Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCSA 15/2017

[2018] HKDC 675

香港特別行政區

區域法院

印花稅上訴2017年第15號

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

上訴人	倪秀英
對
答辯人	印花稅署署長

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

主審法官:

區域法院法官梁國安內庭聆訊（公開）

聆訊日期:	2018年6月5日
判案書日期:	2018年6月11日

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

判案書

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

1.這是一宗印花稅評稅的上訴。

案情背景

2.區域法院暫委法官陳振國於2008年4月20日就DCSA16/2017一案中的上訴人孔業成先生(“孔先生”)及本案中的上訴人倪秀英女士(“倪女士”)的離婚案件頒下判案書，命令雙方須於某限期內將自己名下某物業的業權及利益無償轉名給對方。

3.孔先生與倪女士於2013年11月1日，分別簽立兩份轉讓契：一份轉讓契是孔先生將自己名下某物業轉名給倪女士，另外一份轉讓契是倪女士將自己名下某物業轉名給孔先生。

4.就以上兩份轉讓契，答辯人根據印花稅條例(第117章)第29條，評定為構成一宗更大交易或一系列交易，因總價值不超越600萬元，應按照條例附表1第1類第2標準(g)條款徵收分別為＄94,500及＄73,500的印花稅。

上訴理由

5.孔先生和倪女士上訴的理據完全一樣，所以本席一併處理。他們指出該兩份轉讓契應該被視作為交換契處理，所以應該根據印花稅條例第25(7)條下的交換物業情況下，以兩幢物業價值的差異徵收印花稅。

6.兩位上訴人在法庭上指出，他們的律師當時是根據法庭命令執行。在整件離婚程序中，各自的律師沒有向兩位上訴人給予任何有關轉讓契和交換契相對印花稅計算方法的法律意見。

7.兩位上訴人的意見是這樣計算印花稅不公道，這是一個家庭內部的交易，就算有人做處理失誤，或者兩方律師當時處理失誤，兩位上訴人都不應該受到所謂的 “懲罰”，所以要求法庭行使酌情權，考慮交易的本質是交換物業，判處印花稅是根據交換契形式來釐定。

有關法例

8.兩位上訴人沒有爭議他們當時是簽署了兩份轉讓契而不是簽署一份交換契。

9.首先，長久以來法例已定明，印花稅是按文書而非背後的交易徵稅 (見Lord Escher在 IRC v Angus (1889) 23 QBD 579的判詞)。

10.另外，交換契的文書是 “似乎”(而非 “必定”)需要一份交換契約的形式進行，而不是以兩份不同的轉讓契分開進行。Enclycopaedia of Hong Kong Taxation (issue 24) para 271 有以下解釋：

“Exchanges and partitions: The normal rule with exchanges…is that they are not liable to stamp duty unless equality money is payable…On the authority of the United Kingdom interpretation it appears (此處本席加上強調) that it is necessary to enter into a single deed (or agreement) for an exchange, rather than two separate agreements for sale and purchase, if the transaction is to be an exchange, although the effect in substance may be the same. It is, therefore, important that the deed (or contract) states that property A will be exchanged for property B and that any equality money is clearly stated. The stamp duty advantage will be at risk if the contract states that property A will be sold for $x and property B will be sold for $y…”

11.但另一方面，在評稅的過程中不應流於考慮交易文書的表面而忽略交易的本質: Danckwerts J 於Lord Portman v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1956] TR353提出：

“Now this instrument, of course, is described as “an exchange”. That description is of no value if the circumstances surrounding the document and the nature of the document indicates that it is something different. In my view, it is not an exchange at all. It seems to me that this instrument is nothing more than the completion of two contracts for the sale of land. There was no preceding agreement for an exchange...”

12.同樣地，在Sergeant and Sims on Stamp Duties (11th Ed), A2.1.2 亦有指出：

“The terms of the instrument itself in general determine whether any, and if so what, stamp duty is chargeable. It is the true meaning and effect of the writing, not what the instrument calls itself, which decide this question. Accordingly, it has been said that in determining the liability of an instrument to stamp duty, regard should be had to the substance of the transaction rather than to its form.”

13.這法理亦充分顯示於Cottingham v Central Land Board (1957) 8 P&CR 339案件中。Cottingham 案件與Lord Portman 案件有着相同之處，就是兩件案件中的上訴人均爭議交易是以交換契而非轉讓契進行，但法庭判案的結果是截然不同。

14.Cottingham案件的判詞指出：

“I have come to conclusion that this is not a case where it is possible to go behind the terms of agreement to ascertain the intentions of the parties. It is an entirely different case from Lord Portman v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, where, as Danckwerts J. pointed out, there were agreements for sale at specific price which could have been enforced by specific performance. In the present case there was never an enforceable agreement for a sale of land at a specified price...”

15.這些英國的案例是根據英國當時有關印花稅的法律審判，雖然英國當時的法律用詞和現有香港有關法律的用詞不同，但法理是一樣的，就是法庭不能只觀察文書的標題，而是須要衡量交易的本質，包括文書上的條款，觀察圍繞文書的事件情況及文書的本質等等，從而決定交易是以交換契或轉讓契的形式進行。

16.反觀本案而言，雖然兩份有關契約是以轉讓合約為標題，但文書的內容有清楚列出法官當時的命令：

“(C)By an Order made by Deputy District Judge C.K. Chan…under Matrimonial Causes No.5647 of 2005 and registered in the Land Registry…, it was ordered, inter alia, that the Assignor shall transfer the Property to the Assignee and the Assignee shall transfer the Other Property to the Assignor; and

(D)The parties hereto have agreed to enter into this Assignment dealing with the Property and another Assignment also dated 1 November 2013 dealing with the Other Property pursuant to the terms of the Court Order.”

17.換句話說，在這兩項條款內雖然沒有用 “交換”（exchange) 這用詞，但根據Lord Portman 案件沿用的方法觀察圍繞文書的事件情況及文書的本質(“the circumstances surrounding the document and the nature of the document”)，顯而易見這是一個交換物業的交易。正如Cottingham案件判詞中指出，這個不是一個標榜着售買價而且可獨立執行的買賣合約 (“agreement for sale at specific price which could have been enforced by specific discovery”)。相反地，條款上清楚指出，兩項交易是須要同時進行(事實上兩項交易亦是同日簽署)，不能分割出來逐一獨立執行。再者，法庭命令亦顯示雙方在之前是已經同意這交換的交易 (“preceding agreement for an exchange”)。

總結

18.總括而言，本席裁定兩份文書雖然都標榜着是轉讓契，但交易的本質顯然是交換物業。

19.本席裁定倪女士的上訴得直，印花稅署需要依照印花稅條例的第25(7)條以交換契形式來釐定印花稅。

20.訟費方面，本席裁定答辯人須支付上訴人本申請的訟費(如有的話)，若雙方未能就訟費金額達成協議，則交由法庭評定。