]

Ngan Cheung Wah and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2158/2020]

Wong Wai Yat and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2159/2020]

Wong Wai Yat and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2160/2020]

Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2161/2020]

Chiu Wai Lam and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2162/2020]

Lo Hau Fai and Fan Lai Chun

[HCAL 2163/2020]

Kwan Sik Jungaron and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2164/2020]

Tam Ho Kwong and Wong Tak Hung

[HCAL 2165/2020]

Whether charging buyer’s stamp duty on an instrument where a Hong Kong Permanent Resident acting as a trustee for a Hong Kong Permanent Resident in acquiring a residential property is unconstitutional.
Court of First Instance
By a Decision dated 15 January 2021, CFI dismissed the duty payer’s application for leave to apply for judicial review. The duty-payers’ appeals to CA against the dismissals were subsequently withdrawn.
Wong Wing Wah
 
Whether charging buyer’s stamp duty on an instrument where a Hong Kong Permanent Resident acting as a trustee for a Hong Kong Permanent Resident in acquiring a residential property is unconstitutional.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 1479/2020]

Court of Appeal
By a judgment dated 21 January 2022, the applicant’s appeal against CFI’s dismissal of her application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
 
John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP and

Wiley International LLC

[HCMP 954/2021]
 
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear stamp duty appeal under section 14 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
Court of First Instance
By a decision dated 12 October 2021, the duty payers’ application was dismissed .
Tse Sum Ping

[DCSA 2/2020]

Whether the Appellant was acting on her own behalf under the agreement for the purpose of section 29CB(2) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
District Court
By a decision dated 30 September 2021, the duty payer’s appeal was dismissed.
Wong Suet Foon Shirly
 
 
 
Whether a distribution of property under an estate in excess of the beneficiaries’ entitlements is chargeable with stamp duty and whether section 29AL of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) is applicable.

[Previous District Court Case No.: DCSA 5/2016]
 
Court of Appeal
By a decision dated 29 July 2021, Court of Appeal allowed the duty payer’s appeal.
Nomura Funds Ireland Plc
 
Whether a transfer of Hong Kong stock arising from a merger is chargeable with stamp duty under Head 2 in the First Schedule of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
[Previous District Court Case No.: DCSA 4/2017]
 
Court of Appeal
By a decision dated 21 July 2021, Court of Appeal allowed the duty payer’s appeal on stamp duty but refused the claim for interest.
Land Concept Limited

[DCSA 9/2012 and DCSA 111/2016]

Ample Sun Limited

[DCSA 42/2013]

Genius Express Limited

[DCSA 43/2013]

Danix Limited

[DCSA 44/2013]
 
Whether four property transactions effected by four conveyances on sale form part of a larger transaction or series of transactions; and whether valuation of the properties assessed by the Collector is excessive.
District Court
By a decision dated 4 June 2021, the duty payers’ appeals were dismissed.
Wong Wing Wah

[CAMP 42/2020]

 
Whether charging buyer’s stamp duty on an instrument where a Hong Kong Permanent Resident acting as a trustee for a Hong Kong Permanent Resident in acquiring a residential property is unconstitutional.

[Previous District Court Case No.: DCSA 97/2016]
 
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal dismissed the duty payer’s appeal on 1 February 2021.
Wang Weichen and

Zhao Bingqing

[HCAL 823/2020]
Judicial review application on the Collector of Stamp Revenue’s decision to refuse partial refund of ad valorem stamp duty paid under section 29DF of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
Court of First Instance
By a judgment dated 28 January 2021, the applicants’ application for leave to apply for judicial review and the substantive application for judicial review were dismissed.
Yau Sun Yee

[HCAL 3514/2019]

Judicial review application on the Collector of Stamp Revenue’s decision to refuse partial refund of ad valorem stamp duty paid under section 29DF of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
Court of First Instance
By a judgment dated 13 January 2021, the applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed.
Ngai Sau Ying

[CACV 460/2018]

Hung Ip Shing

[CACV 461/2018]

Whether two separate assignments constitute an exchange of property for the purpose of section 25(7) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
[Previous District Court Cases No.: DCSA 15/2017 & DCSA 16/2017]
Court of Appeal 
By a judgment dated 4 October 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Collector’s appeal against the District Court’s decision.
Ho Kin Tai and

Ho Kwok Ho

[DCSA 325/2019]
 
Whether leave should be granted to allow the Appellants to postpone payment for stamp duty under section 14(1B) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 District Court
By a decision dated 27 September 2019, District Court granted the leave for the duty payer to appeal without payment of stamp duty or any security.
Chen An
 
Whether partial refund of ad valorem stamp duty should be allowed under section 29DF and whether the Appellant is a "Hong Kong Permanent Resident" for the purpose of section 29A(1) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
District Court 
By a decision dated 21 January 2019, the duty payer’s appeal was dismissed.
Hiu Hung Por

[DCSA 283/2018]

Whether leave should be granted to allow the Appellant to postpone payment for stamp duty and to lodge late appeal under sections 14(1B) and 14(5B) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
District Court
 
By a decision dated 9 November 2018, the duty payer’s inter parte summons and appeal were dismissed.
 
 
Wong Sau Har

[DCSA 15/2014]

Wong Yau Chung

[DCSA 99/2016]

Whether two property transactions effected by two conveyances on sale form part of a larger transaction or series of transactions.
 
District Court
 
By a judgment dated 22 October 2018, the duty payers’ appeals were dismissed.
 
Chan Yuk King and Man Kwai Wo

[DCSA 100/2016]

Man Kwai Wo and Man Wai Wah

[DCSA 101/2016]

Chan Yuk King and Man Yu Lung

[DCSA 102/2016]

Whether the Court should strike out the appeals on the ground that the appeals disclose no reasonable cause of action and/or are abuses of the process of the Court.
 
District Court
 
By a decision dated 19 October 2018, the duty payers’ appeals were struck out.
 
Feng Hongyan
Judicial review application on the Collector of Stamp Revenue's decision to refuse partial refund of ad valorem stamp duty under section 29DF of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
Court of First Instance  
By a judgment dated 30 May 2018, the duty payer’s application for judicial review was dismissed.
So Kam Shing and So Kam Wai
Whether a distribution of an estate property in excess of the beneficiaries' entitlement under the intestacy should be chargeable with stamp duty and whether section 10(2) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) should be applicable.
District Court
By a decision dated 10 May 2018, the duty payer’s appeal was dismissed.
 
Lucky Project Development Limited
 
Whether a tender form submitted by the Appellant constituted an agreement for sale under section 29A(1) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) and whether the Stamp Duty (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 2014 should be applicable.
District Court
By a decision dated 16 March 2018, the duty payer’s appeal was dismissed.
 
 
WONG Wing Wah
Whether leave should be granted to allow the Appellant to lodge late appeal with bank guarantee under sections 14(1B) and 14(5B) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).
 
District Court
By a decision dated 16 March 2018, the duty payer’s originating summons was dismissed.
 
Danix Limited

[DCSA 3/2012]

Sanforce Limited

[DCSA 4/2012]

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to strike out the appeal, and if the Court has jurisdiction to grant an extension of time in respect of the time limit stipulated in section 14(2) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117), whether the Court should exercise its discretion.
 
District Court
By a judgment dated 2 February 2018, the duty payers’ appeals were  struck out.

Case not yet finalized:-

Case not finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP and

Wiley International LLC

[CACV 23/2023]

Whether the Appellants are entitled to relief under section 45 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) and specifically, whether Appellants were “associated bodies corporate” within the meaning of that section.
 
[Previous District Court Case No.: DCSA 2/2021]
 
Court of Appeal
By a decision dated 30 September 2022, District Court dismissed the Collector’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15 July 2022. The Court of Appeal granted the leave to appeal and the hearing is re-scheduled on 26 April 2024.