- 1、本文档共24页,可阅读全部内容。
- 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、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、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
罚款额是否过多
(2013-14) VOLUME 28 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONSPAGE 172PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT43Case No. D50/12Profits tax – appellant submitting tax return out of time – defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ – whether appellant had reasonable excuse – whether additional tax excessive – sections 51, 58, 59, 66(3), 68, 80, 82, 82A(1) and 82B of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap112) (‘the IRO’). [Decision in Chinese]Panel: Albert T da Rosa Jr (chairman), Chan Miu Lan Anita and Shum Sze Man Erik.Date of hearing: 13 August 2012.Date of decision: 7 February 2013. The Inland Revenue Department (‘the IRD’) sent a tax return to the Appellant’s business address registered with the Business Registration Office (‘Address B’) through ordinary post. Under the tax return, the Appellant was reminded to submit the tax return 1 month after being issued. The Appellant submitted the tax return 5 months and 3 days out of time. The Appellant stated that it did not receive the tax return delivered to Address B; that it had received Employer’s Return of Remuneration and Pensions twice at another address of the Appellant (‘Address A’), and hence was not aware of receiving the tax return; that neither it nor its tax representative had received any warning from the IRD regarding its failure to submit the tax return; that it had already provided books of account to its accountant to audit for declaring tax, hence there was no intention to submit the tax return late; that it was not conversant with the laws of Hong Kong; that the IRD had exempted it from paying surcharge for that year of assessment; that it had paid the additional tax. The Appellant did not dispute the lateness for submitting the tax return, but contended that it had reasonable excuse for the late submission. The present incident was the first offence of the Appellant in the last 5 years. The Appellant had a history of late submission of profits tax return and employer’s tax return. In the hearing before the Board, the Appellant
文档评论(0)