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

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

The court allowed inspection of the Commissioner's Determination for the limited purpose of clarifying the context and meaning of the passage quoted in the Case Stated because doing so would not re-open or re-decide primary facts but would determine whether an alleged admission related to overseas brokers or the group's overseas offices; this use of the Determination is permissible under Carvill and distinguishable from attempts to re-hear facts condemned in the Aspiration Land decisions.

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
HCIA5/2001
Procedural Posture
Inland Revenue Appeal (case Stated From Board of Review) / Ruling on Admissibility/use of Commissioner's Determination to Interpret Case Stated (post Hearing Appeal)
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Source of Profits (offshore V Onshore), Agency and Attribution, Case Stated Procedure, Admissibility and Use of Documentary Material, Onus of Proof Under S.68(4) IRO
Source Language
EN
Tax Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Source of Profits (offshore V Onshore) Agency and Attribution Case Stated Procedure Admissibility and Use of Documentary Material Onus of Proof Under S.68(4) IRO

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 3 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 From Board of Review) / Ruling on Admissibility/use of Commissioner's Determination to Interpret Case Stated (post Hearing Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of Review could properly conclude overseas group offices acted as agents for the taxpayer and that profits arose from an offshore source
  2. 2 Whether the High Court may refer to the Commissioner's Determination to clarify the meaning of a passage in the Case Stated without re-opening findings of primary fact
  3. 3 Whether absence of direct contractual evidence precluded the Board from drawing the inference of agency

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed inspection of the Commissioner's Determination for the limited purpose of clarifying the context and meaning of the passage quoted in the Case Stated because doing so would not re-open or re-decide primary facts but would determine whether an alleged admission related to overseas brokers or the group's overseas offices; this use of the Determination is permissible under Carvill and distinguishable from attempts to re-hear facts condemned in the Aspiration Land decisions.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Court permitted inspection and use of the Commissioner's Determination for the limited purpose of clarifying the passage quoted in para.29 of the Case Stated; no order to re-hear or re-open findings of primary fact