1 Jun 2018
POON CHO-MING, JOHN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Citation
- [2018] HKCA 297
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV94/2016
Applying the Fuchs purpose test to the facts found by the Board of Review, the Court held that Sum D and the accelerated vesting that produced the Share Option Gain were not payments made as a reward for employment or pursuant to an accrued entitlement under the Service Agreement or option grants but were consideration to secure the taxpayer's agreement to resign, give covenants and avoid litigation; accordingly they were not income 'from' employment and not chargeable to salaries tax.