Desktop VersionSite MapContact UsShare RSS

Status of Tax Cases

Status of Tax Cases as at 31 January 2018

( 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
King Global Investments Ltd

[HCIA 5/2016]

Chargeability of profits derived from sale of property.
CFI
By a judgment dated 10 February 2017, CFI refused the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal against the Board of Review’s decision.
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.
 CFI
By a judgment dated 3 November 2017, CFI dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal against the Board of Review’s decision.
Turner Entertainment Networks Asia, Inc. for Muse Communication Co., Ltd

[CACV 259/2012]

Chargeability of licence fees received for granting the right to exhibit TV programmes outside Hong Kong and technical costs received for providing subtitled tracks for the TV programmes.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 4/2010]

CA
By a judgment dated 22 October 2012, CFI ruled that the licence fees, but not the technical costs, were chargeable to tax.  The Taxpayer appealed to CA on the chargeability of the licence fees.  By a judgment dated 28 May 2015, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal.
Good Mark Industrial Ltd

[CACV 90/2014]

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s refusal to accept the Taxpayer’s late application made under Section 70A.


[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 88/2012]

CA
By a judgment dated 3 February 2015, CA dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal.  CA refused the Taxpayer’s application for leave to appeal to CFA.
Aviation Fuel Supply Company

[FACV 14/2013]

 

Taxability of a lump sum payment – capital or revenue receipt.

Balancing charges.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 6/2009]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 150/2011]

CFA
Appeal leapfrogged to CFI under Section 67 of the IRO. By a judgment dated 8 July 2011, CFI allowed the Taxpayer's appeal. The Commissioner appealed to CA on two alternative grounds : (1) the payment was of revenue nature; or (2) balancing charges be brought into account if the payment were a capital receipt. CA allowed the Commissioner to raise the issue regarding balancing charges but dismissed the appeal on 4 December 2012. The Commissioner appealed to CFA on the issue of balancing charges. On 15 December 2014, CFA handed down its judgment dismissing the Commissioner's appeal.

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's Name Issues under Appeal Court Current Position
Crown Brilliance Ltd

[HCIA 1/2015]

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.
Poon Cho Ming, John

[CACV 94/2016]

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]

CA
By a judgment dated 24 March 2016, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s appeal. The Taxpayer’s appeal to CA was heard on 16 May 2017.
KWP Quarry Co Ltd
 
[CACV 256/2017]
Deductibility of overburden removal costs incurred in quarrying activities.
 
[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 102/2016]
 
 CA
By a judgment dated 10 October 2017, CFI dismissed the Taxpayer’s 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 has appealed to CA against the judgment.
Perfekta Enterprises Ltd

[CACV 115/2017]

Whether an “Initial Payment” received under a property redevelopment agreement should be chargeable to Profits Tax.

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

CA
By a judgment dated 27 April 2017, CFI gave favourable answers to the questions of law posed by CIR and unfavourable answers to those of the Taxpayer.  The Taxpayer has appealed to CA against the judgment.  The appeal will be heard on 11 April 2018.
Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui

[FACV 16/2015]

 

Chargeability of share of profits.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 2/2009]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 41/2010]

[Previous CFA Case No.: FAMV 11/2015]

CFA
By a judgment dated 11 September 2014, CA allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal and remitted the case back to the Board of Review to determine the date of change of intention.  After the grant of leave to appeal by CFA, the Commissioner appealed against the judgment.  The appeal to CFA was dismissed on 4 February 2016.  The order of remittal issued by CA would be followed.
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation

[FACV 16/2015]

Chargeability of share of profits.

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCIA 3/2009]

[Previous CA Case No.: CACV 41/2010]

[Previous CFA Case No.: FAMV 11/2015]

CFA
By a judgment dated 11 September 2014, CA allowed the Taxpayer’s appeal and remitted the case back to the Board of Review to determine the date of change of intention. After the grant of leave to appeal by CFA, the Commissioner appealed against the judgment. The appeal to CFA was dismissed on 4 February 2016. The order of remittal issued by CA would be followed.

 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
-
-
-
-

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent Position
Deceased's name

JAN Yun-bor

[HCED 1/04]

Appellants
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
Date of hearing not yet fixed.
Deceased’s name

TANG Wing-cheung

[CAMP 69/17]

Appellant

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 decision dated 23 October 2017, the duty payer's appeal was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. On 24 November 2017, the Court of First Instance refused the duty payer’s application for leave to appeal. On 8 December 2017, the duty payer applied to the Court of Appeal for a leave to appeal. The hearing was fixed on 20 March 2018.

 

 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
Ho Kwok Tai

[CACV 52/2016]

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)

[Previous CFI Case No.: HCAL 49/2015]

Court of Appeal
By a judgment dated 18 February 2016, the duty payer's application for judicial review was allowed by the Court of First Instance.  The Collector of Stamp Revenue lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal.  On 31 October 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down a favourable judgment allowing the Collector's appeal.
Wong Chak Sin

[DCSA 19/2014]

 

Whether the sale and purchase agreement for a residential property executed by a father for his daughter who was a minor should be chargeable to Buyer’s Stamp Duty
District Court
By a decision dated 8 January 2016, the duty payer's appeal was dismissed.

Cases not yet finalized :-

Cases not yet finalized
Taxpayer's NameIssues under AppealCourtCurrent Position
-
-
-
-