COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.

The court held it could inspect the Commissioner's Determination to clarify the context of a passage quoted in the Case Stated; doing so was permissible to determine whether the Board's inference that overseas group offices acted as agents was supported and did not amount to re‑hearing primary factual issues.

Citation
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.
Parties
Appellant (hcia 5/2001); Respondent (hcia 4/2001): Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Respondent (hcia 5/2001); Appellant (hcia 4/2001): Indosuez W I Carr Securities Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2001
Case Number
HCIA4/2001
Procedural Posture
Inland Revenue Appeal (case Stated) / Ruling on Application to Refer to Commissioner's Determination
Outcome
Application allowed.
Legal Topics
Source of Profits, Agency, Onus of Proof Under Tax Law, Case Stated Procedure, Admissibility of Extrinsic Documents
Source Language
EN
Taxation Administrative Law Civil Procedure Evidence Source of Profits Agency Onus of Proof Under Tax Law Case Stated Procedure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Appellant (hcia 5/2001); Respondent (hcia 4/2001)

Indosuez W I Carr Securities Ltd

Respondent (hcia 5/2001); Appellant (hcia 4/2001)

Procedural Posture

Inland Revenue Appeal (case Stated) / Ruling on Application to Refer to Commissioner's Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Review was entitled to infer that overseas group offices acted as agents for the taxpayer in procuring orders and research
  2. 2 Whether the Court may look at the Commissioner's Determination to clarify the meaning of a passage in the Case Stated
  3. 3 Whether reliance on a passage quoted in submissions and the absence of a demur could explain a taxpayer's failure to call direct evidence of contractual relationships

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it could inspect the Commissioner's Determination to clarify the context of a passage quoted in the Case Stated; doing so was permissible to determine whether the Board's inference that overseas group offices acted as agents was supported and did not amount to re‑hearing primary factual issues.

Court Disposition

Application allowed.

Orders

  • Application by the Commissioner to have the Court look at the Commissioner's Determination dated 2 July 1999 for the purposes stated was granted.