个案的实况.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 of all blame’.