TNAG-1858-FCO40-2633-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 166

19 July 1989

·九八九年七月十九日

53

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

香港立法局

MR. PETER WONG: Sir, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No.3) Bill 1989 is a very technical piece of legislation enacted with the avowed aim of bringing tax equality to married couples, giving them the luxury of paying no more tax than they would if they were unmarried.

In the words of the Hong Kong Society of Accountants submission to OMELCO we do not regard the concept of separate taxation as being one which can benefit Hong Kong's economy or society; it will merely deflect the attention and resources of the Inland Revenue Department from more worthy and rewarding objectives". I fully endorse that line of thinking as it reflects the considered opinion of Hong Kong's tax professionals.

This Bill must be considered as a political act of faith on the part of this Council and I must compliment our long suffering and much maligned Commissioner of Inland Revenue in producing a very workmanlike Bill to give effect to the surrender by our Financial Secretary to the power of the feminist lobby.

The commissioner has bent over backwards to be sympathetic and helpful. I have even accused him (but only half jokingly) that he has designed his computer programmes to assist the taxpayer to minimize the tax payable so that our salaries tax professionals will soon be out of a job. This may not be a bad thing. After all they can be engaged in more productive activities. The commissioner has time and again assured us that his computer programmes will point out whether the taxpayers have made the best choice based on their particular circumstances and he has instructed the assessors to make the most advantageous option known to the taxpayers even if they have made the wrong choice initially in their returns. I would like the Administration to officially confirm that this will be the policy.

The Hong Kong Society of Accountants' submission goes on to say that this is "estimated to cost annually some $600 million in revenue foregone and over $10 million to administer, plus a once-off capital cost of nearly $30 million to implement". This is a very high price to pay. Even now, there will still be some couples who are worse off under the new system than before.

Sir, there is no such thing as equity in taxation and this attempt to treat fairly married couples as though they are two singles is flawed in that it makes our salaries tax system no longer simple. Sir, I will therefore abstain from voting.