ࡱ > h j e f g x {` R R bjbjFF >b , , ~/ \ Z Z Z 8 6" \ ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) M O O O - | $ h ; D x\ ) ) x\ x\ ( ( } x\ ( ( M x\ M j = ( ( LaMA Z \v 4 2 9 0 ; | d = = ) 2 N 8 = ) ) ) ~ X ) ) ) x\ x\ x\ x\ d 6 $ 6 Case No. D59/06 Property tax rental income [Decision in Chinese] Panel: Anthony So Chun Kung (chairman), Felix Chan Wai Hon and David Li Ka Fai. Date of hearing: 20 September 2006. Date of decision: 24 November 2006. The taxpayer objected to the assessment on her property for the year of assessment 2000/01. She claimed that the property was not let out for four months during that year. The reported rental income changed from $45,000 to $360,000 on having been inquired by the Revenue. The Revenue found the property was let out for $58,000 monthly while the taxpayer received the rents fully. Held: 1. The taxpayer did not dispute the findings by the Revenue. The Board confirmed the assessment. Obiter: 1. The taxpayer said she did not understand the assessment principles and came to the Board for explanations. The Board was of view that she was irresponsible and ordered her to pay $1,000 as costs. Appeal dismissed and costs order in the sum of $1,000 imposed. Taxpayer in person. Poon S o C h i f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n l a n d R e v e n u e . HhN}_ D 5 9 / 0 6 irmiz Qy6eeQ YTgqQ;N-^ 0sIP"oSNg[f F eg2 0 0 6 t^9 g2 0 e zleg2 0 0 6 t^1 1 g2 4 e }zNS \zR@\TyYv NPQyirmi\OQv2 0 0 0 / 0 1 zt^^virmizUz0yYr1zrirmiert^^zznN4 Pg0yY1X1zvrzt^^Qy6eeQGR1u gRv4 5 , 0 0 0 CQ}zR@\gb_f9e3 6 0 , 0 0 0 CQ0 zR@\g_w(WrkgrirmiNkg5 8 , 0 0 0 CQQy }zNN]hQ6e0Ra_vyё0 zl 1 . }zN&N N-rpzR@\vgP}g0YTgxzR@\ \rirmivUz0 D6^ 1 . }zN1zyYV \UznGR Nf@bN0RYTg\Blˑ0YTgp }zNvLpui N}TNyY/eN1 , 0 0 0 CQ0 N4VS$RU/nc^1 , 0 0 0 CQv}TN0 }zNQ-^F 0 Xo }gNhzR@\@\wQ-^F 0 zl f N4 A sYXNN!|1z0 }zN 0 S \zR@\TyY\OQv2 0 0 0 / 0 1 zt^^irmiUzS2 0 0 1 / 0 2 2 0 0 3 / 0 4 zt^^irmiz܈RUz0 }zNr1zyY_vQ@bd girmiv[6eyё\eaUz