Decision No
 

PENALTY TAX -
 

filing of an incorrect return – imposition of additional tax under s 82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) – whether reasonable excuse for incorrect return – whether mitigating factors present – whether additional tax excessive

D59/05 (Word file)　

incorrect tax return – omission to furnish details of income from employment – whether penalty tax excessive – s 82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)
 

D64/05 (Word file)

quantum – whether excessive – assessment increased by the Board for being manifestly inadequate
 

D66/05 (Word file)

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT -
 

taxpayer did not receive her share of profit
 

D55/05 (Word file)

whether expenditure of a capital nature – anti-avoidance - s 61A – whether appellant obtained tax benefit – whether sole or dominant intention to obtain tax benefit – whether Commissioner entitled to consider assessments afresh
 

D60/05 (Word file)

additional assessment – onus wholly on the appellant to show the assessment excessive or incorrect on appeal –  ss 16(1), 68(4) and 68(9) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)
 

D62/05 (Word file)

intention of a long-term investment – whether expenses actually incurred – ss 16, 68(4) and 70A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)
 

D69/05 (Word file)

D58/05 (Word file)

extension of time for appeal – whether appellant established a proper case for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal under s 66( 1A ) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) – whether appellant was prevented by ‘reasonable cause’ from giving notice of appeal to the Board of Review promptly
 

D54/05 (Word file)

deductions under salaries tax - s 12(1)(a) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) – whether or not whenever the taxpayer carried out the instructions of his clients he incurred a contingent liability under the indemnity in respect of potential non-payment by the clients – whether or not the Bad Debts were necessarily incurred in the production of the taxpayer’s assessable income – whether or not the liability to indemnify Company K crystallised upon entering into the agreements and was ‘incurred’ for purpose of section 12(1)(a)
 

D57/05 (Word file)

home loan interest – whether mortgage loan interest when property still under development deductible – s 26E of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’)
 

D63/05 (Word file)

salaries received under secondment but handed over to the seconding company
 

D65/05 (Word file)

married person’s allowance – single parent allowance – sole or predominant care of a child – Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) ss 29(1) and 32
 

D67/05 (Word file)

whether gratuity or long service payment – ss 8, 9 and 68 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) – ss 31B, 31G , 31I, 31IA, 31R, 31V, 31Y and 31YAA of the Employment Ordinance
 

D68/05 (Word file)

state a case for the opinion of the Court of First Instance – ss 68(4) and 69(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘IRO’) – state a case only limit to the question of law – the Board’s reject or ignore part of the evidence did not mean that there was mistake on the question of law – the initiative to submit evidence and to call witness is on the parties of the trial – the Board would only act as a middleman.  [Decision in Chinese]
 

D56/05 (PDF file - Trad. Chinese)

D56/05 (PDF file - Simp. Chinese)

D56/05 (Word file - Trad. Chinese)

D56/05 (Word file - Simp. Chinese)