- 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
逾期及延长上诉期限
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, 1188
Chow Kwong Fai v CIR
您可能关注的文档
最近下载
- 《机械装调技术》电子教案 模块五 整机调试与运行任务一 齿轮啮合齿侧间隙的检测与调整.doc VIP
- 青花瓷 完美演奏版 周杰伦 钢琴谱 数字 简谱.pdf VIP
- 第38届物理竞赛决赛实验考试答题纸 .pdf VIP
- 现代医药物流交易的配送中心建设项目可行性研究报告.doc VIP
- 2025-2026学年初中生物学人教版2024八年级上册-人教版2024教学设计合集.docx
- 养生馆卫生管理制度(3篇).docx
- 健康管理师课件第一章--健康管理概论.ppt VIP
- JBT 4333.4-2013 厢式压滤机和板框压滤机 第4部分:隔膜滤板.pdf VIP
- 电信反诈骗演讲稿模板5篇.docx VIP
- 基于光纤布拉格光栅的温度测量系统设计与应用.docx VIP
文档评论(0)