Case Details
Applicant(s):
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, HIT FINANCE LIMITED
Respondent(s):
REVENUE Appellant (Respondent on cross appeal) and HIT FINANCE LIMITED
For Applicant(s):
Mr David Goldberg, QC; Mr Stewart KM Wong
For Respondent(s):
Mr John Gardiner, QC, Mr Ambrose Ho, SC and Mr Kenny Lin (instructed by Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo); the Department of Justice)
- Court : Bokhary
- Chan
- Ribeiro
- Litton
- Lord Hoffmann NPJDate of Judgment :19 May 2008_____________________J U D G M E N T_____________________Lord Hoffmann :1.This is the judgment of the Court.2.On 4 December 2007
- the Court unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal against HITL
- confirmed the assessments on HITL.3.The parties subsequently lodged written submissions seeking clarification of the Court’s order
- the issue between them being whether
- in the light of the Judgment
- the proper assessments on HITL are those made by the Commissioner in the Determination or the assessments as increased by the Board of Review. HITL contends for the former
- the Commissioner for the latter.4.The Commissioner’s contentions are correct. The principle stated in the judgment requires the deduction of interest paid by HITL on a sum in excess of the US$587 million actually borrowed by the group to be disallowed. That was the effect of the increased assessments made by the Board of Review. It does not depend on the ‘no real money’ argument which the Court rejected.5.The subsequent borrowings by Strategic by selling loan notes are in our opinion irrelevant. They are new transactions. If (as appears to be the case) Strategic lent the new money to another group company
- that company would be entitled to deduct the interest it paid. But there is no reason why HITL should thereby become entitled also to deduct interest on the same borrowings.6.Accordingly
- and in the light of uncontroversial submissions made by the parties regarding other aspects of the orders required to be made
- we make the following orders
- namely
- that:(1) The Commissioner’s appeal against HITL in FACV No 9 of 2007 be allowed
- the assessments on HITL as increased by the Board of Review under section 68(8)(a) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112) be confirmed.(2) The Commissioner’s appeal against Finance in FACV No 8 of 2007 be dismissed.(3) The following profits tax assessments on Finance be annulled:Year of assessmentCharge No1994/951-5053025-95-71995/961-3148225-96-A1996/971-1147626-97-71997/981-2896198-98-71999/001-1043202-00-32000/011-1082365-01-5(4) The profits tax assessment on Finance for the year of assessment 1998/99 under charge no 1-1081904-99-0 be reduced to chargeable profits of HK$20
- with tax payable thereon of HK$3
- 066.(5) The cross appeal by Finance against the Commissioner in FACV No 16 of 2007 be allowed.(6) The cross appeal by HITL against the Commissioner in FACV No 17 of 2007 be dismissed.(7) The Orders of the Court of Appeal dated 13 February 2007
- 22 June 2007 be set aside.(8) Costs be dealt with by the Court on written submissions by the parties as to which the parties should seek procedural directions from the Registrar.(Kemal Bokhary)Permanent (Patrick Chan)Permanent (R A V Ribeiro)Permanent (Henry Litton)Non-Permanent (Lord Hoffmann)Non-Permanent JudgeMr David Goldberg
- QC
- Mr Stewart KM Wong (instructed by the Department of ) for the appellant (respondent on cross appeal)Mr John Gardiner
- QC
- Mr Ambrose Ho
- SC
- Mr Kenny Lin (instructed by Messrs Woo
- Kwan
- Lee & Lo) for the respondent (appellant on cross appeal
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. HONGKONG INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS LTD
FACV 8A/2007
Court of Final Appeal19 May 2008
Judges:Court : BokharyChanRibeiroLittonLord Hoffmann NPJDate of Judgment :19 May 2008_____________________J U D G M E N T_____________________Lord Hoffmann :1.This is the judgment of the Court.2.On 4 December 2007the Court unanimously allowed the Commissioner’s appeal against HITLconfirmed the assessments on HITL.3.The parties subsequently lodged written submissions seeking clarification of the Court’s orderthe issue between them being whetherin the light of the Judgmentthe proper assessments on HITL are those made by the Commissioner in the Determination or the assessments as increased by the Board of Review. HITL contends for the formerthe Commissioner for the latter.4.The Commissioner’s contentions are correct. The principle stated in the judgment requires the deduction of interest paid by HITL on a sum in excess of the US$587 million actually borrowed by the group to be disallowed. That was the effect of the increased assessments made by the Board of Review. It does not depend on the ‘no real money’ argument which the Court rejected.5.The subsequent borrowings by Strategic by selling loan notes are in our opinion irrelevant. They are new transactions. If (as appears to be the case) Strategic lent the new money to another group companythat company would be entitled to deduct the interest it paid. But there is no reason why HITL should thereby become entitled also to deduct interest on the same borrowings.6.Accordinglyand in the light of uncontroversial submissions made by the parties regarding other aspects of the orders required to be madewe make the following ordersnamelythat:(1) The Commissioner’s appeal against HITL in FACV No 9 of 2007 be allowedthe assessments on HITL as increased by the Board of Review under section 68(8)(a) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112) be confirmed.(2) The Commissioner’s appeal against Finance in FACV No 8 of 2007 be dismissed.(3) The following profits tax assessments on Finance be annulled:Year of assessmentCharge No1994/951-5053025-95-71995/961-3148225-96-A1996/971-1147626-97-71997/981-2896198-98-71999/001-1043202-00-32000/011-1082365-01-5(4) The profits tax assessment on Finance for the year of assessment 1998/99 under charge no 1-1081904-99-0 be reduced to chargeable profits of HK$20with tax payable thereon of HK$3066.(5) The cross appeal by Finance against the Commissioner in FACV No 16 of 2007 be allowed.(6) The cross appeal by HITL against the Commissioner in FACV No 17 of 2007 be dismissed.(7) The Orders of the Court of Appeal dated 13 February 200722 June 2007 be set aside.(8) Costs be dealt with by the Court on written submissions by the parties as to which the parties should seek procedural directions from the Registrar.(Kemal Bokhary)Permanent (Patrick Chan)Permanent (R A V Ribeiro)Permanent (Henry Litton)Non-Permanent (Lord Hoffmann)Non-Permanent JudgeMr David GoldbergQCMr Stewart KM Wong (instructed by the Department of ) for the appellant (respondent on cross appeal)Mr John GardinerQCMr Ambrose HoSCMr Kenny Lin (instructed by Messrs WooKwanLee & Lo) for the respondent (appellant on cross appeal