XN000022-1983-02-23 — Page 37

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1983

35

PROPOSALS ON SEPARATE TAXATION FOR MARRIED WOMEN

***

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY SAID TODAY THAT HE WOULD BE PROPOSING CERTAIN MEASURES LATER THIS YEAR ON TAXATION WHICH WOULD MEET THE COMPLAINTS THAT THE PRESENT LEGISLATION IS INSULTING TO WOMEN IN THAT IT RENDERS THEM SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.

+THIS NOT SURPRISINGLY CREATES DISCORD. THEY WILL THEREFORE EE ACCORDED THE LEGAL PERSONALITY WHICH THEY SEEK, + MR BREMRIDGE SAID, IN HIS BUDGET SPEECH.

HE SAID AMENDING LEGISLATION SHOULD BE INTRODUCED, WHICH WOULD:

FIRSTLY, REPLACE THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH DEEM THE INCOME OF A WIFE TO BE THAT OF HER HUSBAND FOR THE PURPOSES SALARIES TAX AND PERSONAL ASSESSMENT, WITH NEW PROVISIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE AGGREGATION OF THEIR INCOMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING TOTAL LIABILITY TO TAX;

SECONDLY, REMOVE THE PROVISION WHICH DEEMS A WIFE TO BE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON AS HER HUSBAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROFITS TAX (THIS WILL, IN FACT DO NO MORE THAN REGULARISE DEPARTMENTAL PRACTICE, SINCE PROFITS TAX RETURNS SUBMITTED BY WIVES WHO ARE PROPRIETORS OF BUSINESSES ARE ALREADY ACCEPTED); AND

THIRDLY CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THE HUSBAND TO RENDER RETURNS AND TO BE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF SALARIES TAX AND PERSONAL TAX, BUT PROVIDES THAT, FOLLOWING AN ELECTION JOINTLY MADE, HUSBAND AND WIFE MAY RENDER JOINT RETURNS, EACH CERTIFYING THE ACCURACY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CLAIMS FOR ALLOWANCES AND EXPENSES AND EACH BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT

OF HIS OR HER SHARE OF THE TOTAL TAX BILL: EACH SHARE BEING CALCULATED BY REFERENCE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE TOTAL

INCOME.

MR BREMRIDGE SAID HE HAD FELT UNABLE TO RECOMMEND ANY FISCAL CHANGES LAST YEAR, BUT UNDERTOOK TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THE MATTER. HE HAD ALSO, SINCE THEN, RECEIVED A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS, SOME OF THEM PERSUASIVE. NONE OF THE VARIOUS MEASURES ADOPTED IN OTHER TAX ADMINISTRATIONS HAD RECEIVED UNIVERSAL APPROVAL, THOUGH THEY ALL HAD THEIR MERITS IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OWN PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT, NONE OF THEM WAS NECESSARILY RIGHT FOR HONG KONG.

MR BREMRIDGE SAID HE COULD NOT REGARD SEPARATE TAXATION AS SUITABLE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WHETHER MANDATORY OR BY WAY OF ELECTION, IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE. UPDATED ESTIMATES SUGGEST THAT IN THE YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION THE COST COULD BE AS MUCH AS $285 MILLION IN LOST SALARIES TAX AND PERSONAL TAX AND PERHAPS $180 MILLION IN A FULL YEAR.

A BRZRIDGE