Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Salaries tax

Legal area

Court

9 May 2025

RANDEEP S GREWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 398
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV3/2024

The Court affirmed that under s8(1) IRO the place where services are rendered is not relevant to the general charge; the situs of the employment (deemed locality of the contract/employer residence/CMC) determines whether income arises in or is derived from Hong Kong, with place-of-service issues addressed by s8(1A)/(1B); the Board's factual finding that the employer (Green Dragon) was resident/controlled in Hong Kong was not perverse and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Dec 2023

DR. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 41
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2023

The Court held the sum of HK$1,765,821 was taxable under section 8 because it was paid to the taxpayer as an employee for past services and as an inducement to enter employment; accordingly costs follow the event and the order nisi that the taxpayer pay the costs here and below to the Commissioner was made absolute, with allowance for two counsel where reasonable.
6 Dec 2023

RANDEEP S GREWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/2022

The court holds that s.8(1) must be construed to identify the situs of the employment (contract/employer) as the primary criterion for the basic charge; the place where services are rendered is not relevant to the enquiry under s.8(1) and s.8(1A) operates as a distinct extension providing for apportionment/exclusions; Goepfert and Lee Hung Kwong were correctly decided and the Board did not err in law.
10 Nov 2023

DR. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 36
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2023

Viewed in substance, the Sum was paid because the taxpayer, as an employee, stood by on rest days and statutory/public holidays and thus the payment arose from his acting as or being an employee; it compensated for past services and related to employment inducements, and therefore met the Fuchs test and was taxable under IRO s.8(1).
11 May 2023

DR. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 649
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV278/2021

The Court of Appeal granted leave to the Commissioner to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the central question—whether compensation for loss of rest days and statutory/public holidays constitutes income from employment under s.8 IRO—is of great general or public importance and the grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable; the issue warrants definitive determination by the Court of Final Appeal, particularly given distinctions from prior authorities where payments were made on termination.
22 Feb 2023

DR. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 232
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV278/2021

Majority held the Sum was not income from employment under s.8(1) IRO because, viewed in substance, it was compensation for deprivation of statutory and contractual entitlements to rest days and public holidays (consideration for abrogation of entitlement), not a payment made in return for services or as reward for past services; it was not paid pursuant to a contractual mechanism making it referable to remuneration and therefore not assessable to salaries tax.
9 Nov 2022

RANDEEP S GREWAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3393
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/2022

The court grants leave to appeal because both the challenge to the precedents (Q1) and the factual-law application issues (Q2, including Q2(1) and Q2(2)) are reasonably arguable; alternatively, leave on Q1 is justified in the interests of justice given the importance of the statutory charge, elapsed time and subsequent jurisprudence. Costs of the leave application are ordered in the cause.
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.
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.