逗留在香港的天数.DOC

  1. 1、本文档共9页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、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。
  3. 3、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
  4. 4、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)。
查看更多
逗留在香港的天数

Case No. D37/12 Salaries tax – dependent parent allowance – whether dependent ‘ordinarily resident in Hong Kong’ – whether Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Board should exercise discretion – whether such discretion exists – sections 30(1) and 68(4) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘the IRO’). [Decision in Chinese] Panel: Huen Wong (chairman), Leung Wai Keung Richard and Kenneth S Y Ng. Date of hearing: 8 October 2012. Date of decision: 12 November 2012. The Appellant applied dependent parent allowance for maintaining his father (‘Mr A’). According to the records of the Immigration Department, Mr A stayed in Hong Kong for 35 days during the relevant year of assessment. As stated by the Appellant, Mr A was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong in the said year of assessment. The Appellant, however, asked the Board to exercise discretion, relying on the followings: (a) although Mr A had resided on the Mainland for a long time, the Appellant still had to maintain the living of Mr A; (b) Mr A suffered from glaucoma, but the Appellant could not take care of Mr A due to his commitment on his work, and as Mr A also wished to live on the Mainlnad, the Appellant had hired a helper on the Mainland to take care of Mr A’s daily living; (c) Mr A returned to Hong Kong occasionally to seek medical treatment on glaucoma. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the Appellant’s application. Being dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant lodged an appeal to the Board of Review. Held: Under section 30(1) of the IRO, the Appellant would be entitled to dependent parent allowance only if Mr A was ‘ordinarily resident in Hong Kong’, such phrase should be interpreted through its natural and ordinary meaning in daily language, that is living voluntarily and for a settled purpose in a particular place, temporarily and incidentally excepted. (Reg v Barnet London Borough Council, ex parte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 and Director of Immigration v Ng Shun-loi [1987] HKLR 798 considered) T

文档评论(0)

2105194781 + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档