1
434
in his memorandum drawn up for H.H. Kinister in July 1919 held that the only case in which there is or can be any
actual exempt ion is that of persons domiciled in Hongkong and holding shares in China companies and that the fee was intended to represent no more and no less than a composition
for Transfer fees only, the loss of reveme to the Hongkong
Gover ment on this account could hardly, if this view is
correct, be large.
On the other hand, although H.E. the Governor makes no
reference to it, section 35 of the Ordinance of 1911 which
is a re-enactment of the Companies (Local Register) Ordinance of 1907) as amended by section 7(c) of the Ordinence of 1921,
in providing for the levy of a Local Register Licence fee also at the rate of 4 cents per $100 of paid-up capital is
very clear on the subject of exemption from both transfer and
probate duties Many companies which have since come on
the Shanghai register were paying this fee prior to 1916,
and section 7 (5) of the Ordinance of 1915 makes it clear
that the present 4 cents fee is intended, inter alia, to
replace this local register licence fee. This would appear
to constitute the Hongkong Goverment's best claim to the
fee as at present levied, and it is difficult to understand
why it has never been referred to.
As regards Transfer fees, there is nothing to show that
the Hongkong Government has ever attempted to estimate
the amount of its loss in this respect owing to the exemption
of China companies, but a reference to the Stamp Ordinance of
1921 shows that the fee on transfer of shares is 20 cents
per $100 or part thereof of the market value of chares.
this basis,
the 4 cents fee corresponds to an annual transfer
of 20% of the shares of a company which is certainly
On
die proportionate/
: