Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restricted share awards

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2022

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 412
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV366/2021

The Court of Appeal held the CIR's appeals must be dismissed: Sums B2, C and D were not "income from employment" under s8(1) IRO because they were paid pursuant to a fresh Termination Agreement as consideration for post-termination obligations (fresh bargain/fresh consideration) and the judge was entitled to disturb the Board's conclusions as they were contrary to the true and only reasonable conclusion on the primary facts and inferences.
16 Mar 2022

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 412
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2020

The Court of Appeal held that on the facts the releases of the 2012 restricted shares (Sums B2 and C) and the payment for assistance (Sum D) derived from a fresh bargain in the Termination Agreement with fresh consideration for post-termination obligations; the dominant purpose and substance of the payments was not to reward past or ongoing employment and therefore they were not income "from" employment under section 8(1) of the IRO, so the CIR's appeals were dismissed.
29 Jun 2021

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1846
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2019

On the facts and applying the statutory test, the Court held that Sums B2 and C were not 'from' the appellant's employment because the operative purpose of releasing the shares was to procure the appellant's potentially long-term post‑employment assistance in litigation (fresh consideration under the Termination Agreement) rather than a reward for past, present or future services as an employee.

Hong Kong Case Law

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

HEATH BRIAN ZARIN v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE