shares so registered (unless the transfer is executed in the Colony)
If then Companies registered in Hongkong but carrying business in Treaty ports take advantage of this Order, persons holding shares will not have to pay Double Duty, in themselves the view expressed by I.O. will thus be met.
As the Hongkong Govt will get a quid pro quo in the shape of annual licence for keeping local registers, there is no reason to object to this arrangement, but I cannot see why the I.O. should have called the double payment "hardship" - especially where De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. of S.Africa, a company registered in S.Africa, was levied English Income Tax on the Shares.
Sanction Order GR872/08
His Excellency
I am to be referred to I.O. with reference to Legislation to it. I do not assume that a violation of this kind is competent to the Legislature Party to pass such an Act as the Act of 1856 providing for the keeping by English Companies of local registers in the Colonies, but I am not clear whether the legislation of Hong Kong can make provision for transactions by Hong Kong companies outside the Colony.
It will be said that the main object of the order is the issue in Home Jurisdiction of a licence to keep "local registers" elsewhere - e.g. a transaction within the jurisdiction of the Legislature. But Sec 4 (4) provides for the manner in which local registers are to be kept in China, Japan, Shanghai, etc., and are, in my opinion, ultra vires.
I incline to think that in view of its real object, the whole Order is questionable.
If duty has been paid on Shares in H. Kong, I think the principle "mobilia sequuntur personam" - the deceased proprietor and not the place of registration is liable for the personal duty.
It seems to have been represented to take out domicil in Hong Kong. Other assets actually in that Colony are not, however, into this now, especially if the Order promulgated to be intra vires.
We are, but to have the opinion of the BofT on it before sanctioning it.
I share Pusley's doubt on sending to I.O. I have thought it is for bringing direct the I.O.'s views to the Board of Trade. Their views should, I think, be before the Law Officers if we go to them.
WBC 18/1 Alt. Jan.