Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Source of employment income

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2022

RICHARD PAUL MARK AIDAN FORLEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1098
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV453/2021

The court held the EVA share awards were perquisites that accrued to the taxpayer on the award dates because the taxpayer acquired vested beneficial rights (held via a nominee) capable of being turned to pecuniary account despite retention, forfeiture and clawback features; the awards derived from the taxpayer's UK employment and therefore were not income from his Hong Kong employment, and the Board erred in treating accrual as occurring only on the Release Dates.
24 Dec 2019

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2019

The court held that Grounds 1 and 2 were not reasonably arguable because the Board applied the correct legal test and its factual findings that Sums A and B1 were contractual entitlements under the Employment Contract and that Sums B2 and C, though released under the Termination Agreement, were in substance rewards for past employment were supportable. Leave was granted on Ground 3 because it was reasonably arguable that Sum D, being payment for post-termination assistance under the Termination Agreement, might not be income 'from' employment and thus raised a question of law fit for appeal o…
25 Feb 2009

AHN SANG GYUN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

AHN SANG GYUN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2008

The court refused to remit the Case Stated for amendment because the proposed additional questions improperly sought to re‑argue factual issues and selectively rely on evidence rather than raise pure questions of law within the limited categories permitted on a case stated; the Board's existing questions were adequate to address the core legal issues, and reasonable factual findings supported by evidence cannot be re-opened by amendment under s69(4).
15 Oct 1986

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SO CHAK KWONG, JACK

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SO CHAK KWONG, JACK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA2/1986

Section 8(1B) is clear and unambiguous: the words 'not exceeding a total of 60 days' qualify 'visits' not 'services rendered'; therefore to obtain the benefit of s8(1B) a taxpayer must not render services during visits that in total exceed 60 days in the basis period. Both questions of law in the case stated are answered in the negative and the matter is remitted to the Board to revise the assessment accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

RICHARD PAUL MARK AIDAN FORLEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

AHN SANG GYUN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SO CHAK KWONG, JACK