HKICPA_QP_ModuleD(Dec15)_Ques

(Total: 50 marks) Answer ALL of the following questions. Marks will be awarded for logical argumentation and appropriate presentation of the answers. ABC Toys Limited (“the Company”) was founded in Hong Kong by its directors, Mr Au, Mr But and Mr Chan, in the 1970s. The Company was involved in trading toys and listed shares. It also holds a commercial property in Hong Kong (“the Property”) as its business premises. Mr Au and Mr But migrated to Country X and Country Y respectively in early April 2013. Mr Au has not been involved in the daily management of the Company since then. As for Mr But, he remains actively involved in managing the business of the Company. He stays in Hong Kong for about 50 days a year. During his days in Hong Kong, he has meetings with Mr Chan and their employees. When Mr But returns to Country Y, he discusses with Mr Chan through emails and teleconferences on major issues, for instance, the Company’s strategy and pricing policy. As Mr Chan is very experienced in the business, he also makes decisions on his own on the daily management of the Company. Mr Chan and the senior management were stationed in Hong Kong throughout the relevant time. The statutory registers as well as the accounting records of the Company are kept at the Property. The Company set up two wholly-owned subsidiaries, ABC (Investments) Limited and ABC (Financing) Limited, in August 2013. Since then, the Company has been solely involved in trading toys. The shares in Saffron Limited (“Saffron”) are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. In October 2012, the Company acquired as its trading stock 500,000 shares (“the Shares”) in Saffron at a consideration of HK$5 million. The Shares were the only shares held by the Company in Saffron. It had never traded any shares in Saffron prior to that acquisition. To streamline its business, the Company sold the Shares to ABC (Investments) Limited on 16 August 2013 at cost. The transaction price on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on that date in respect of 500,000 shares in Saffron was HK$7 million. ABC (Financing) Limited was set up solely for the purposes of issuing alternative bonds to raise funds for the Company. On 1 October 2013, ABC (Financing) Limited issued at par 4-year term alternative bonds (“the Bonds”) for the total amount of HK$400 million to third party investors (“the Investors”). Also, on 1 October 2013, ABC (Financing) Limited used the bond proceeds to purchase the Property from the Company at a consideration of HK$400 million. ABC (Financing) Limited executed a declaration of trust declaring that it held the Property in trust for the Investors. Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 1 of 9 The trust certificates issued by ABC (Financing) Limited to the Investors on the issuing of the Bonds provide that the Investors have the right to receive distributions from ABC (Financing) Limited every 12 months of all the income it earns from the Property. The distributions, however, are subject to a cap of 0.9% p.a. The trust certificates will be redeemed at par on 30 September 2017. Upon the acquisition of the Property, ABC (Financing) Limited leased the Property back to the Company at a monthly rent of HK$300,000 for a term of 4 years (“the Lease”). The Company intends to occupy the Property throughout as its business premises. The rental income received by ABC (Financing) Limited is to be used in the distributions made to the Investors. Apart from the Lease, the Company also entered into a purchase undertaking whereby the Company undertook to purchase the Property back from ABC (Financing) Limited at a consideration of HK$400 million on 30 September 2017. ABC (Financing) Limited will use the sales proceeds to redeem the trust certificates. Mr Au received a director’s fee of HK$250,000 from the Company for the year of assessment 2013/14. He paid tax equivalent to HK$5,000 in Country X in respect of his director’s fee. Country X has not entered into a comprehensive double tax agreement with Hong Kong. Apart from being a director of the Company, Mr Au is also the sole proprietor of a retail business in Hong Kong. For the year of assessment 2013/14, he derived assessable profits of HK$30,000 from his sole proprietorship business. For the year of assessment 2013/14, Mr Au would like to have his income assessed under personal assessment as he did in the past. Mrs Au has been a housewife throughout and has no income. Mr Au and his wife were in Hong Kong for 220 days, 50 days and 20 days for the years of assessment 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively. When Mr Au packed his belongings in April 2013, it came to his notice that he wrongly reported the bonus of HK$150,000 which he received in April 2007 as income in his Individual Tax Return for the year of assessment 2006/07. The relevant salaries tax assessment was issued on 1 June 2012. He now requests a revision of that assessment. Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 2 of 9 (17 marks – approximately 31 minutes) (a) Evaluate and suggest, with reference to the transfer pricing methods recognised in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines as discussed in Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 46 (“DIPN No. 46”), the most appropriate method in establishing an arm’s length price in respect of the selling of the Shares by the Company to ABC (Investments) Limited. Elaborate the reasons for your choice. (7 marks) (b) Elaborate the reasons why the other transfer pricing methods as discussed in DIPN No. 46 are not the most appropriate method in the present case. (10 marks) (4 marks – approximately 7 minutes) The Commissioner of Inland Revenue accepts that the arrangement entered into between the Investors and ABC (Financing) Limited (“Arrangement A”) and the arrangement entered into between ABC (Financing) Limited and the Company (“Arrangement B”) (Arrangement A and Arrangement B are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Arrangements”) are an alternative bond scheme. Elaborate as to the expenses that are allowable for deduction to the Company in Arrangement B under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (“the IRO”). Note: Computation is not required. (4 marks) (5 marks – approximately 9 minutes) The Collector of Stamp Revenue (“the Collector”) also accepts that the Arrangements are an alternative bond scheme under the Stamp Duty Ordinance (“the SDO”). On the facts now available and on the assumption that security has been given to the satisfaction of the Collector in respect of Arrangement B, elaborate as to the stamp duty liability of the Company and ABC (Financing) Limited in the Arrangements. Note: Computation is not required. (5 marks) Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 3 of 9 (21 marks – approximately 38 minutes) (a) Analyse with reference to the relevant legal principles, whether, and if so, how the income derived by Mr Au from the Company is chargeable to salaries tax in Hong Kong. Among others, consider the relevance of s.8(1A)(b) and s.8(1A)(c) of the IRO in the present case. (15 marks) (b) Analyse Mr Au’s eligibility in having his income to be assessed under personal assessment for the year of assessment 2013/14 and calculate, to his best advantage, his Hong Kong tax liability for that year of assessment. Note: Ignore provisional tax and tax reduction for the year, if any. (6 marks) (3 marks – approximately 5 minutes) Analyse whether Mr Au will be successful in his application for revising the salaries tax assessment for the year of assessment 2006/07. (3 marks) * * * * * * * * Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 4 of 9 End of Section A (Total: 50 marks) Answer ALL of the following questions. Marks will be awarded for logical argumentation and appropriate presentation of the answers. (15 marks – approximately 27 minutes) Suckling Pig Limited (“Suckling”) is a company established in Hong Kong engaging in a restaurant business under the trade name Suckling Pig Restaurant. During its financial year ended 31 March 2015, Suckling incurred the following capital expenditure:- i) Renovation works were conducted during the year on the company’s existing restaurants, office premises and directors’ quarters, and were for the following amounts:- HK$ - Replacement of old carpet in the existing restaurants 500,000 - Renovation work in the existing restaurants 4,000,000 - Renovation work in the existing office premises 850,000 - Renovation work in the existing directors’ quarters 380,000 ii) Suckling replaced its computer hardware and software system to achieve better cash and inventory control. The price of the system was HK$130,000. Suckling finally paid HK$100,000 to the vendor after deducting the HK$30,000 trade-in value of the old computer system sold to the same vendor. iii) Suckling acquired wastewater treatment machinery and an environmental protection solar water heating installation in one of its restaurants for the amounts of HK$760,000 and HK$600,000 respectively. It has been confirmed that the machinery and installation are in compliance with the relevant regulations stipulated by the Environmental Protection Department and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. iv) Suckling acquired various items of office furniture for the total amounts of HK$253,000 and a motor vehicle for business purposes for the amount of HK$500,000. The motor vehicle was specifically acquired under a hire purchase scheme with a bank with an initial payment of HK$100,000 made upfront on 10 July 2014, followed by 40 monthly installment of HK$11,000 each commencing on 1 August 2014. The hire purchase interest was evenly spread across each installment. Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 6 of 9 All of the abovesaid assets have been put into use during the year. It is also noted that the tax written down values of fixed assets ranked into 20% and 30% pools claiming depreciation allowances brought forward from the prior year are HK$1,276,000 and HK$96,000 respectively. In the context of the commercial building allowance, the total ranking costs brought forward and the respective tax written down value are HK$6,354,000 and HK$4,652,400 respectively. The ranking cost of the building structure demolished during the year and the respective residue of expenditure are HK$500,000 and HK$300,000 respectively. Calculate the allowable deductions under Part 4 of the IRO and the capital allowances under Part 6 of the IRO attributable to Suckling for the year of assessment 2014/15 based on the above information. (15 marks) (10 marks – approximately 18 minutes) Mr Tam is a resident of Taiwan habitually living and staying there. Recently he has been recruited by a Taiwan local limited company as the regional controller monitoring the company’s sales business in the Greater China region. According to the terms of employment, Mr Tam will be based and remunerated in Taiwan, but incidentally he is required to travel to the mainland China to discharge his duties. Mr Tam has a particular concern on his possible exposure to China Individual Income Tax (“IIT”) with respect to his new employment. In this regard, he has engaged Kwan & Co., a tax consultancy firm established in Hong Kong to provide consultancy services for evaluating his China IIT exposure. It is further noted that Taiwan has not entered into any tax treaty with the mainland China at the present time. (a) Discuss the possible China IIT implications for Mr Tam with respect to his new employment. (5 marks) (b) Discuss the ethical considerations Kwan & Co. should be aware of in the course of providing the tax consultancy services to Mr Tam. (5 marks) Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 7 of 9 (11 marks – approximately 20 minutes) Mr Koo has been employed by Ocean View Limited (“Ocean View”) for 30 years and he is currently in the position of general manager responsible for the overall control and management of the company’s business activities. Ocean View has a sole director namely Mr Cheung and he is also the sole shareholder of the company since its incorporation 30 years ago. Mr Koo and Mr Cheung have maintained a very good and close relationship both in business and personally. It has also been noted that on the recent Chinese New Year’s eve, Mr Koo received a sum of money directly from Mr Cheung which was approximately five times his current basic annual salary. Mr Cheung emphasised to Mr Koo that it was a gift to him for Chinese New Year in pursuance of their decades of friendship, and that the money was exclusively and directly given by Mr Cheung instead of cash from Ocean View. Mr Koo only maintained one employment contract with Ocean View, and did not enter into any other written or verbal employment contract with Mr Cheung or any other parties. Specifically, Mr Koo stated that the money received by him was beyond his expectations. (a) If you were the Assessor of the Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”), how would you argue that the money received by Mr Koo should be subject to salaries tax? (4 marks) (b) If you were Mr Koo, how would you argue that the above money should not be subject to salaries tax? (4 marks) (c) What additional information should be obtained to further evaluate the taxability of the money received by Mr Koo? (3 marks) Module D (December 2015 Session) Page 8 of 9