- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
有关法律.doc
Case No. D5/12
Property tax – appeal – stated case – legal principles of stated case – whether question of law identified by applicant is arguable and proper for the High Court to consider – sections 5, 5B and 69(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘the IRO’).[Decision in Chinese]
Panel: Albert T da Rosa, Jr (chairman), Chan Yue Chow and Kong Chi How Johnson.
Stated Case, No hearing.
Date of decision: 8 May 2012.
The Board of Review (‘the Board’) made a Decision in respect of the Applicant’s case (‘the Decision’). The Applicant did not agree with the Decision, and applied to the Board to state the case to the Court of First Instance.
As summarized by the Respondent, the following four points were raised by the Applicant in the stated case: (1) assessable value should be ascertained in accordance with section 5B of the IRO, and it was incorrect to calculate assessable value by deducting deductible items from rental income; (2) if assessable value was ascertained by the consideration paid in using the property, then the assessable value in respect of the same property should be the same, whether the owner was responsible for paying rate, government rent, management fee and air-conditioning charges etc; (3) where the owner was responsible for paying rate, government rent, management fee and air-conditioning charges etc, payment of those items was made by the tenant on a ‘user-pay’ basis to the owner (who then paid those items on behalf of the tenant) and should not affect the amount of assessable value; (4) the authorities raised by the Board did not require the Commissioner to calculate assessable value in accordance with section 5B of the IRO, and were therefore inapplicable to the present case.
Further, the Applicant also stated that the Board had ‘relentlessly covered the mistakes committed by the Commissioner’, and would ‘disclose the matter’ at the right moment so that certain government departments and persons ‘can hardly absolve themselves
您可能关注的文档
最近下载
- 基于abaqus的钢筋混凝土结构损伤塑性模型.docx VIP
- 医学课件-皮肤软组织感染.pptx VIP
- 2024年江苏赛区复赛“扬子石化杯”第38届中国化学奥林匹克(初赛)选拔赛暨化学试题含答案.pdf VIP
- 食材分拣、包装、运输、验收、售后整体配送服务方案.docx VIP
- 《华为数字化转型之道》实践经验分享试题附答案.doc
- 2025年辽宁省政府采购评审专家考试测试题及答案.docx VIP
- GB50054-2011低压配电设计规范.docx VIP
- 油漆来料检验报告.docx VIP
- GB 50054-2011 低压配电设计规范.docx VIP
- 人教版劳动教育六年级上册全册教案教学设计.pdf VIP
文档评论(0)