COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CHURCH BODY OF THE HONG KONG SHENG KUNG HUI AND ANOTHER
HTML content
FAMV No. 11 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 11 OF 2015 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
CACV NO. 41 OF 2010)
_____________________
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHURCH BODY OF THE HONG KONG SHENG KUNG HUI | 1st Appellant (1st Respondent) | |
| HONG KONG SHENG KUNG HUI FOUNDATION | 2nd Appellant (2nd Respondent) | |
| and | ||
| COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE | Respondent (Applicant) |
_____________________
| Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ |
| Date of Hearing and Determination : 6 July 2015 |
____________________________
DETERMINATION
____________________________
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ :
1. We are satisfied that the questions of law proposed by the applicant are of the requisite importance to justify the grant of leave, namely:
(1) Does any “enhancement for realisation principle” arise from the authorities cited in paragraph 9 of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, and if so, what is its scope? (See: §§9, 10 and 12.6 of the Judgment).
(2) In determining whether a taxpayer has changed his intention regarding an asset from holding it for investment to holding it for trading, is the Board of Review required to refer to and apply the “enhancement for realisation principle” (as understood by the Court of Appeal or otherwise), and if the Board fails to do so, does this justify the appellate court’s interference with the Board’s finding of fact? (See: §§10, 12.2 to 12.19 of the Judgment)
(3) Does a finding of fact on change of intention based solely on “enhancement activities” necessarily amount to an error of law made by the Board of Review? (See: §10.7 of the Judgment).
2. The appeal will be heard on 8 January 2016.
| (R.A.V. Ribeiro) | (Robert Tang) | (Joseph Fok) |
| Permanent Judge | Permanent Judge | Permanent Judge |
Mr Denis Chang SC and Mr Newman Lam, instructed by P.C. Woo & Co., for the 1st and 2nd appellants
Mr Eugene Fung SC and Mr Wilson Leung, instructed by Department of Justice, for the respondent