Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Board of review procedure

Legal area

Court

30 May 2023

SUEN HUNG SHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 690
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2020

The Court held that on proper construction of s69(1) IRO the leave to appeal procedure to the Court of First Instance does not apply to a Board decision that a notice of appeal was not given within time and no extension should be given; consequently there was no jurisdiction to give leave and the summons and grounds were properly struck out under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court refused to extend time to apply for leave to the Court of Final Appeal because of very substantial delay, inadequate reasons and negligible prospects of success, and awarded indemnity costs to the Commissi…
31 Dec 2020

SUEN HUNG SHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1084
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2020

Section 69(1) applies only where the Board has made a decision on an appeal under section 68 (i.e. after a validly constituted appeal under s66 has been heard); a determination by the Board that the notice of appeal was lodged out of time and refusal to extend time is not a decision 'on an appeal under section 68' and must be challenged, if at all, by judicial review; accordingly the leave-to-appeal procedure in s69(1) does not encompass such time determinations and the Board cannot invoke s68(9) costs power absent a valid appeal.
26 May 2020

SUEN HUNG SHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/2017

Leave to appeal was granted because the intended appeal raised a discrete, novel point of statutory construction with sufficient prospects and general significance appropriate for determination by the Court of Appeal; issues as to the Board's costs order under section 68 were noted but did not preclude granting leave; costs of the application were ordered in the cause.
28 Apr 2008

COMEBRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVEUNE

Citation

COMEBRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVEUNE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV31/2007

The Board's factual finding that the taxpayers did not hold the requisite intention to hold the properties for long-term rental was open on the evidence; that factual finding meant the taxpayers failed to discharge the burden under s.68(4) to show the assessments were excessive or incorrect; the Board did not err in law in dismissing the appeals on that basis and there was no lawful s.66(3) consent to raise a new antecedent question of whether the transactions constituted a trade.
17 Jul 2007

SAME FAST LTD v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW

Citation

SAME FAST LTD v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL122/2006

The Board acted reasonably in refusing to state a case because the majority of the questions either sought to re-open findings of primary fact, were premised on factual findings the Board did not make, or were unclear; accordingly judicial review failed and the refusal to state a case was upheld.
4 Jul 2007

CHINA NAME LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHINA NAME LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV342/2006

Appellants failed to discharge the burden under s.68(4) to prove the profits were capital; the Board's rejection of the capital character was not perverse or the only unreasonable conclusion and therefore the Board and the judge were correct to dismiss the appeals even absent an explicit finding that the appellants were trading.
7 Oct 2005

CHOW KWONG FAI, EDWARD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHOW KWONG FAI, EDWARD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2005

The Court held the appellant's delay was caused by his own misreading and unilateral misunderstanding of s66(1) and not by any actionable misrepresentation by Board staff; "statement of facts" in s66(1) means the statement provided by the Commissioner; unilateral mistake or ignorance does not constitute "reasonable cause" or make the appellant "prevented" from lodging the appeal, therefore the Board did not err in refusing an extension and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Apr 1994

HARLEY DEVELOPMENT INC and Another v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

HARLEY DEVELOPMENT INC and Another v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/1993

The Court dismissed the appeal: it was not shown that the Commissioner acted clearly ultra vires or in such an unfair or unreasonable manner as to justify judicial review; factual disputes and mixed questions of law and fact (including characterization of payments, business status and exemptions) should be resolved through the statutory Board of Review and appeal procedure rather than by collateral judicial review.