RSS 
Share
Printer View 
Status of Tax Cases
Status of Tax Cases as at 31 August 2023
- Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized
Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Inland Revenue Ordinance
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
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
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 |
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 | 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. |
Cases not yet finalized:-
| Taxpayer's Name | Issues under Appeal | Court | Current Position |
|
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.
|
CFA
|
The Commissioner’s appeal is listed to be heard on 6 October 2023.
|
|
Whether the taxpayer’s employment income should be assessed on a time-apportionment basis.
|
CFI
|
By a judgment dated 9 November 2022, CFI granted leave for the Taxpayer to appeal. | |
|
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. |
Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Estate Duty Ordinance
Cases finalized:-
| Taxpayer's Name | Issues under Appeal | Court | Current Position |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
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.
|
|
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:-
| 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.
|
Cases Finalized or Cases Not Yet Finalized:-
Relating to Stamp Duty Ordinance
Cases finalized:-
| Taxpayer's Name | Issues under Appeal | Court | Current Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung
Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung Tam Lai Ha and Wong Tak Hung Ngan Cheung Wah and Wong Tak Hung Wong Wai Yat and Wong Tak Hung Wong Wai Yat and Wong Tak Hung Wong Tak Hung Chiu Wai Lam and Wong Tak Hung Lo Hau Fai and Fan Lai Chun Kwan Sik Jungaron and Wong Tak Hung Tam Ho Kwong and Wong Tak Hung |
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
|
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 Genius Express Limited 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
|
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.
|
|
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
|
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.
|
|
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
Man Kwai Wo and Man Wai Wah
Chan Yuk King and Man Yu Lung
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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:-
| 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 scheduled on 14 March 2024.
|