COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. SIMON PATRICK M DURRANT

DCTC3415/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

TAX CLAIM NO. 3415 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.  I have given the defendant an opportunity to consult a lawyer.  He wants to engage a particular lawyer and so he asks for this adjournment because that particular lawyer was not available.  He could have gone to someone else.  I would not give another opportunity again, so I dismiss the application for adjournment, and proceed to hear the case.

(Discussions re leave to appeal)

2.  The defendant alleged that perjury has been committed by staff of the plaintiff.  I have given him the opportunity to provide information in that regard; he failed to do so and I have made a decision in that respect.

3.  He challenged the decision made by the Inland Revenue Department.  I have already made a ruling.  According to the Inland Revenue Ordinance that is not a defence to say that the calculations or computations made by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue are not correct.

4.  I have considered all the matters submitted by the defendant.  What he told me today, in fact I have already considered.  And I made a decision on 6 July this year and on 16 July this year.  This defendant has not pointed out any error made in this decisions; he just kept on repeating that the decisions or computations made by the Commissioner of the Inland Department are wrong but, according to law, that is not a defence.

5.  In conclusion, I cannot find any error made by me in the decisions on those two dates.  Therefore, the defendant has not no prospect of success whatsoever in the Court of Appeal.  I therefore dismiss his application.

(Discussions re costs)

6.  The defendant do pay costs of this application, including the hearing on 25 August 2009, to the plaintiff, to be taxed, if not agreed.