Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stamp duty assessment

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2021

TSE SUM PING v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1250
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA2/2020

On the balance of probabilities the appellant failed to prove she acted on her own behalf when entering into the agreement because the available evidence showed substantial third-party funding, implausible oral loan arrangements, sharing of rebates with third parties and occupancy/utility/resident card records inconsistent with exclusive beneficial ownership; therefore s.29CB(2) exemption did not apply and the agreement was chargeable with BSD of HK$17,988,773 (15% of HK$119,925,150).
1 Sept 2021

GENIUS EXPRESS LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA43/2013

Costs will not be reduced because doing so would effectively award interest on refunds contrary to the binding Court of Appeal decision in Nomura; the lack of refund does not demonstrate conduct amounting to exaggeration or cause additional costs; appellants could have used s14(1A) security but chose to pay, so costs follow the event and appellants must pay the Collector's costs.
4 Jun 2021

GENIUS EXPRESS LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 659
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA43/2013

On the facts the court found an integral, interdependent relationship among the Agreement and the four Assignments such that they formed part of a larger transaction; the stated considerations were artificially suppressed and the 6‑year tenancy/advanced payment arrangements were inserted for the purpose of reducing stamp duty and lacked commercial reality; applying s27(4) and the Ramsay purposive approach the Assignments were treated as voluntary dispositions inter vivos and stamp duty was assessed by reference to the Commissioner’s aggregate valuation of the Property ($15,730,000) at the 3.7…
11 Nov 2016

CHENG YUNG CHING v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Citation

CHENG YUNG CHING v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA31/2015

Appellant failed to prove hardship because he owned an unencumbered Hong Kong flat of significant value and could have raised finance; his absence from Hong Kong did not prevent compliance because he was aware of the assessment and had solicitors; undue delay weighed against him; therefore both the s14(1B) hardship application and s14(5B) extension were refused and the summons dismissed.
22 Nov 2001

ARROWTOWN ASSETS LTD. v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

ARROWTOWN ASSETS LTD. v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA52/2000

The DC Agreement formed part of the consideration for the land assignment and included contractual promises by Calm Seas (an outsider) (notably clause 14), thereby infringing s.45(4)(a); the Loan Note was to be parted with pursuant to the Share Sale Agreement in consequence of transactions involving payment by an outsider, infringing s.45(5); the Ramsay approach did not permit disregarding the issued deferred shares because the statutory concept of 'issued share capital' and 'associated body corporate' are legal concepts and the shares were legally valid; accordingly intra-group relief under…
5 Jul 2001

CHAN LI CHAI MEDICAL FACTORY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

CHAN LI CHAI MEDICAL FACTORY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1115/2000

Read in light of their recitals and the April 1995 deed of settlement, the 1995 assignments operated to transfer both legal and beneficial interests to the appellant; the instruments disclosed the relevant facts required by s11 and therefore operated as voluntary dispositions within s27(1), so the original stamp duty assessments were correct and the appeal was dismissed.
16 Sept 1996

GUOJI TRANSPORT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

GUOJI TRANSPORT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA30/1995

The agreement constituted a lease because it granted exclusive possession of specific units, imposed obligations and liabilities consistent with a tenancy, involved substantial consideration tied to occupation and investment, and satisfied the certainty requirement because the maximum duration was limited by Guoji's leasehold interest; accordingly the agreement was chargeable to stamp duty under Head 1(2)(a) on the stated consideration of HK$11,033,561.83 producing duty of HK$303,424.
30 Nov 1983

YEUNG SHING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

YEUNG SHING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA37/1982

The court held that the Building Authority's uninterrupted tacit concession since 1970 gave rise to a legitimate expectation permitting the two side lanes to be taken into account for plot ratio and site coverage despite Cap.123 s.23(2)(a); applying sales comparables and adopting a development scheme with one basement and 16 upper storeys the market value at 28 Feb 1981 was fixed at $70,400,000, reducing the Collector's assessment and resulting in stamp duty at 2.75% of $1,936,000.
24 Jan 1975

LAP SHUN TEXTILES INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

LAP SHUN TEXTILES INDUSTRIAL CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/1974

The court held that s.27(4) must be read as written: where the Collector, in his opinion, forms that the sum paid is inadequate or other circumstances show a substantial benefit to the transferee, the conveyance may be deemed to operate as a voluntary disposition inter vivos and be chargeable under Head 53(2); accordingly the Collector was entitled to take the course he did and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Nov 1970

THE CROSS-HARBOUR TUNNEL CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

THE CROSS-HARBOUR TUNNEL CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA1/1970

Although the promissory notes are the core instruments creating the appellants' liability, the debenture, by creating a floating charge which crystallises on default and confers priority over the appellants' assets, constituted Lloyds' principal security for purposes of Head 37(1) of the Stamp Ordinance and was therefore chargeable with stamp duty; the appeal is dismissed.