Asia Master Ltd v. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

HCAL114/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO.114 OF 2005

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Chu J in Court

Date of Hearing : 24, 25 and 28 April 2006

Date of Judgment : 30 November 2006

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

CORRIGENDA

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

1.At page 14, sub-heading (10) should read: “EY’s and GYCM’s letters dated 22 March 2005”.

2.At page 14 paragraph 39, the 1^st and 2^nd sentences should read: “On 22 March 2005, EY wrote again to the Commissioner, enclosing a letter from Messrs George YC Mok & Co. (“GYCM”), AML’s solicitors in these proceedings. Both EY and GYCM referred in their letters to an opinion of an English Queen’s Counsel.” 

3.The references to “GCKM” at pages 14, 18, 19 and 32 in paragraphs 40, 51, 55 and 90 respectively should read “GYCM”.

4.At page 20 paragraph 59, the 2^nd sentence should read: “It had ample opportunity to consider its tax position and advance its case to the IRD.”  In the same paragraph, the 4^th sentence should read: “ Even after EY was appointed, there were meeting and discussions between its representatives and the assessors of the IRD before the Commissioner made the substantive decisions in September 2004.”

5.At page 21 paragraph 63, the first sentence should read: “Miss Eu SC seeks to draw assistance from the case of R v. Wiltshire County Council ex p Nettlecombe Ltd 96 LGR 386.” 

6.At page 26 paragraph 73, the 1^st sentence should read: “One of the main planks in AML’s argument against the IRD’s treatment of the profits in AGIGL’s account is that section 61 provides that when the artificial or fictitious transaction is disregarded, “the person concerned shall be assessable accordingly.”

7.At page 27 paragraph 77, the 2^nd sentence should read: “It would not have been legitimate for the IRD to look at the tax position of or to raise assessment on AM-PY, who is a party outside Hong Kong.”

8.At page 29 paragraph 83, the 2^nd sentence should read: “They were only mentioned in Mr Chan’s second affirmation filed shortly before the hearing of the judicial review.”

9.At page 30 paragraph 85, the sentence appearing between lines 9 and 11 should read: “The limited arrangement in existence for the avoidance of double taxation on income has no application since AGIGL is not a Mainland enterprise.”

10.At page 32 paragraph 91, the last sentence should read: “Looking at the facts, the essence of AML’s case is not so much that there has been an error or omission, but rather it would appear that there had been a change in the approach or opinion of its professional advisers: see Extramoney Ltd v. CIR [1997] HKLRD 387, 396A-D.”  

Dated the 5^th of December, 2006