WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1990
THE SECRETARY SAID ONE OF THESE OCCURRED AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION.
RECENTLY IN HANGHAI
THE OTHER CASE OCCURRED IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR WHEN A DETECTIVE CONSTABLE WHILE OFF DUTY FIRED ONE SHOT AT A METAL GATE.
"HE WAS DISMISSED FROM THE POLICE FORCE AFTER BEING SENTENCED ΤΟ NINE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT FOR THE OFFENCE OF DISCHARGING A FIREARMS," MR ASPREY SAID.
RECKLESSLY
0
BILL TO CLARIFY TAXATION FRINGE BENEFITS MOVED
SEEKS TO BENEFITS,
THE INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1990 CLARIFY THE POSITION IN RELATION TO THE TAXATION OF FRINGE THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, THE HON SIR PIERS JACOBS, SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL, SIR PIERS EXPLAINED IT WAS OF PARTICULAR RELEVANCE TO PAYMENTS MADE BY EMPLOYERS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EDUCATION OF THE EMPLOYEES' CHILDREN.
"MEMBERS WILL RECOLLECT THAT IN DECEMBER 1988 THE COURT OF APPEAL HANDED DOWN A DECISION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9 OF THE INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE.
"THE DECISION DID NOT REFLECT THE ASSESSING PRACTICE IN RESPECT OF FRINGE BENEFITS FOLLOWED BY THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE CASE AROSE," SIR PIERS SAID.
HE NOTED THAT PRIOR TO THE APPEAL COURT DECISION, THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD LONG ACCEPTED THAT PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM UNITED KINGDOM CASE LAW DETERMINED WHETHER FRINGE BENEFITS, OR "PERQUISITES" WERE CHARGEABLE TO SALARIES TAX.
I
"THE DEPARTMENT'S ASSESSING PRACTICE WAS BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE DECISIONS HAD ESTABLISHED THAT BENEFITS RECEIVED IN A FORM OTHER THAN MONEY, EXCEPT FOR THOSE COVERED BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE INLAND REVENUE ORDINANCE, COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CHARGEABLE INCOME UNLESS THEY TOOK THE FORM OF 'MONEY'S WORTH'.
"A BENEFIT WAS REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING MONEY'S WORTH IF IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING CONVERTED INTO MONEY BY THE RECIPIENT, OR INVOLVED THE DISCHARGE BY THE EMPLOYER OF A PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE," SIR PIERS EXPLAINED.
TO
ACCORDINGLY, IF AN INCONVERTIBLE BENEFIT HAD BEEN PROVIDED AN EMPLOYEE AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD RECOGNISED THAT THE EMPLOYER, RATHER THAN THE EMPLOYEE, WAS THE PARTY LIABLE FOR THE RELEVANT EXPENSE, THE BENEFIT WAS ACCEPTED AS NOT BEING CHARGEABLE.
/"THE COURT