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.
!
shans so registerd (unless the transfor is executed in the (olony)
If then Companies registend in Hongkong but carrying business in Treaty port's lake advantage of this Ordre, persons holding shares will
not have to pay
Souble
Suty,
in thems
othe
view expressed by 7.0. will thus be met.
As the Hongkong Govt will get
FYT
quid pro quo
in
the shape of annual licence for keeping local
registers, there is
10
see
Mo
the
rason
to object
this arrangement, but I cannot-
why the 7.0. should have a called the double payment
"hardship" - especially
De Beers
Casa.. 8.
CELA
of
O
where
in view of the
English Income Tax
was leviss
on the Shares
company registerd in SAfrica
? Sanction Orde
стру оз 872/08
his Bottes
hur Cox
تان
LF asend
to 7.0. with reference to
Ajsation to it
not
Assumme, that be piolation of this kind is
Co
utton vivo I sa This of course competent to the heparins Partt to
pass such an Act as the Act of 1853 providing,
the keeping by English Companses of local rustin in the Colonies, but I am not clear
x wo -
on all
profili mad
soliciton
the Co
Jul 21.
201
130
can make provision
that the legislaten of Hong Kongy
for transactions bey Hong Kong compence's "is
actaich the colony-
ane place
If will I said that the main object of the order is
the issue in Home Mong
Home Mary of a licence to keep "local registeos" alsewhere - e. a transaction within the leegislation jurisdictions of the ith Lege's latein But Ssc 4 (4)+t() provide for the manner
in which local requites are to be kept in 2.9., Japan of Shane, tai and are, in my opinion, utton
I indime to think that in vrees of its real objeck, is
wine in as
P
the whole
questionable.
Cas
con" sent
I on the hard
use to hows been paid
Shares as
of
G7.0. us
duty might
in H. Kong, I think. The proamial property "sreponatur personam"
the deceased proprector and not the place of reestration.
wistable for the personal
It seems to have her
←
representations to lake out domas in it thong at.
won other assets actually
Stace an all unless the co Thars wan
say
50
aun
t
in that colony for need not, howeous. into this now, expecially if the order promouenced to be intin wires ]
? We are, but to have the opinion of the BofT
ove
it before sanctioning
I share the Pusley's doubli
L
a
sunding to 7.0.
eas
JJR.
the rires", and oh have thought it is
for Gring direct the 2.0.
:17
Tures take the views of the BT I
them of the FD. Their views sh) Ithink be before the Lo if we go to thear
Hopwood be integ
WBC 18/1 Alt. Jan.
ar
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.