由此

A A

B B
CACV 115/2017

C C
[2018] HKCA 373

D D

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE E

E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
F
F COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2017 G
G
(ON APPEAL FROM HCIA NO. 1 OF 2016)
H H

I
I BETWEEN

J COMMISSIONER OF Appellant J
INLAND REVENUE
K K
and
L L
PERFEKTA ENTERPRISES LIMITED Respondent
M M

N N

O O

Before : Hon Cheung, McWalters JJA and G Lam J in Court

P P

Date of Appellant’s Written Submissions : 15 June 2018

Q Q

Date of Respondent’s Written Submissions : 15 June 2018

R R

Date of Decision on Costs : 28 June 2018

S S

T T

U U

V
V
由此

A -2- A

B B

C C

D D

DECISION ON COSTS
E E

F F

G G
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) :

H H

I I
1. This Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal to the

J
extent that the taxpayer is allowed to amend its ground of appeal J

and the issue of the valuation of the Lot for the purpose of
K K
assessing the taxable profit and the amount of tax thereof is

L remitted to the Board for its determination. L

M
M 2. The taxpayer now asks this Court to

N N
1) make no order as to costs of the appeal and below; or

O O
2) order the taxpayer to pay one-third of the costs of
this appeal and below to the Commissioner. P
P

Q Q
3. The Commissioner asks for

R R
1) the costs of this appeal to follow the event ; and

S S
2) there will be no order as to the costs below.

T T

U U

V V
由此

A -3- A

B B
4. In respect of the latter the Commissioner submitted
C that the costs of the Commissioner’s appeal from the Board to C

the Court below should not be disturbed.

D D

E Costs of the appeal E

F
F 5. There were three issues before us : 1) change
of intention to trade, 2) capital receipt and 3) valuation. The G
G
taxpayer failed on the first two issues and only succeeded on
H H
the third issue of valuation. Although the taxpayer has , in its
written submission on costs, made submissions on the valuation I
I
and the amount of tax likely to be payable or not payable, it is
J J
not the proper time and place to address th at since the matter
has to be considered by the Board. We will order the taxpayer K
K
to pay two-thirds of the costs of the appeal to the Commissioner
L L
with a certificate for two counsel.

M M
Costs below
N N

6. Chung J ordered the taxpayer to pay the

O O
Commissioner costs of the case stated (including any reserved

P costs). The same three issues were also before Chung J. The P

taxpayer failed on all three issues. The taxpayer’s success on

Q Q
the third issue of valuation in this Court will have no impact on
R the costs order made by Chung J because the taxpayer did not R

ask Chung J to remit the valuation to the Board. Its stand then
S S
was simply that it was not required to pay tax at all. The issue
T of remitting the valuation was only raised in the taxpayer’s T

notice of appeal to this Court. Hence the costs order below

U U

V V
由此

A -4- A

B B
should not be disturbed and we will make no further order in
C respect of the costs order below. C

D D

E E

F F

G G
(Peter Cheung) (Ian McWalters) (Godfrey Lam)
H
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court H
of First Instance
I I

J J
Mr Paul Shieh SC and Mr Mike Lui , instructed by Department
K of Justice, for the appellant K

L L
Mr Clifford Smith SC and Mr Justin Lam, instructed by Pang &

M
Associates, for the respondent M

N N

O O

P P

Q Q

R R

S S

T T

U U

V V