Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Board of review

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV16/2007

The Commissioner was the real winner because the Board of Review's increased assessments on HITL were upheld; costs therefore follow the event and, applying s.61A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance and the court's discretion, the Commissioner should be awarded the costs of and incidental to the appeals and related proceedings; though some issues run by the Commissioner failed, they did not justify depriving her of costs in the circumstances.
19 May 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2007

The Court held that interest paid by HITL on amounts exceeding the US$587,000,000 actually borrowed by the group must be disallowed, and therefore the assessments on HITL as increased by the Board of Review under s.68(8)(a) IRO are to be confirmed; subsequent borrowings by other group companies do not permit HITL to claim the same interest deductions.
19 May 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HONGKONG INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HONGKONG INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2007

The Court allowed the Commissioner s appeal against HITL and confirmed the Board of Review s increased assessments because the deductions for interest attributable to sums in excess of the US$587 million actually borrowed were not allowable; subsequent borrowings by other group companies do not entitle HITL to deduct interest on the same borrowings, and the Board s increased assessments must be confirmed under s.68(8)(a).
19 May 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HIT FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV16/2007

The Court held that interest claimed by HIT Finance on sums in excess of the US$587 million actually borrowed by the group must be disallowed, and accordingly confirmed the assessments on HIT Finance as increased by the Board of Review under s.68(8)(a); subsequent borrowings by other group companies did not entitle HIT Finance to duplicate interest deductions.
19 May 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HONGKONG INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HONGKONG INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2007

The Court held that interest paid by HITL on sums in excess of the US$587 million actually borrowed by the group must be disallowed and that the Board of Review's increased assessments under s.68(8)(a) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance are to be confirmed; subsequent borrowings by other group companies do not entitle HITL to the same deduction.
4 Jul 2007

CHANCE INVESTMENT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHANCE INVESTMENT LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV343/2006

Appellants failed to discharge the statutory onus under s.68(4) to show the assessments were excessive by proving the profits were capital; the Board’s rejection of the appellants' capital character evidence was not contrary to the true and only reasonable conclusion and therefore its decision to dismiss the appeals was upheld; no legal error requiring interference or an express finding of trading was shown.
12 Oct 1998

QUAN BING KAY, DEREK v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

QUAN BING KAY, DEREK v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL32/1998

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant produced late, unclear and explicitly non-reliant management accounts and failed to discharge the statutory onus under s68(4); on those facts no arguable question of law could be formulated and the Board properly declined to state a case under s69(1).
28 Oct 1977

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SANFORD YUNG-TAO YUNG

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SANFORD YUNG-TAO YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/1977

The $3,000 was a contractual payment for tickets which conferred a material benefit on the payer; therefore it was not a voluntary gift or 'donation' within the statutory meaning and is not deductible under the Inland Revenue Ordinance.