3.A公司就上诉人提交的201011课税年度雇主报税表载有下列资料.docVIP

Case No. D52/12 Extension of time – reasonable cause – sections 58, 66(1) and 66(1A) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘the IRO’). [Decision in Chinese] Salaries tax – deduct medical insurance premium –– section 8(1), 9, 12(1)(a) and 68(4) of the IRO. [Decision in Chinese] Panel: Huen Wong (chairman), Kao Chu Chee Emmanuel and Shum Sze Man Erik. Date of hearing: 17 December 2012. Date of decision: 8 March 2013. The Appellant was entitled to staff medical benefit of Company A. However, Company A did not have its own medical scheme in Hong Kong and would only reimburse the premium paid by its staff for their own medical insurance. The Assessor contended that the premium paid by the Appellant was her own debt. The payment by Company A under the Appellant’s employment contract was perquisite from her office or employment under section 9(1) of the IRO. The Determination was sent by registered mail on 22 June 2012 to the Appellant. It was resent by ordinary post by the Revenue on 17 July after having been returned. The Appellant gave notice of appeal to the Board on 21 August by email and on 22 Aug submitted email with necessary appendices. Held: 1. The Appellant was not prevented by illness or absence from Hong Kong or other reasonable cause from giving notice of appeal. The Board would not accept the notice of appeal which was given out of time. The application was dismissed. 2. The Board understands the feeling of the Appellant but accepts the point of law made by the Assessor. The premium reimbursed by Company A was, in law, benefit in the form of a perquisite having money’s worth received by the Appellant and is chargeable to tax. On the other hand, the amount was not ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily’ incurred in the production of the assessable income and is therefore not deductable. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: D2/04, IRBRD, vol 19, 76 Chan Chun Chuen v CIR [2012] 2 HKLRD 379 D67/06, (2006-07) IRBRD, vol 21