上诉人在报税表是申报利得税而不是薪俸税.DOC

Case No. D36/12 Appeal ? time limit ? whether appellant appealed out of time ? whether appellant can ask the Board to extend the time limit because of illness or absence from Hong Kong ? Inland Revenue Ordinance (‘the Ordinance’) section 66(1A). [Decision in Chinese] Profits tax ? relief ? provident fund ? whether appellant was self-employed ? whether provident fund could be deemed to be long service payment for relief from tax ? whether deductions could be made to provident fund because the appellant was an insurance agent ? Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No 33 ‘Insurance Agents’. [Decision in Chinese] Panel: Cissy K S Lam (chairman), Wendy Wan Yee Ng and Pang Melissa Kaye. Dates of hearing: 24 May and 10 July 2012. Date of decision: 6 November 2012. The Appellant was an agent of an insurance company starting from 1989 up to 2010. When she terminated as an agent, the insurance company paid her a sum of $613,798, representing the insurance company’s contribution for the Appellant under the company’s insurance salespersons provident fund scheme. The Appellant argued that the provident fund should be relieved from tax because it was her long service payment. The assessor included the provident fund in the Appellant’s profits. The Appellant objected to the assessment, but the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue confirmed the same in the Determination dated 25 November 2011, which was received by the Appellant by registered mail the following day. The Appellant submit her Notice of Appeal dated 26 December 2011 to the Board on 3 January 2012. Held: The Appellant submitted her Notice of Appeal out of time, because she did not raise her appeal within 1 month of receiving the Determination by the Deputy Commissioner. Although she suffered an illness, and left Hong Kong for treatment for a short period of time after she received the Determination, the Appellant’s letters showed that she already prepared the appeal documents within the time limi