上诉人以自雇人士身分买MPF

(2012-13)VOLUME27INLANDREVENUEBOARDOFREVIEWDECISIONS791CaseNo.D36/12Appeal–timelimit–whetherappellantappealedoutoftime–whetherappellantcanasktheBoardtoextendthetimelimitbecauseofillnessorabsencefromHongKong–InlandRevenueOrdinance(‘theOrdinance’)section66(1A).[DecisioninChinese]Profitstax–relief–providentfund–whetherappellantwasself-employed–whetherprovidentfundcouldbedeemedtobelongservicepaymentforrelieffromtax–whetherdeductionscouldbemadetoprovidentfundbecausetheappellantwasaninsuranceagent–DepartmentalInterpretationandPracticeNotesNo33‘InsuranceAgents’.[DecisioninChinese]Panel:CissyKSLam(chairman),WendyWanYeeNgandPangMelissaKaye.Datesofhearing:24Mayand10July2012.Dateofdecision:6November2012.TheAppellantwasanagentofaninsurancecompanystartingfrom1989upto2010.Whensheterminatedasanagent,theinsurancecompanypaidherasumof$613,798,representingtheinsurancecompany’scontributionfortheAppellantunderthecompany’sinsurancesalespersonsprovidentfundscheme.TheAppellantarguedthattheprovidentfundshouldberelievedfromtaxbecauseitwasherlongservicepayment.TheassessorincludedtheprovidentfundintheAppellant’sprofits.TheAppellantobjectedtotheassessment,buttheDeputyCommissionerofInlandRevenueconfirmedthesameintheDeterminationdated25November2011,whichwasreceivedbytheAppellantbyregisteredmailthefollowingday.TheAppellantsubmitherNoticeofAppealdated26December2011totheBoardon3January2012.Held:1.TheAppellantsubmittedherNoticeofAppealoutoftime,becauseshedidnotraiseherappealwithin1monthofreceivingtheDeterminationbytheDeputyCommissioner.Althoughshesufferedanillness,andleftHongKongfortreatmentforashortperiodoftimeaftershereceivedtheDetermination,theAppellant’slettersshowedthatshealreadypreparedtheappealdocumentswithinthetimelimitforappeal.TheAppellantcouldnotexplainwhyshecouldnotsubmittheNoticeofAppealtotheBoardwithintime.SincetheAppellantcouldnotprovethatshewaspreventedbyherillnessormedicalconditiontogivetheNoticeofAppealtotheBoardwithintime,shefailedtoprovethattheBoardcouldextendthetimelimitforappeal(2012-13)VOLUME27INLANDREVENUEBOARDOFREVIEWDECISIONS792undersection66(1A)oftheOrdinance.TheBoarddidnothavediscretiontoextendthetimeforappealforsituationsoutsidesection66(1A).2.TheAppellantwasself-employed,andwasnottheemployeeoftheinsurancecompany.TheBoardconsideredthat(i)thecontractssignedbytheAppellantandtheinsurancecompanystatedthattherewasnoemployer/employeerelationshipbetweenthem;(ii)theinsurancecompanytreatedherasanon-employee,andinvitedhertojointheprovidentfundschemeestablishedfornon-employees;(iii)shealwayscontributedtoMandatoryProvidentFund(‘MPF’)asaself-employedperson;(iv)shewasresponsibleforherownlossandprofitwhilstsheworkedattheinsurancecompany;(v)shereportedforprofitstaxbyclaimingtorunacompanysolelyinhertaxreturns;(vi)shealwaysreportedforprofitstaxratherthansalariestax;and(vii)shetwiceobjectedtotheCommissionerassessingherwithsalariestax,anditcouldbeconcludedwithoutdoubtthattheAppellantwasaself-employedperson(LeungSukFongPeggyvThePrudentialAssuranceCoLtd[2011]5HKC592,[2012]1HKLRD168;AXAChinaRegionInsuranceCoLtdvPacificCenturyInsuranceCoLtd[2003]3HKC1;MasseyvCrownLifeInsuranceCo[1978]2AllER576referred).3.TheInlandRevenueDepartment’spolicyofgrantinglongservicepaymentrelieffromsalariestaxonlyappliestopaymentscalculatedandmadeaccordingtotheEmploymentOrdinance(Cap57).Obviously,theprovidentfundreceivedbytheAppellantdidnotsatisfythisrequirement.Also,accordingtoPartIIIoftheOrdinance,therulethatanypaymentsreceivedaccordingtotherulesbyataxpayerunderanyRecognizedOccupationalRetirementorMPFSchemeswouldberelievedfromthetaxpayer’sincomedidnotapplytoassessmentsofprofitstax.4.TheInlandRevenueDepartmentonceadoptedtheproposalofapplying1/3deductionsforexpensesforinsuranceagentsasacontingencymeasure,becauseofthespecialcircumstancesprevalentatthattime.AccordingtotheDepartmentalInterpretationandPracticeNoteNo33‘InsuranceAgents’(June1998edition),thisproposaldidnotapplyafterthe1995/96yearsofassessment.Fromthenon,allself-employedinsuranceagentsmustaccuratelyreportandproveactualexpensesaccordingtothelaw.TheAppellantfailedtoprovethatthereoughttobeanydeductionsfromtheprovidentfundforanyactualexpensessheincurred.Therefore,thealleged1/3deductionsshouldnotbeaccepted.Appealdismissed.(2012-13)VOLUME27INLANDREVENUEBOARDOFREVIEWDECISIONS793Casesreferredto:LeungSukFongPeggyvThePrudentialAssuranceCoLtd[2011]5HKC592AXAChinaRegionInsuranceCoLtdvPacificCenturyInsuranceCoLtd[2003]3HKC1MasseyvCrownLifeInsuranceCo[1978]2AllER576Taxpayerinperson.YuWaiLim,LeungKinWaandWongPuiKifortheCommissionerofInlandRevenue.(2012-13)VOLUME27INLANDREVENUEBOARDOFREVIEWDECISIONS794案件编号D36/12上诉–期限–上诉人是否逾期上诉–上诉人可否因疾病或不在香港要求委员会延长上诉的期限–《税务条例》(下称「该条例」)第66(1A)条利得税–宽免–公积金–上诉人是否自雇人仕–公积金可否被视为长期服务金而获免税–公积金款项可否因上诉人为保险代理人而得到扣减–释义及执行指引第33号《保险代理人》委员会：林劲思（主席）、吴韵宜及彭韵僖聆讯日期：2012年5月24日及7月10日裁决日期：2012年11月6日上诉人自1989年起为一间保险公司的代理人，直至2010年止。在离职时保险公司向上诉人发放一笔613,798元的款项，而该款项为保险公司根据其保险营业人员公积金计划下替上诉人的供款。上诉人声称该笔公积金是她的长期服务金，应获豁免评税。评税主任将该笔公积金包括在应评税利润中。上诉人反对评税，但税务局副局长于2011年11月25日的决定书中维持评税主任的评税，并于翌日以挂号信形式送达上诉人。上诉人于2012年1月3日向委员会递