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

Status of Tax Cases

Status of Tax Cases as at 31 August 2019

( Note : Headnotes of judgements not available in respect of "cases not yet finalized")


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

Cases finalized, pending publication :-

Cases finalized, pending publication
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent Position
Right Margin Ltd

[HCIA 4/2016]

Whether a provision for bad debt is deductible
CFI
By a judgment dated 12 October 2017, CFI refused the Commissioner's application for leave to appeal against the Board of Review's decision.
Pang Fai
 
Whether honorarium received by workshop facilitator and examination marker from a professional body should be assessed under Salaries Tax or Profits Tax.

[Leave Application : HCIA 2/2016]

CFI
By a judgment dated 3 November 2017, CFI dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal against the Board of Review’s decision.

Headnotes

Crown Brilliance Ltd
 
Chargeability of profits derived from the sale of property.
CFI
By a judgment dated 14 October 2015, CFI allowed the Commissioner's appeal and remitted the case to the Board of Review with its opinion thereon. After hearing the remitted case, the Board dismissed the Taxpayer's appeal in February 2018.
 
Ngo, Francois
 
  • Whether the application for leave made out of time.
  • Whether part of a sum received from ex-employer under a compromised settlement should be chargeable to Salaries Tax.
CFI
By a judgment dated 19 November 2018, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal against the Board of Review’s decision.
 
Chan Yiu-wing
 
 
Whether the Taxpayer was eligible to elect for Personal Assessment.
CFI
By a decision dated 11 February 2019, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s application for judicial review against the Commissioner’s determination.
 

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
China Mobile Hong Kong Co Ltd
 
Deductibility of amortisation of upfront lump sum spectrum utilisation fees.
CFI
By a decision dated 27 February 2018, CFI ordered the Taxpayer to file and serve on the Commissioner a fresh statement setting out the grounds of the appeal and the reasons why leave to appeal should be granted.  The Commissioner did not object to the fresh statement.  The appeal will be heard on 10 September 2019.
 
Dairy Farm Establishment

[HCAL 1067/2019]

Application for review against the Commissioner’s decision not to refund the TRCs purchased for the alternative assessments.

 

CFI
The Taxpayer filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review on 18 April 2019. A rolled-up hearing will be heard on 25 October 2019.
The Dairy Farm Company, Limited for Dairy Farm Establishment
 
[HCAL 1067/2019]
 
Application for review against the Commissioner’s decision not to refund the TRCs purchased for the alternative assessments.

 

CFI
The Taxpayer filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review on 18 April 2019. A rolled-up hearing will be heard on 25 October 2019.
Excelter Investment Ltd
 
[CACV 41/2017]
 
Whether it was unlawful for the Board of Review to decide that the Taxpayer’s appeal was out of time.
CA
On 30 July 2019, CA orally dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal in respect of CFI’s refusal to grant leave for judicial review against the Board of Review’s decision.
 
KWP Quarry Co Ltd
 
[CACV 256/2017]
Deductibility of overburden removal costs incurred in quarrying activities.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 102/2016]
 
CA
On 11 April 2019, CA orally dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal against CFI’s dismissal of his application for judicial review of the Board of Review’s decision refusing to state a case on a question of law for the opinion of CFI. The Taxpayer filed a notice of intended application for leave to appeal to CFA on 30 April 2019.
 
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 will be heard on 12 December 2019.
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 will be heard on 12 December 2019.
Koo Ming-kown and Murakami Tadao

[CACV 602/2018]

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]

CA
By a judgment dated 23 November 2018, CFI allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal. The Commissioner has lodged an appeal to CA. The appeal will be heard on 11 October 2019.
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 11 March 2019, CA allowed the Commissioner’s application for leave to appeal to CFA against CA’s judgment. The appeal will be heard on 17 October 2019.
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
By a judgment dated 6 June 2019, the CFA allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal. Written submissions on the form of relief has been filed by the parties pursuant to the CFA’s directions. Pending CFA’s order.

 back to top


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

Cases finalized, pending publication :-

Cases finalized, pending publication
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent 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.

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent 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.
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
Dates of hearing have been fixed. The pre-trial review will be heard on 16 October 2019 and the 6-day trial will be heard on 8 to 15 January 2020.

 back to top


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

Cases finalized, pending publication :-

Cases finalized, pending publication
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent Position
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.

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent Position
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 22 March 2019, District Court dismissed the duty payer’s appeal.  On 16 July 2019, Court of Appeal allowed the duty payer’s application for leave to appeal.
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.
 
District Court
By a decision dated 27 February 2019, the duty payer’s appeal was dismissed. The duty payer’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the District Court on 5 June 2019. The duty payer has applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.
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 11 June 2018, District Court allowed the duty payers’ appeals. On 13 September 2018, leave was granted to the Collector to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was first heard on 4 April 2019. Another hearing will be held on 17 September 2019.