Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estate duty assessment

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2008

SHING LAI CHUK v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation

SHING LAI CHUK v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCED1/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden to rebut the legal title shown in documents: her affirmation evidence was unreliable and inconsistent, key allegations were asserted only after the assessment (and after her solicitors had accepted the proposed assessment), there was no adequate documentary or corroborative proof tracing contributions to the contested assets, and it was more plausible that contributions were gifts; accordingly the Commissioner's assessment was upheld.
1 Oct 1992

RE MAK WOON SHUI

Citation

RE MAK WOON SHUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV204/1991

The Court found the appellant's affirmations to be unreliable and contradicted by contemporaneous bank records and documentary evidence; he failed to discharge the burden to show the assets were provided by him or held on trust, therefore the presumption of advancement was not rebutted and the assets formed part of the deceased's estate for estate duty purposes; appeal dismissed.
15 Jun 1990

FOO YING AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF ESATE DUTY

Citation

FOO YING AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF ESATE DUTY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/1989

The Court held that s.31 quick succession relief applied: 'interest' and 'passed on death' in s.31 must be interpreted broadly to include an interest in the underlying leasehold property passing to the beneficiary's estate via an unadministered estate; a narrow technical reading producing absurd and unworkable results was rejected, and the Commissioner’s assessment based on the underlying leasehold values triggered s.31 relief.
23 May 1985

MAN KAM HUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation

MAN KAM HUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1/1984

The court exercised its discretion on costs acknowledging the special position of the Commissioner under section 22 and the need to assess success by reference to the merits of arguments; justice required splitting the costs, and the appellant was awarded 50% of his costs of the appeal from the date of filing the notice of appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

SHING LAI CHUK v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY

RE MAK WOON SHUI

FOO YING AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF ESATE DUTY

MAN KAM HUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF ESTATE DUTY