Read the full judgment text of CACC 000095/1991 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 July 1991 before Kempster JA, Sir Derek Cons Ag CJ, Power JA.
Criminal law – Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112) – tax evasion – wilfully signing false returns contrary to s.82(1)(d) – wilfully using fraud, art or contrivance to evade tax contrary to s.82(1)(g) – applicant carrying on business under style 'Federal Chemical Company' – returns for 1985/86, 1986/87 and 1987/86 omitting substantial sales and including fictitious purchases from Unity Trading Company and Constant (HK) Trading Company – whether income from self-employment assessable to profits tax under s.14 rather than salaries tax under s.8 – whether obligation to make honest return under s.82(1) obviated by later finding of no tax liability – whether documents from Inland Revenue search improperly admitted – Court of Appeal dismissing leave application – whether to direct under s.83W Criminal Procedure Ordinance that period in custody not count towards sentence – whether income is assessable to profits tax under s.14 not salaries tax under s.8 because s.8 postulates an employer and does not extend to self-employment – whether obligation to file honest return under s.82(1) cannot be obviated by a subsequent finding of no tax liability and is consistent with s.51(1) – whether applicant precluded from challenging admissibility of search documents by formal s.65C Criminal Procedure Ordinance admission that search was conducted pursuant to a valid warrant and no application under s.65C(4) to withdraw admission – whether s.83W direction appropriate given total lack of merit in arguments – leave to appeal dismissed, with direction that 30 days spent in custody since filing application not count towards sentence.
Legal issues: Whether income from self-employment is assessable to profits tax rather than salaries tax · Whether the obligation to make an honest return under s.82(1) can be obviated by a later finding of no tax liability · Whether documents seized during a search were improperly admitted · Whether to direct under s.83W that part of the period spent in custody not count towards sentence
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; direction under s.83W given that 30 days spent in custody since filing the application should not count towards sentence.