Disputing an IRD Assessment in 2026: Objections, the Board of Review and Holding Over the Tax in Dispute

An objection to a Hong Kong tax assessment must reach the Commissioner of Inland Revenue within one month after the date of the notice of assessment, and an appeal against the Commissioner’s determination must reach the Clerk to the Board of Review within one month after that determination is transmitted to the taxpayer. Both periods are set by the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) and both are hard deadlines, extendable only on a narrow set of grounds. Lodging an objection does not suspend the obligation to pay: Hong Kong runs a pay-first, argue-later system. Payment can be held over, but holding over is a discretion of the Commissioner, not an entitlement of the taxpayer.

Alert. The most expensive misconception in a Hong Kong tax dispute is that lodging an objection stops the clock on payment. Section 71(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance requires the tax to be paid by the date shown on the notice of assessment whether or not an objection or appeal is on foot. Where the Commissioner has not made a holdover order, non-payment attracts a surcharge of up to 5% under section 71(5) and, after six months, a further surcharge of up to 10% under section 71(5A) — and the second surcharge is calculated on a base that already includes the first. The maximum combined surcharge is therefore 15.5% of the original tax (author’s computation: 1.05 × 1.10 = 1.155). A separate trap follows: where a holdover is granted conditional on the purchase of Tax Reserve Certificates and the certificates are not bought within 14 days, the holdover order is nullified and the tax becomes retrospectively payable by its original due dates.

The legal stack: which provisions of Cap. 112 govern a dispute with the IRD

The mechanics of disputing an Inland Revenue Department assessment sit in Part XI of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) — sections 64 to 70A — together with sections 71, 82A and 82B. There is no separate procedural statute: the entire dispute machinery is built into the tax ordinance itself.

The principal enactment:

•          Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) is substantive and procedural at once. Section 64 governs the objection to the Commissioner; sections 65 to 69AA govern appeals to the Board of Review and onward to the courts; section 70 makes an assessment final and conclusive; section 70A allows errors to be corrected; section 71 governs payment and holdover; sections 82A and 82B govern additional tax and appeals against it; and section 60 fixes the period within which an assessor may raise an additional assessment.

The amending layer:

•          Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 2015 (Ord. No. 17 of 2015), in force 1 April 2016, is the reform that reshaped Hong Kong tax appeals. It abolished the old “case stated” procedure and replaced it with a leave-to-appeal regime under section 69; it inserted new sections 68AA (directions on the provision of documents), 68AAB (privileges and immunities), 68(11) (finality of the Board’s decision subject to section 69) and 69AA (the powers of the Court of First Instance on hearing an appeal); it raised the Board of Review costs ceiling from HK$5,000 to HK$25,000 in Schedule 5, Part 1; and it repealed Schedule 5, Part 2, removing the court filing fee altogether.

•          Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 2021 (Ord. No. 18 of 2021), in force 11 June 2021, amended section 82A(1)(a) by adding the words “or causes or allows to be made on the person’s behalf” to the phrase “makes … an incorrect return”, and inserted a new section 82A(1AA) providing that engaging an outside service provider does not of itself amount to a reasonable excuse.

The regulator’s published guidance:

•          Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 6 (Revised), November 2016 — “Inland Revenue Ordinance – Provisions as to (A) Objections to the Commissioner (B) Appeals to the Board of Review (C) Appeals to the Courts”. This is the central IRD document on the subject and the only published source that sets out departmental policy on holding over tax in dispute.

•          Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 11 (Revised), October 2007 — “Field Audit and Investigation”, which carries the department’s position on additional tax.

•          Penalty Policy — a standing IRD web page carrying the published penalty loading scales.

The certificate regime:

•          Tax Reserve Certificates Ordinance (Cap. 289) and the Tax Reserve Certificates (Fourth Series) Rules (Cap. 289 sub. leg. A) govern the certificates whose purchase is the standard condition of a holdover.

•          The Tax Reserve Certificates (Rate of Interest) (Consolidation) Notice (Cap. 289 sub. leg. B), as amended. The operative rate is set by Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026, made on 30 March 2026.

Author’s assessment: the dispute procedure itself was untouched in 2025 and 2026, but section 82A on additional tax was extended twice. The 2025 and 2026 amending ordinances leave sections 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 70A and 71 alone and change no deadline or power in the objection and appeal process. However, Ord. 2 of 2025 added a new limb to section 82A — failure to comply with section 26ZI(3)(a) — and amended section 82A(4)(a)(i)(A), while Ord. 21 of 2025 (Minimum Tax for Multinational Enterprise Groups) inserted new subsections 82A(1L) to (1O) imposing additional tax of up to treble the top-up tax undercharged. The same Ord. 2 of 2025 also amended section 63E on holding over provisional salaries tax. As at August 2026 no bill and no consultation proposes to alter the objection, appeal or section 71(2) holdover regimes. Author’s assessment: the contents of Ord. 2 of 2026 could not be checked. The bill was gazetted on 6 March 2026, passed by the Legislative Council on 13 May 2026, and the ordinance was gazetted on 22 May 2026; on the government’s press releases it raises the basic and family allowances and the elderly residential care deduction ceiling, and grants a one-off reduction of tax for 2025/26 capped at HK$3,000. The IRD’s own Gazette link for the ordinance returns a 404 error — while the neighbouring file for Ord. 4 of 2026 opens normally, so the fault is specific to that publication. Whether Ord. 2 of 2026 amends section 63E, as the analogous Ord. 2 of 2025 did, could not be established from the official text.

One distinction is confused more often than any other. Hong Kong has two mechanisms called “holdover”, and they are not interchangeable:

•          Holding over provisional tax. For provisional profits tax the governing provision is section 63J; for provisional salaries tax it is section 63E; and for provisional property tax it is section 63O. Paragraph 15 of DIPN 6 confirms that allocation expressly. The application is made on a closed list of statutory grounds — among them that the year’s assessable profits are likely to be less than 90% of the preceding year’s, cessation of the business, an election for personal assessment, or an objection lodged against the preceding year’s assessment. The application must be made not later than 28 days before the due date for payment, or 14 days after the date of the notice for payment of provisional tax, whichever is the later.

•          Holding over tax in dispute under section 71(2) is a discretion exercised by the Commissioner while an objection or appeal is pending. There is no closed list of grounds and no fixed application deadline.

Qualifying for one confers no entitlement to the other.

What an objection is and how long you have to lodge it

An objection is a written notice to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue disputing an assessment, and it must be received within one month after the date of the notice of assessment. The objection is a compulsory first stage: without a valid objection, no appeal to the Board of Review is possible.

Section 64(1) puts it this way:

“Any person aggrieved by an assessment made under this Ordinance may, by notice in writing to the Commissioner, object to the assessment; but no such notice shall be valid unless it states precisely the grounds of objection to the assessment and is received by the Commissioner within 1 month after the date of the notice of assessment”.

The month runs from the date of the notice of assessment, not from the date the taxpayer receives it. DIPN 6 states that the period runs from the day after the date of the notice; GovHK expresses the same rule by reference to the date of issue. Postal delay, an accountant’s leave and a change of address are all irrelevant to the calculation.

The operative word in section 64(1) is “precisely”. A notice is invalid unless it states the grounds of objection precisely. “We disagree with the assessment and request a review” does not meet the test. A compliant objection identifies the specific item assessed, the specific amount, and the specific factual or legal basis of the disagreement. The most common ground for a Hong Kong company is a rejected offshore profits claim; the evidence that has to stand behind one is set out in The Offshore Profits Claim in Hong Kong.

Objections are lodged on Form IR831, current revision November 2024. The form is not mandatory as a matter of law — section 64(1) requires only “notice in writing” — but using it removes the risk that a letter is not treated as an objection at all. The form carries a dedicated late-objection box.

Objections may also be filed electronically through the Business Tax Portal or the Tax Representative Portal.

What makes an objection valid, and what happens if the month is missed

A valid objection must satisfy three conditions at once: it must be in writing to the Commissioner, it must state the grounds precisely, and it must be received within one month after the date of the notice of assessment. Failure on any one of the three renders the objection invalid and leaves the assessment final and conclusive under section 70.

For one category of assessment the Ordinance imposes a fourth condition. Where the assessment was raised under section 59(3) — that is, the assessor estimated the income because no return was filed — the objection is invalid unless the outstanding return is also filed. Proviso (b) to section 64(1) is explicit:

“where any assessment objected to has been made under section 59(3) in the absence of any return required under section 51, no notice of objection against such assessment shall be valid unless, in addition to such notice being valid in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the return required as aforesaid has been made within the period provided by this subsection for objecting to the assessment”.

As a general rule the return must be filed within the same one-month period as the objection itself. Objecting on time but filing the return later without the Commissioner’s approval means no valid objection was made at all.

DIPN 6 both relaxes the grounds requirement for this category and allows the return deadline to be extended. Paragraph 3(c) reads: “If the assessment objected to has been made under section 59(3) in the absence of a specified return, less precise grounds of objection would be accepted in the first instance; but in addition to the notice of objection being given within the prescribed period …, the required return, properly completed, must also be lodged within such period, or within such further period as the Commissioner may approve for the making of such return.” That extension is a matter for the Commissioner’s approval and does not extend the one-month deadline for the objection itself.

Why this matters commercially. The IRD records that a significant proportion of the objections received each year arise from estimated assessments, and the same fact creates the harshest trap in the system. The Board of Review examined it in D1/23 (2023): where no return was ever filed, section 70A cannot afterwards be used to correct the assessment either, because there exists no “return or statement” in which an error or omission could reside. The assessment becomes final with no route back.

Author’s assessment: the IRD’s own wording is not internally consistent, and the statute governs. Section 64(1) and DIPN 6 require the grounds to be stated “precisely”; the IRD’s information leaflet for individuals asks only that they be stated “clearly”. The Ordinance is the binding text.

The Commissioner may accept a late objection only where the taxpayer proves that absence from Hong Kong, sickness or other reasonable cause prevented lodgement in time. Proviso (a) to section 64(1) names “absence from Hong Kong, sickness or other reasonable cause”, and the IRD’s own statement of practice is unyielding:

“The IRD will not accept any objection lodged out of time. However, the Commissioner may consider to accept your late objection if you were prevented from lodging your objection within the one month period by reason of absence from Hong Kong, sickness or other reasonable excuse”.

“Other reasonable cause” is construed narrowly. Ignorance of the deadline, the absence of an accountant, a corporate reorganisation and management workload are not reasonable causes. The taxpayer must show that the circumstance prevented lodgement, not merely that it made lodgement inconvenient.

The practical consequence is that missing the month usually ends the matter. Section 70 provides that where no valid objection or appeal has been lodged in time, the assessment is “final and conclusive for all purposes of the Ordinance”. Two narrow routes survive: section 70A, which corrects errors in a return, and judicial review of the IRD’s conduct, which tests the legality of the process rather than the correctness of the figure.

How an assessment arises in the first place, and which returns generate disputes, is set out in Mandatory Annual Compliance for Hong Kong Companies.

What happens after an objection is lodged: agreement or determination

On receipt of a valid objection the Commissioner must consider it and may confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment objected to. Section 64(2):

“On receipt of a valid notice of objection under subsection (1) the Commissioner shall consider the same and within a reasonable time may confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment objected to”.

Note the word “increase”. The assessment can go up at the objection stage, and this is not a theoretical risk: of the 404 determinations issued in the 2024-25 financial year, 80 increased the assessment, against 107 reductions and 2 annulments.

Two outcomes follow.

The first is agreement under section 64(3). Where the Commissioner and the taxpayer agree the amount, the assessment is adjusted and the dispute ends without a formal determination. The IRD describes the mechanism as follows: “If agreement can be reached as to the revised assessment, the objection can be settled and any necessary adjustment of the assessment can be made in accordance with section 64(3).”

Author’s assessment: the verbatim text of section 64(3) could not be obtained from any accessible official source.The legislation portal is closed to automated access, and Board of Review decisions and court judgments reproduce section 64(3) only in paraphrase. The sentence quoted above is the IRD’s description, not the words of the statute.

The second outcome is a determination under section 64(4). Where there is no agreement, the Commissioner issues a formal decision:

“In the event of the Commissioner failing to agree with any person assessed, who has validly objected to an assessment made upon him, as to the amount at which such person is liable to be assessed, the Commissioner shall, within 1 month after his determination of the objection, transmit in writing to the person objecting to the assessment his determination together with the reasons therefor and a statement of the facts upon which the determination was arrived at, and such person may appeal therefrom to the Board of Review as provided in section 66”.

A determination is transmitted as a package of three documents: the decision itself, the reasons for it, and a statement of the facts on which it rests. The completeness of that package is not a formality — copies of all three must accompany any appeal to the Board of Review, failing which the appeal will not be entertained.

The statistics show that almost no objection reaches a determination. In 2024-25 the IRD received 135,506 objections and disposed of 134,296, of which 133,892 were settled without a determination — 99.7% of the total. A formal determination is issued in roughly three cases in every thousand.

Appealing to the Board of Review: the deadline, the papers and the rule that locks your grounds

An appeal to the Board of Review must be given in writing to the Clerk to the Board within one month after the Commissioner’s determination, reasons and statement of facts are transmitted to the taxpayer. The month runs from transmission of the complete package, not from the date the determination was made.

Section 66(1):

“Any person (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) who has validly objected to an assessment but with whom the Commissioner in considering the objection has failed to agree may within— (a) 1 month after the transmission to him under section 64(4) of the Commissioner’s written determination together with the reasons therefor and the statement of facts; or (b) such further period as the Board of Review may allow under subsection (1A), either himself or by his authorized representative give notice of appeal to the Board; but no such notice shall be entertained unless it is given in writing to the clerk to the Board and is accompanied by a copy of the Commissioner’s written determination together with a copy of the reasons therefor and of the statement of facts and a statement of the grounds of appeal”.

Four documents must accompany the appeal: a copy of the determination, a copy of the reasons, a copy of the statement of facts, and a statement of the grounds of appeal. An appeal missing any of them will not be entertained.

Transmission to the taxpayer’s representative starts the clock. The Board addressed the point squarely in D1/24 (17 April 2024): “transmission was effected or completed on 4 August 2023 when the copy Determination was delivered to the Representative. The time for lodging an appeal had commenced to run on that date, and had expired on 3 September 2023.” The appeal was held to be out of time.

A copy of the appeal and of the grounds must go to the Commissioner at the same time. Section 66(2): “The appellant shall at the same time as he gives notice of appeal to the Board serve on the Commissioner a copy of such notice and of the statement of the grounds of appeal.”

Time can be extended under section 66(1A) where the Board is satisfied that illness, absence from Hong Kong or other reasonable cause prevented lodgement in time. In D1/24 the Board declined to extend: “no reasonable cause has been established to have prevented the Appellant from filing the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed 1 month time limit.”

The most underrated provision in the whole procedure is section 66(3). The grounds of appeal are fixed at the moment of lodgement, and new ones cannot be run at the hearing without the Board’s consent:

“Save with the consent of the Board and on such terms as the Board may determine, an appellant may not at the hearing of his appeal rely on any grounds of appeal other than the grounds contained in his statement of grounds of appeal given in accordance with subsection (1)”.

Author’s assessment: the requirement to state grounds “precisely” belongs to the objection under section 64(1), not to the appeal under section 66(1). Section 66(1) asks only for “a statement of the grounds of appeal”. The discipline comes not from an adjective but from section 66(3): it is safer to plead the grounds of appeal broadly at the outset, because widening them later requires the Board’s permission.

There is no fee to appeal to the Board of Review. Schedule 5, Part 2, which had prescribed a fee on going to court, was repealed by Ord. 17 of 2015 with effect from 1 April 2016. No deposit or security is required on lodging an appeal either.

What the Board of Review is and who sits on it

The Board of Review (Inland Revenue Ordinance) is an independent statutory body that hears appeals against the Commissioner’s determinations, and it has operated since 1947. The Board is neither part of the Judiciary nor a division of the IRD.

Section 65(1) sets the composition of the panel:

“For the purpose of hearing and determining appeals in the manner hereinafter provided, there shall be a panel for a Board of Review consisting of a chairman and 10 deputy chairmen, who shall be persons with legal training and experience, and not more than 150 other members, all of whom shall be appointed from time to time by the Chief Executive”.

The chairman and the ten deputy chairmen must be persons with legal training and experience; the remaining panel members may number no more than 150. All are appointed by the Chief Executive of the HKSAR for a term of three years, renewable.

Author’s assessment: the actual panel is far smaller than the statutory ceiling, and the Board publishes two inconsistent figures. The Board’s introduction page describes a panel of one chairman, seven deputy chairmen and 65 members; the named roster on its membership page lists a chairman, seven deputy chairmen and 61 members. Neither page is dated. The reliable figure is the statutory maximum of 150.

An appeal is heard by at least three panel members, one of whom must be the chairman or a deputy chairman.Section 65(4) provides that this member presides, that the quorum is three, that questions are decided by a majority of those present and voting, and that in the event of an equality of votes the presiding member has a casting vote in addition to an original vote.

Section 68AAB, in force since 1 April 2016, gives the Board’s members the same privileges and immunities in performing their duties as a judge of the Court of First Instance in civil proceedings. The same section extends the privileges and immunities available in Court of First Instance civil proceedings to the parties, witnesses, counsel, solicitors and other representatives appearing before the Board.

How a Board of Review hearing works

Board of Review hearings are held in camera, and decisions are published in anonymised form. The Board’s own formulation is “All appeals shall be heard in camera”, and DIPN 6 adds that “official publication of the hearings may be made in such a manner that the identity of the appellant is not disclosed”.

The Clerk gives the appellant and the Commissioner 14 days’ notice of the hearing date. Before 1 April 2016 the Ordinance referred to “clear” days; Ord. 17 of 2015 removed that word, so the period is now computed in the ordinary way.

The appellant must attend in person or by an authorised representative. The Ordinance imposes no qualification requirement on that representative: section 68AAB(3)(b) refers to “a witness, counsel, solicitor or person representing a party appearing before the Board”, so a taxpayer may be represented by counsel or a solicitor, or by an accountant or tax adviser.

The appellant chooses between an unsworn submission and evidence on oath, and that choice determines whether cross-examination follows. On the Board’s own account, an appellant who makes only an unsworn submission is not cross-examined, while one who gives evidence on oath is cross-examined by the Commissioner’s representative. The Board states the price of that choice plainly: “The Board in general will not attach evidential weight on mere submission and will attach greater weight to evidence tested by the process of cross-examination.”

The onus of proof lies on the appellant. Section 68(4): “The onus of proving that the assessment appealed against is excessive or incorrect shall be on the appellant.” The Board applies the provision literally — in D3/24 (26 June 2024) it recorded that “By virtue of IRO section 68(4), the onus of proving that the Assessment is excessive or incorrect is on Mr A.”

The Board does not entertain complaints about the IRD’s conduct. In the same decision the Board stated: “This Board has no jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr A’s complaint that the IRD has (allegedly) acted unfairly against him.” The only question before the Board is whether the assessment is excessive or incorrect. Grievances about procedure, delay or the manner of an audit belong in judicial review or with the Ombudsman.

Since 1 April 2016 the presiding member may give binding directions on documents and information, and may refuse to admit evidence provided in breach of them. Section 68AA(1):

“Without limiting section 68, the person who is to preside, or is presiding, at the hearing of an appeal under section 66 (presiding person) may— (a) give directions on the provision of documents and information for the hearing; and (b) refuse to admit in evidence any document or information that is not provided in compliance with directions given under paragraph (a)”.

Where evidence is refused, the party is notified in writing with reasons and may apply within 14 days for relief against the decision. The application does not suspend the decision, must be supported by evidence, and may be determined without a hearing. Section 68AA(6) lists ten matters the presiding member must weigh, including the promptness of the application, whether the breach was intentional, whether there is a good explanation, whether the party is legally represented, and whether the hearing date can still be met if relief is granted.

If the appellant does not attend, the Board may adjourn, proceed in the appellant’s absence, or dismiss the appeal.The power sits in section 68(2B). A separate indulgence applies where the appellant is outside Hong Kong, in which case the Board may decide the appeal on written submissions. Unexplained non-attendance attracts no such indulgence: in D6/24 (9 August 2024) the appellant company failed to appear in person, by representative or by video despite repeated notices; the Board waited five minutes and dismissed the appeal.

Author’s assessment: the Board of Review issues no practice directions. Its website carries no practice-direction or guidance-note section. The published procedural material begins and ends with the “Functions and Procedures” page, and the detail is supplied case by case through the presiding member’s section 68AA directions. That is a material departure from practice in the Hong Kong courts, and it means the procedural requirements in a given appeal cannot be predicted in advance.

What losing before the Board costs: up to HK$25,000

Where the Board of Review does not reduce or annul the assessment, it may order the appellant to pay up to HK$25,000 as costs of the Board. Any sum ordered is added to the tax charged and recovered with it.

Section 68(9):

“Where under subsection (8), the Board does not reduce or annul such assessment, the Board may order the appellant to pay as costs of the Board a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Schedule 5, Part 1, which shall be added to the tax charged and recovered therewith”.

The HK$25,000 ceiling sits in Schedule 5, Part 1 to the Inland Revenue Ordinance and has applied since 1 April 2016. The previous ceiling was HK$5,000; section 13 of Ord. 17 of 2015 substituted “$25,000” for “$5,000” in Schedule 5, Part 1, item 1.

Costs are awarded for hopelessness and for breach of the Board’s directions, not for losing as such. The Board’s own guidance ties the question to whether the appeal was “frivolously, vexatiously or an abuse of process”.

The published decisions bear that out and show the range.

Board of Review decision	Date	Costs ordered	The Board’s stated reason
D2/24	24 April 2024	HK$25,000(the statutory maximum)	Appeal dismissed; the appellant’s sole witness had no personal knowledge of the key transactions and the people who did were never called
D5/24	9 August 2024	HK$20,000	Appeal dismissed on whether interest income that accrued but was never received was chargeable
D15/23	3 January 2024	HK$20,000	Appeal dismissed in a case on failure to notify chargeability and additional tax
D27/22	13 January 2023	HK$15,000	Flimsy and vague evidence; breach of the Board’s directions on witness statements and documents; HK$2.33 million of tax at stake; dilatory correspondence
D2/23	24 April 2023	HK$10,000	“There is no reasonable prospect of success in the appeal which should have been known to the Appellant”; public funds spent on an unmeritorious appeal
D1/23	24 April 2023	HK$10,000	Appeal concerning estimated assessments that had already become final
D9/24	23 September 2024	None	“The Commissioner did not seek costs. The Board does not consider this a case where the Appellant should be ordered to pay costs”
D6/24	9 August 2024	None	Total non-attendance by the appellant, yet “The Commissioner did not seek costs. There will be no order as to costs”
D1/24	17 April 2024	None	Appeal out of time; “this Board considers it just and fair to make no order as to costs”

The pattern worth knowing before you lodge: where the Commissioner does not ask for costs, the Board generally does not order them of its own motion. Even the complete non-attendance in D6/24 drew no costs order. Costs bite consistently in two situations — an appeal that was hopeless and known to be hopeless, and a failure to comply with the Board’s directions on documents and witness evidence.

There is no mirror image of this power: the Board cannot award costs in favour of a successful appellant. Section 68(9) runs one way only. A taxpayer who wins outright recovers nothing towards professional fees.

The Board can increase your assessment: what the numbers show

After hearing an appeal the Board of Review may confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment, or remit the case to the Commissioner with its opinion. Section 68(8): “After hearing the appeal, the Board shall confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment appealed against or may remit the case to the Commissioner with the opinion of the Board thereon.”

The power to increase is exercised in practice. According to the IRD Annual Report for 2024-25, 6 of the 23 appeals decided on their merits ended with the assessment increased.

Board of Review appeals	2024-25 financial year
Awaiting hearing or decision at 1 April 2024	26
Received during the year	30
Withdrawn by appellants	10
Decided on the merits	23
— assessment confirmed	8
— assessment reduced in full	0
— assessment reduced in part	9
— assessment increased	6
Total disposed of	33
Awaiting hearing or decision at 31 March 2025	23

Not one appeal in 2024-25 resulted in an assessment being reduced in full. Of the 23 decided on their merits, 9 achieved a partial reduction, 8 were confirmed and 6 were increased — meaning that in 14 cases out of 23 the appellant ended up no better off, or worse off, than before.

Author’s assessment: the IRD Annual Report for 2025-26 had not been published as at 18 August 2026. The 2024-25 figures remain the most recent official statistics.

Only a small selection of decisions is published, and publication lags badly. The current volume is Volume 39, covering 2024-25. The main issue appeared in June 2025 with 4 decisions and the first supplement in September 2025 with 4 more — 8 published decisions against 23 appeals decided on their merits. Decision D9/24, given on 23 September 2024, was published in September 2025, a year later. Publication is stated to be quarterly, yet no second or third supplement to Volume 39 had appeared as at August 2026.

Beyond the Board: four routes and how they differ

The Board’s decision is final, subject only to an appeal to the Court of First Instance on a question of law. Section 68(11), in force since 1 April 2016: “Subject to section 69, the Board’s decision on the appeal is final.”

The Ordinance provides four distinct routes, and they should not be conflated.

Route 1 — section 67: transferring the appeal straight to the Court of First Instance, bypassing the Board. Once an appeal has been given to the Board, either party may give notice that it wishes the appeal transferred to the court. The notice must be given within 21 days after the notice of appeal reaches the Clerk to the Board, and the other party then has 21 days to notify its consent in writing. The transfer requires the consent of both parties. If the other side declines, the appeal stays with the Board.

Route 2 — section 69: leave to appeal to the Court of First Instance on a question of law. This is the principal route after a Board decision.

“Where the Board of Review has made a decision on an appeal under section 68, the appellant or the Commissioner may appeal to the Court of First Instance against the Board’s decision on a ground involving only a question of law”.

An appeal lies on a question of law alone, and only with the court’s leave. The application for leave must be lodged with the Registrar of the High Court and served on the other party within one month after the Board’s decision, by summons supported by a statement setting out the grounds of appeal and the reasons why leave should be granted. If the Court of First Instance refuses leave, a further application may be made to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.

Route 3 — section 69A: the leapfrog appeal directly to the Court of Appeal. Section 69A(1): “Where leave to appeal has been granted under section 69 in respect of a decision of the Board of Review, the appellant or the Commissioner may appeal directly to the Court of Appeal against the Board’s decision.” Leave under section 69 is not enough on its own: section 69A(1A) requires a separate grant of leave by the Court of Appeal itself — “No appeal may be made under subsection (1) unless leave to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal has been granted, on the application of the appellant or the Commissioner, by the Court of Appeal.” The leapfrog route therefore requires two successive grants of leave. The ground for the second is set out in section 69A(2): “Leave to appeal under this section may be granted on the ground that in the opinion of the Court of Appeal it is desirable that, by reason of the amount of tax in dispute or of the general or public importance of the matter…”.

Route 4 — section 69AA: what the Court of First Instance may and may not do. This provision defines the limits of judicial intervention and explains why winning in court after losing before the Board is so difficult:

“(a) may— (i) draw any inference of fact; (ii) confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment determined by the Board, or remit the matter back to the Board with any directions (including a direction for a new hearing) that the Court of First Instance thinks fit; and (iii) make any order as to costs that the Court of First Instance thinks fit; and (b) must not— (i) receive any further evidence; or (ii) reverse or vary any conclusion made by the Board on questions of fact unless the Court of First Instance finds that the conclusion is erroneous in point of law”.

The court receives no further evidence and will not disturb the Board’s findings of fact unless a finding is erroneous in point of law. The practical consequence is that the factual record is built before the Board and cannot be repaired afterwards. A witness not called before the Board will never be heard.

Author’s assessment: almost nothing reaches the courts, and taxpayers lose what does. On the Board’s own table of appeals to the High Court, the position at 31 July 2026 showed three matters before the Court of First Instance: on D5/22 the court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal on 11 April 2025; on D14/23 it dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal on 29 July 2026; and on D4/24 the taxpayer was granted leave to appeal on 27 May 2025. Nothing at all was listed in the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal.

For a comparison with another jurisdiction that has built a similar multi-stage chain, see UAE Tax Penalties, Voluntary Disclosure and Appeals.

Do you have to pay the tax while the dispute runs?

Yes. Tax is payable by the date shown on the notice of assessment whether or not an objection or appeal has been lodged, unless the Commissioner orders it held over. Hong Kong applies pay-first, argue-later without any default exception.

The formulation reproduced by the IRD and by GovHK is:

“Notwithstanding any notice of objection or appeal lodged by a taxpayer, tax shall be paid on or before the date(s) specified in the notice of assessment, unless the Commissioner orders that the payment of tax or any part of it be held over pending the result of such objection or appeal”.

Holding over tax in dispute under section 71(2) is a discretion of the Commissioner, not a right of the taxpayer, and the Commissioner may make it conditional on security:

“The Commissioner may order the holdover of payment of tax, or any part thereof, conditional upon the person who or on whose behalf the objection or appeal is made providing security for the payment of the tax, or any part thereof, the payment of which is held over either: by purchasing a certificate issued under the Tax Reserve Certificates Ordinance (Cap. 289); or by furnishing a banker’s undertaking, as the Commissioner may require”.

Author’s assessment: that passage is the IRD’s rendering of section 71(2), not the verbatim text of the Ordinance.The identical wording appears on three independent official sources — the IRD website, the GovHK portal and paragraph 8 of DIPN 6 — which makes it reliable in substance; but the legislation portal is closed to automated access and the wording could not be checked against the consolidated statute.

The two forms of security are alternatives, and the choice belongs to the Commissioner rather than the taxpayer.That is the effect of the closing words “as the Commissioner may require”.

DIPN 6 sets out departmental policy and identifies five possible outcomes of a holdover request:

1.        Unconditional holdover, where it is immediately apparent to the authorised officer that the objection should be allowed. Even then, “interest will be payable if any tax so held-over is finally found payable”.

2.        No holdover. “Where … it is the opinion of an Assistant Commissioner, or other officer authorized by the Commissioner, that the objection has little chance of success, no stand-over will be ordered and the tax will be payable on the due date(s) contained in the notice of assessment.”

3.        Conditional holdover on the purchase of Tax Reserve Certificates, the standard outcome where the objection has some merit. DIPN 6 is emphatic: “It is emphasized that, in the generality of cases falling into this category, the purchase of certificates will be required”, and the certificates are bought “in the amount of the tax stood-over”.

4.        A banker’s undertaking instead of certificates, available only on proof of hardship: “where it can be established to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the purchase of tax reserve certificates would cause undue hardship to the taxpayer, having regard to his present financial resources”. The burden of demonstrating undue hardship rests on the taxpayer, and a banker’s undertaking requires prior IRD approval on a standard form complying with section 71(9).

5.        A hybrid for section 59(3) estimated assessments, where the tax on the difference between the estimated assessment and the adjusted returned profits is normally stood over unconditionally, while certificates are required for the tax on the adjustment itself.

Alert. A holdover order self-destructs if the certificates are not bought in time. Under section 71(7) Tax Reserve Certificates must be purchased within 14 days of the date of the order, or by the due date for payment shown on the notice of assessment, whichever is the later. DIPN 6 states the consequence bluntly: “Failure to purchase the requisite certificates within the prescribed time will have the effect of nullifying the order, thereby rendering the underlying tax payable in full on the relevant due date(s).” The same 14-day window applies to furnishing a banker’s undertaking. The practical result is that the tax is treated as unpaid from its original due dates, and surcharges are computed from those dates.

Tax Reserve Certificates: what a holdover really costs

Tax Reserve Certificates bought under a conditional holdover order bear simple interest, but interest is payable only on the part of the capital eventually repaid to the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference from ordinary savings certificates.

The interest rate on Tax Reserve Certificates is 0.1500% per annum for certificates issued on or after 8 April 2026.The rate was set by Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026, made on 30 March 2026 and gazetted on 2 April 2026, which inserted item 200 into the schedule: “On or after 8 April 2026 — 0.1500% per annum”. The preceding rate of 0.2417% applied to certificates issued from 5 January 2026.

The rate is reviewed monthly by reference to the average twelve-month time deposit rate for HK$100,000 to HK$499,999 offered by the three note-issuing banks.

Tax Reserve Certificate interest rate	Applies to certificates issued on or after	Instrument
0.1500% per annum	8 April 2026	Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026
0.2417% per annum	5 January 2026	Legal Notice No. 219 of 2025
0.2583% per annum	6 October 2025	Legal Notice No. 204 of 2025
0.3417% per annum	3 February 2025	Legal Notice No. 9 of 2025

Author’s assessment: there is no separate rate for certificates purchased under section 71(2). A reading of the operative text of the four most recent Legal Notices shows that none of them distinguishes certificates issued for the purposes of section 71(2) from ordinary certificates. One rate schedule governs all Tax Reserve Certificates. What differs is not the rate but the method of computation.

Feature	Ordinary (savings) certificate	Certificate under a conditional holdover order (section 71(2))
Rate applied	The rate prevailing at the date of purchase, then fixed	Floating — per the IRD, “at such rates in force from time to time over the tenure of the TRC”
Maximum interest-bearing period	36 months (the IRD states this rule for ordinary certificates only)	The 36-month cap does not apply (author’s assessment: the IRD applies the cap only to ordinary certificates, while certificates bought under a holdover order accrue interest until final determination)
Period of accrual	Date of purchase to date of redemption	Date of issue to the date of final determination of the objection or appeal
What interest is paid on	The amount redeemed against tax	Only the part of the capital repaid to the taxpayer
Available for other purposes	Freely	No. The certificate is inscribed with an identifying mark and may not be used for any other purpose

A taxpayer who loses earns nothing at all. Paragraph 12 of DIPN 6: “Where the objection or appeal is withdrawn or determined against the Taxpayer (wholly or in part), he may tender the certificate or a part of a certificate in payment of so much of the tax held-over as is found payable. No interest is payable upon any certificate or part thereof so tendered.No certificate purchased in pursuance of a conditional order may be used for any other purpose. A certificate so purchased will be inscribed with an identifying mark to such effect.”

In substance, a taxpayer who loses has made the Government an interest-free loan for the entire life of the dispute.

A taxpayer who wins earns interest to the date of final determination, not to the date the money is actually returned. Paragraph 11 of DIPN 6: “Interest is payable from the date of issue of the certificate to the date of final determination of the objection or appeal.” The holder may then elect to have the principal and interest repaid, or credited to an account maintained under the Tax Reserve Certificates Ordinance. Any administrative delay between determination and repayment is uncompensated.

Certificates held in excess of the tax that can remain in dispute must be released before the dispute ends. In Besins Healthcare (Hong Kong) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2022] HKCFI 2932, HCAL 227/2022, a judgment of Coleman J dated 28 September 2022 and also reported at [2022] 4 HKLRD 939, part of the dispute had been resolved and the certificates held exceeded the amount that could still be in issue by HK$6,022,295. The court ordered the Commissioner to vary the holdover order so that the excess was held over unconditionally, and to repay the principal with accrued interest within 21 days.

Author’s assessment: the text of the Besins Healthcare judgment could not be verified directly because the Judiciary’s database is closed to automated access. The case particulars and the substance of the holding are supported by a commercial case database and by an international accounting firm’s tax alert; no words are attributed to the court in this article.

The practical mechanics of buying certificates. A Tax Reserve Certificate account is opened on Form IR1306, and joint accounts are not permitted. The general rules set a minimum denomination of HK$300 in multiples of HK$50, with redemption on a first-in-first-out basis. Author’s assessment: whether the denomination rules apply to section 71(2) certificates could not be confirmed from official sources; in practice the amount is dictated by the Commissioner’s order — “in the amount of the tax stood-over”.

The mechanism touches few taxpayers but large sums. In 2024-25, 884 certificates worth HK$3,155.3 million were sold in respect of objections and appeals — 16.4% fewer certificates than the previous year but 4.9% more by value. By comparison, 79,836 ordinary savings certificates worth HK$438.4 million were sold in the same year. The average dispute certificate is therefore around HK$3.6 million against roughly HK$5,500 for an ordinary one (author’s computation). Author’s assessment: the aggregate amount of tax held over at any given date is not published; certificates sold during a year are only a rough proxy.

Interest and surcharges: why declining the certificates can cost 8% a year

Where a holdover is unconditional or supported by a banker’s undertaking, interest runs against the taxpayer on so much of the tax as is finally found payable, at the judgment debt rate. The charging provision is section 71(11), which adopts the rate fixed from time to time by the Chief Justice by Gazette notice under section 50 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336).

The judgment debt rate is 8.000% per annum with effect from 1 April 2026.

Interest accrues from the later of the due date shown on the notice of assessment and the date of the holdover order, and runs to the date the objection or appeal is withdrawn or finally determined.

This interest is mandatory and cannot be waived or remitted. Paragraph 14 of DIPN 6 puts it directly: “the imposition of this interest is mandatory and there is no provision for waivers or remissions.” That is what separates section 71(11) interest from the surcharges under sections 71(5) and 71(5A), which are expressly discretionary.

The result is an economic asymmetry that should drive the choice of strategy.

Option	Cash out now	Cost if the taxpayer loses	Return if the taxpayer wins
Unconditional holdover	None	Judgment debt rate interest — 8.000% per annum on the tax found payable	Nothing payable
Holdover on a banker’s undertaking	Bank charges only	Judgment debt rate interest — 8.000% per annum	Nothing payable
Conditional holdover on certificates	The full tax in dispute	No interest charged; the certificate is tendered against the tax	Principal plus certificate interest — 0.1500% per annum
No holdover, tax unpaid	None	Surcharge of up to 5%, then up to a further 10% after six months — up to 15.5% in all	Overpayment refunded

The gap between 8.000% and 0.1500% per annum is the real price of the security decision — and the Commissioner, not the taxpayer, decides which form applies.

Late payment surcharges sit in sections 71(5) and 71(5A). Section 71(5) permits a surcharge “not exceeding 5% in all of the amount in default”. Section 71(5A) permits, once six months have passed from the date the tax is deemed to be in default, a further surcharge “not exceeding 10% in all of the unpaid amount”, computed on the aggregate of the tax in default and the 5% already added.

Author’s assessment: the maximum combined surcharge is 15.5%, not 15%. This is a computation rather than a quoted figure: 1.05 × 1.10 = 1.155. GovHK confirms the base of the second charge — “10% will be further imposed on all unpaid amount (including 5% surcharge) after the expiry of 6 months from the due date.” Both surcharges are discretionary and capped (“not exceeding … in all”), so a lesser sum, or a series of sums, may be imposed.

The scale of surcharging is substantial. In 2024-25 the IRD issued 226,711 notices of the 5% surcharge worth HK$455 million and 26,108 notices of the 10% surcharge worth HK$210 million — 252,819 notices carrying roughly HK$665 million in total (author’s computation).

Author’s assessment: whether a surcharge can be imposed retrospectively for a period covered by a holdover is not addressed in published IRD guidance. DIPN 6 does not mention sections 71(5) or 71(5A) at all. The one verified route to retrospective exposure is nullification of a holdover order for failure to buy certificates within 14 days, which revives the original due dates.

Additional tax under section 82A: a separate appeal route entirely

Additional tax under section 82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance is a monetary penalty of up to treble the tax undercharged, and it is challenged not by objection to the Commissioner but by a direct appeal to the Board of Review under section 82B. The section 64 objection route does not apply to it.

Section 82A(1) in its current form, as reproduced in Board of Review decision D15/23:

“Any person who without reasonable excuse– … (e) fails to comply with section 51(2), shall, if no prosecution under section 80(2) or 82(1) has been instituted in respect of the same facts, be liable to be assessed under this section to additional tax of an amount not exceeding treble the undercharged amount”.

Additional tax is an alternative to prosecution rather than an addition to it, and the bar runs both ways. Where a prosecution under section 80(2) or 82(1) has been instituted on the same facts, additional tax cannot be assessed. The converse is section 82A(7): “A person who has been assessed to additional tax under subsection (1) shall not be liable to be charged on the same facts with an offence under section 80(2) or 82(1).” The IRD’s Penalty Policy describes the choice as one between three mutually exclusive courses: the Ordinance empowers the Commissioner “to institute prosecution, to compound or to assess additional tax (which is a form of penalty) in respect of the offence”.

The base is the tax undercharged, or the tax that would have been undercharged had the omission gone undetected. Paragraph 113 of DIPN 11: “The maximum penalty is 3 times the amount of tax which has been undercharged in consequence of the omission, or which would have been undercharged if the omission had not been detected.”

Before additional tax is assessed the taxpayer receives notice of the proposal and a period in which to make written representations. The IRD publishes the period: “The person will be given a period of not less than 21 days from the date of service of the notice to make his representations.” Any representations and evidence received must be considered and taken into account.

Only the Commissioner personally or a deputy commissioner personally may assess additional tax. Section 82A(3), as reproduced in the Court of First Instance judgment in HCIA 1/2017: “An assessment of additional tax may be made only by the Commissioner personally or a deputy commissioner personally.” The notice of intention under section 82A(4) comes from the same office-holders: “Before making an assessment of additional tax the Commissioner or a deputy commissioner, as the case may be, shall—(a) cause notice to be given to the person he proposes so to assess…”. DIPN 11 and the Penalty Policy page say the same, referring to “the Commissioner or his deputy”. The practical consequence is that an additional tax assessment cannot be signed by an assessor or any other line officer of the IRD, and the signatory’s authority is worth checking.

An appeal against an additional tax assessment goes to the Board of Review within one month after the notice of assessment is given — not from any determination, because none is issued in this procedure. Section 82B(1): “Any person who has been assessed to additional tax under section 82A may, within 1 month after notice of assessment is given to him, give notice of appeal to the Board.”

The Ordinance confines the appeal to three grounds. Section 82B(2):

“On an appeal against assessment to additional tax, it shall be open to the appellant to argue that (a) he is not liable to additional tax; (b) the amount of additional tax assessed on him exceeds the amount for which he is liable under section 82A; (c) the amount of additional tax, although not in excess of that for which he is liable under section 82A, is excessive having regard to the circumstances”.

The papers required differ from those on an ordinary appeal. DIPN 6 requires a copy of the notice of assessment, a statement of the grounds of appeal, a copy of the section 82A(4) notice of intention to assess additional tax, and a copy of any representations made. No copy of a Commissioner’s determination is required, because none exists.

Section 82B(3) applies sections 66(2) and (3), 68, 68AA, 68AAB, 68A, 69 and 70 to these appeals — so the duty to serve a copy on the Commissioner, the locking of the grounds, the whole hearing regime including the onus of proof, the section 68(8) power to increase the assessment and the costs power, the section 68AA directions on documents, the section 68AAB privileges, the section 68A power to correct clerical slips in a decision, the onward appeal to court and the finality rule all carry across. Section 64 is conspicuously absent from that list, which is the clearest statutory confirmation that the route is separate.

The IRD publishes penalty loading scales for cases detected in field audits and investigations, expressed as percentages of the tax undercharged.

Nature of the omission	Full voluntary disclosure (normal / max. incl. commercial restitution)	Full information promptly on challenge (normal / max.)	Incomplete or belated disclosure (normal / max.)	Disclosure denied (normal / max.)
Group (a) — intentional disregard of the law, false books, fictitious entries, multiple omissions over a long period	15 / 60	75 / 100	140 / 180	210 / 260
Group (b) — less serious omissions arising from recklessness, including gross negligence	10 / 45	50 / 75	110 / 150	150 / 200
Group (c) — failure to exercise reasonable care, omission of particular receipts	5 / 30	35 / 60	60 / 100	100 / 150

Commercial restitution runs at 7% per annum compounded monthly for periods to 30 November 2003 inclusive, and at the best lending rate compounded monthly thereafter.

A substantial share of additional tax assessments arises from failure to notify chargeability and from errors in employer reporting; those obligations are set out in Payroll and Employer Obligations in Hong Kong.

A separate scale applies to transfer pricing: no documentation attracts 50% normally and 75% at maximum; documentation without reasonable effort attracts 25% and 50%; demonstrated reasonable efforts attract nil. The documentation requirements are examined in Transfer Pricing in Hong Kong.

A director’s exposure for a company’s return was narrowed by the courts and then widened by the legislature. In Koo Ming Kown & Murakami Tadao v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2022] HKCFA 18, the Court of Final Appeal held that a director who signs and declares a company’s return does not himself “make” it and therefore falls outside section 82A(1)(a). The case concerned the years of assessment 1996/97, 1997/98 and 1999/2000. Section 82A(1)(a) was subsequently amended with effect from 11 June 2021 to catch a person who “causes or allows to be made on the person’s behalf” an incorrect return, and a new section 82A(1AA) provides that engaging an outside service provider is not of itself a reasonable excuse. Author’s assessment: the Court of Final Appeal decided the case on the former wording, and its holding should not be read across to periods after 11 June 2021.

Reopening a closed year: sections 70A and 60

Section 70A allows an assessment to be corrected where the tax charged is excessive because of an error or omission in a return or statement, or an arithmetical error, on an application made within 6 years after the end of the year of assessment or 6 months after service of the notice of assessment, whichever is the later.

Section 70A(1) reads:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 70, if, upon application made within 6 years after the end of a year of assessment or within 6 months after the date on which the relative notice of assessment was served, whichever is the later, it is established to the satisfaction of an assessor that the tax charged for that year of assessment is excessive by reason of an error or omission in any return or statement submitted in respect thereof, or by reason of any arithmetical error or omission in the calculation of the amount of the net assessable value (within the meaning of section 5(1A)), assessable income or profits assessed or in the amount of the tax charged, the assessor shall correct such assessment: Provided that under this section no correction shall be made to any assessment in respect of an error or omission in any return or statement submitted in respect thereof as to the basis on which the liability to tax ought to have been computed where the return or statement was in fact made on the basis of or in accordance with the practice generally prevailing at the time when the return or statement was made”.

Section 70A is not a second chance to argue the merits. Three limits keep it narrow:

•          There must be an error or omission in a return or statement that was actually submitted. Where no return was ever filed, section 70A has nothing to operate on. That was the holding in D1/23: the appellant “could not meet the condition of excessiveness by reason of an error or omission in any return or statement submitted”, because no returns had been filed when the estimated assessments issued.

•          A change of legal position is not an error. The proviso excludes correction where the return was made on the basis of, or in accordance with, the practice generally prevailing at the time.

•          A refusal is appealable in the ordinary way. Section 70A(2) treats a notice of refusal as if it were a notice of assessment, opening the same objection and appeal route.

In D2/23 (24 April 2023) the Board rejected an attempt to use section 70A in place of a missed objection and ordered costs, observing that the appellant “should have known” the assessments were final and that the case rested on “bare or mere allegations without support of evidences”.

The mirror image is the period during which the assessor may raise an additional assessment. Section 60(1):

“Where it appears to an assessor that for any year of assessment any person chargeable with tax has not been assessed or has been assessed at less than the proper amount, the assessor may, within the year of assessment or within 6 years after the expiration thereof, assess such person at the amount or additional amount at which according to his judgment such person ought to have been assessed”.

The period extends to 10 years where the under-assessment is due to fraud or wilful evasion. The proviso to section 60(1): “where the non-assessment or under-assessment of any person for any year of assessment is due to fraud or wilful evasion, such assessment or additional assessment may be made at any time within 10 years after the expiration of that year of assessment.”

The Government has confirmed its intention to keep these periods. Answering a Legislative Council question on 28 June 2017, the then Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury said: “shortening the retrospective period will have a significant impact on the current tax assessment mechanism and the overall government revenue… we have no plan to shorten the retrospective period for additional assessments for the time being.”

Repayment of overpaid tax is governed by section 79, headed “Tax paid in excess to be refunded”. Author’s assessment: the heading and the placement of section 79 in Part XIII are confirmed by the official consolidated edition of Cap. 112, but its current operative text could not be obtained, and neither DIPN 6 nor the IRD’s refund pages nor any Board of Review decision cites it expressly. The IRD describes the mechanics only: an overpayment is refunded by cheque posted to the last known address; the cheque should be presented within 6 months of issue; unclaimed balances may be set off against future tax. The familiar “6 years or 6 months” limit belongs to the section 70A correction route, not to a repayment claim. In 2024-25 the IRD processed 680,908 refund cases totalling HK$29.5 billion.

The Commissioner pays no interest on refunded overpayments. The single exception is interest on Tax Reserve Certificates bought under a conditional holdover order, and then only on the part of the capital repaid.

Every deadline and figure in one table

A Hong Kong tax dispute is built on one-month deadlines, and almost every one of them is absolute. The table below consolidates the periods, amounts and legal bases in force as at August 2026.

Step or measure	Period or amount	Measured from	Legal basis
Lodging an objection with the Commissioner	1 month	The date of the notice of assessment (the period runs from the following day)	Section 64(1), Cap. 112
Filing the return when objecting to an estimated assessment	The same 1 month as a general rule, or such further period as the Commissioner may approve	The date of the notice of assessment	Section 64(1), proviso (b); DIPN 6, paragraph 3(c)
Late objection	At the Commissioner’s discretion	Grounds: absence from Hong Kong, sickness, other reasonable cause	Section 64(1), proviso (a)
Transmission of the determination to the taxpayer	1 month	The date the Commissioner determines the objection	Section 64(4)
Appealing to the Board of Review	1 month	Transmission of the determination with reasons and statement of facts	Section 66(1)(a)
Extension of the appeal period	At the Board’s discretion	Grounds: illness, absence from Hong Kong, other reasonable cause	Section 66(1A)
Notice seeking transfer of the appeal to the Court of First Instance	21 days	Receipt of the notice of appeal by the Clerk to the Board	Section 67(2)
The other party’s consent to that transfer	21 days	The date the transfer notice is given	Section 67(3)
Notice of the Board hearing date	14 days	Before the hearing	Section 68(1)
Application for relief against refusal to admit evidence	14 days	The date the presiding member’s notice is given	Section 68AA(3)
Board of Review costs	Up to HK$25,000	Payable where the assessment is neither reduced nor annulled	Section 68(9); Schedule 5, Part 1
Fee to appeal to the Board or to court	None	Schedule 5, Part 2 repealed from 1 April 2016	Ord. 17 of 2015
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of First Instance	1 month	The date of the Board’s decision	Section 69(3)
Further application for leave to the Court of Appeal	14 days	Refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance	Section 69(5)
Leapfrog appeal direct to the Court of Appeal	A second grant of leave, by the Court of Appeal itself	Leave already granted under section 69	Sections 69A(1) and 69A(1A)
Purchase of Tax Reserve Certificates under a conditional holdover	14 days from the order, or the tax due date, whichever is the later	The date of the holdover order	Section 71(7)
Tax Reserve Certificate interest rate	0.1500% per annum	Certificates issued on or after 8 April 2026	Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026
Interest on tax held over unconditionally or on a banker’s undertaking	8.000% per annum	From 1 April 2026	Section 71(11); section 50, Cap. 336
First late payment surcharge	Up to 5%	Of the amount in default	Section 71(5)
Second late payment surcharge	Up to 10%	After 6 months, on the amount unpaid including the first surcharge	Section 71(5A)
Maximum combined surcharge	15.5% (author’s computation: 1.05 × 1.10)	Of the original tax	Sections 71(5) and 71(5A)
Appeal against additional tax	1 month	The date the notice of additional tax assessment is given	Section 82B(1)
Representations on a notice of intention to assess additional tax	Not less than 21 days	Service of the notice	Section 82A(4); IRD Penalty Policy
Maximum additional tax	Treble the tax undercharged	—	Section 82A(1)
Application to correct an error or omission	6 years after the end of the year of assessment, or 6 months after service of the notice, whichever is the later	—	Section 70A(1)
Period for the assessor to raise an additional assessment	6 years after the end of the year of assessment	—	Section 60(1)
The same period where there is fraud or wilful evasion	10 years	—	Section 60(1), proviso
Application to hold over provisional tax	Not later than 28 days before the due date, or 14 days after the notice, whichever is the later	—	Section 63J (profits tax); section 63E (salaries tax)

Comparing the four appeal routes shows that the choice between them is dictated by the type of assessment, not by tactics.

Feature	Objection under section 64	Appeal to the Board under section 66	Appeal under section 82B (additional tax)	Appeal to court under section 69
Who decides	The Commissioner of Inland Revenue	The Board of Review, an independent statutory body	The Board of Review	The Court of First Instance
Is a prior stage required	No, this is the first stage	Yes — a valid objection and a determination	No. No section 64 objection is lodged	Yes — a decision of the Board
Time limit	1 month from the date of the notice of assessment	1 month from transmission of the determination	1 month from the date the notice of assessment is given	1 month from the date of the Board’s decision
Is leave required	No	No	No	Yes, leave of the court
Scope of review	Full review on fact and law	Full review on fact and law	The three grounds in section 82B(2)	Question of law only
Is fresh evidence admitted	Yes	Yes	Yes	No (section 69AA(1)(b)(i))
Where the onus lies	On the taxpayer in practice	On the appellant(section 68(4))	On the appellant (via section 82B(3))	Not applicable; the issue is one of law
Can the assessment be increased	Yes (section 64(2))	Yes (section 68(8))	Yes: section 82B(3) applies section 68, including the section 68(8) power; section 82B(2) limits the appellant’s arguments, not the Board’s powers	Yes (section 69AA(1)(a)(ii))
Costs exposure	None	Up to HK$25,000(section 68(9))	Up to HK$25,000 (via section 82B(3))	At the court’s discretion (section 69AA(1)(a)(iii))
Publicity	Private correspondence	Heard in camera; decision published in anonymised form	The same	Heard in open court

Step by step: how to run a dispute with the IRD

Step 1. Record the date of the notice of assessment on the day it arrives. Time runs from the date printed on the notice, not from delivery. Fix the last day of the month immediately and work backwards from it.

Step 2. Identify the type of assessment. An ordinary assessment is challenged by objection under section 64. An additional tax assessment under section 82A goes straight to the Board of Review under section 82B, and lodging an objection with the Commissioner in that situation is both wrong and futile. Provisional tax is held over under section 63J for profits tax or section 63E for salaries tax, not under section 71(2).

Step 3. Check whether the assessment was raised under section 59(3). If no return was filed and the assessor estimated the income, the completed return must, as a general rule, accompany the objection within the same one-month period, unless the Commissioner approves a further period for filing it under paragraph 3(c) of DIPN 6. Without the return the objection is invalid.

Step 4. Plead the grounds of objection precisely. Identify the item, the amount and the specific factual or legal basis. General expressions of disagreement do not satisfy section 64(1).

Step 5. Lodge on Form IR831 and obtain proof of receipt. The burden of showing the objection arrived in time falls on the taxpayer.

Step 6. Apply separately for a holdover of the tax in dispute. The application is distinct from the objection and does not follow from it automatically. Decide in advance which form of security you want and prepare the case for it: a banker’s undertaking is granted only on proof that buying certificates would cause undue hardship.

Step 7. If the holdover is conditional, buy the certificates within 14 days. Missing that window nullifies the order and revives the original due dates together with the surcharges.

Step 8. Assemble the evidence before the determination, not after. Witnesses with personal knowledge of the events, contracts, source documents and correspondence. This is the stage at which the factual record is built, and the courts will not rebuild it later.

Step 9. Explore settlement under section 64(3). Some 99.7% of objections end without a determination. Agreement with the Commissioner closes the matter with no costs exposure, no published decision and no risk of the Board increasing the assessment.

Step 10. On receiving the determination, check the package is complete. Three documents should arrive: the decision, the reasons and the statement of facts. Count one month from transmission — including transmission to your representative.

Step 11. Draft the grounds of appeal broadly. Section 66(3) will not let you add a new ground at the hearing without the Board’s consent. Serve a copy of the appeal and the grounds on the Commissioner at the same time as you lodge with the Clerk.

Step 12. Comply with the presiding member’s directions on documents and witness statements to the letter. Breach leads to evidence being refused under section 68AA(1)(b) and is an independent ground for a costs order.

Step 13. Attend the hearing and call witnesses with first-hand knowledge. The choice between a written statement and evidence on oath determines whether you will be cross-examined.

Step 14. Before appealing to court, test whether the case contains a question of law. Section 69 permits an appeal on a question of law alone and only with leave; no fresh evidence is admitted and the Board’s findings of fact stand.

Common mistakes and what they cost

Mistake 1. Assuming that lodging an objection suspends payment. Section 71(1) requires payment on time regardless of the dispute. The cost: a surcharge of up to 5% immediately and up to a further 10% after six months, computed on a base that includes the first — up to 15.5% of the tax. In 2024-25 the IRD issued 252,819 surcharge notices worth roughly HK$665 million.

Mistake 2. Objecting to an estimated assessment without filing the return and without the Commissioner’s approval of a further period for it. The objection is invalid and the assessment becomes final under section 70. The cost: the right to dispute is lost entirely. The aggravating feature is that where no return was ever filed, section 70A is also unavailable, because there is no “return or statement” to contain an error. That is precisely the scenario in D1/23.

Mistake 3. Pleading the grounds of objection in general terms. Section 64(1) requires them to be stated “precisely”. The cost: the objection may be held invalid, and by the time the rejection arrives the one-month period will have expired.

Mistake 4. Counting the appeal period from the day the taxpayer personally saw the determination, when the papers went to the representative. In D1/24 the Board held that time began when the determination was delivered to the representative and refused an extension. The cost: the right of appeal is lost even though the appeal looked timely on the company’s own calendar.

Mistake 5. Pleading the grounds of appeal narrowly, intending to expand them at the hearing. Section 66(3) bars reliance on grounds outside the statement of grounds without the Board’s consent. The cost: the strongest argument may simply be inadmissible.

Mistake 6. Failing to buy Tax Reserve Certificates within 14 days of a conditional holdover order. The order is nullified and the tax is treated as payable from its original due dates. The cost: the full tax plus surcharges for a period the taxpayer believed was protected.

Mistake 7. Treating an unconditional holdover as free. Under an unconditional holdover or a banker’s undertaking, interest runs on the tax found payable at the judgment debt rate — 8.000% per annum from 1 April 2026 — and it is mandatory, with no power to waive or remit it. The cost: over a three-year dispute, roughly a quarter of the sum in issue.

Mistake 8. Going to the Board without witnesses who have first-hand knowledge. The onus is on the appellant under section 68(4). In D2/24 the appellant’s only witness had not been involved in the key transactions and those who had were never called; the appeal failed and costs were ordered at the statutory maximum of HK$25,000.

Mistake 9. Using the Board of Review to complain about the IRD’s conduct. The Board stated in D3/24 that it has no jurisdiction over allegations that the department acted unfairly. The cost: the appeal period is consumed, with a costs risk for an appeal that was never viable.

Mistake 10. Relying on section 70A as a substitute for a missed objection. Section 70A corrects an error or omission in a return, or an arithmetical error; it does not permit a legal position to be revisited where the return followed the practice generally prevailing at the time. In D2/23 that attempt produced a dismissed appeal and a costs order of HK$10,000.

Who should dispute, who should not, and when to take advice

A dispute is worth running where the disagreement turns on fact or law rather than on discretion, and where the taxpayer holds evidence that can actually be put before the Board of Review.

Disputing makes sense for:

•          Companies whose offshore profits claim has been rejected and who hold documented evidence of operations carried out outside Hong Kong. The grounds and the evidential threshold are examined in The Offshore Profits Claim in Hong Kong.

•          Companies facing a transfer pricing adjustment who have prepared Master File and Local File documentation.

•          Taxpayers challenging an estimated assessment under section 59(3) who are able to file the outstanding return within the same month, or to obtain the Commissioner’s approval of a further period.

•          Anyone whose disputed tax comfortably exceeds the Board’s costs ceiling plus professional fees.

Disputing is not worth it for:

•          Anyone who has missed the one-month deadline and cannot show that absence from Hong Kong, sickness or another reasonable cause prevented lodgement.

•          Anyone without witnesses of first-hand knowledge and source documents: the onus under section 68(4) rests on the appellant, and assertion is not evidence.

•          Anyone whose complaint concerns the IRD’s conduct or timeliness rather than the amount assessed, since the Board has no jurisdiction over it.

•          Anyone expecting to recover professional fees on winning: section 68(9) contains no such power.

•          Anyone whose disputed amount is small, since over a multi-year dispute the cost of security and representation can exceed the amount at stake.

Take professional advice before acting where:

•          The assessment follows a field audit or investigation and is accompanied by a section 82A notice of intention. The IRD’s published scales run to 260% of the tax undercharged, while full voluntary disclosure can bring the loading down to 15%.

•          The years under review fall outside the six-year period in section 60, since that signals a fraud or wilful evasion analysis with a ten-year window.

•          The form of security for a holdover is in play: the difference between 8.000% and 0.1500% per annum turns on the case put to the Commissioner.

•          A transfer of the appeal to the Court of First Instance under section 67 is contemplated, since the 21-day window and the need for the other side’s consent make the decision irreversible.

•          The company is heading for closure: an unresolved objection or held-over tax will block the Commissioner’s Notice of No Objection. The closure routes are set out in Closing a Hong Kong Company.

FAQ

How long do I have to object to a Hong Kong tax assessment? One month from the date of the notice of assessment. The period is set by section 64(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance and runs from the date shown on the notice rather than the date of receipt; DIPN 6 states that it runs from the following day. Delay in delivery does not extend it.

Do I have to pay the tax while my objection is being considered? Yes. Section 71(1) requires payment by the date shown on the notice of assessment whether or not an objection or appeal is pending. Payment can be held over only by order of the Commissioner under section 71(2), and that is a discretion rather than an entitlement.

What happens if I miss the one-month objection deadline? The assessment becomes final and conclusive under section 70. The Commissioner may accept a late objection only where the taxpayer proves that absence from Hong Kong, sickness or another reasonable cause prevented lodgement. Ignorance of the deadline and the absence of an accountant do not qualify.

Can the Board of Review increase my assessment? Yes. Section 68(8) empowers the Board to confirm, reduce, increase or annul an assessment. In 2024-25, of the 23 appeals decided on their merits, 6 ended with the assessment increased, 8 with it confirmed and 9 with a partial reduction; none was reduced in full.

What does it cost to lose an appeal to the Board of Review? The Board may order the appellant to pay up to HK$25,000 as costs under section 68(9) where the assessment is neither reduced nor annulled. There is no fee to lodge an appeal. A successful appellant recovers nothing towards professional fees: the Board has no power to award costs in the taxpayer’s favour.

What interest do Tax Reserve Certificates bought for a holdover pay? The rate is 0.1500% per annum for certificates issued on or after 8 April 2026, set by Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026. Interest is paid only on the part of the capital repaid to the taxpayer on success, and only up to the date of final determination. No interest at all is paid on the part tendered against tax when the taxpayer loses.

How does an unconditional holdover differ from one conditional on certificates? Under an unconditional holdover or a banker’s undertaking the taxpayer keeps the cash, but interest runs on the tax found payable at the judgment debt rate — 8.000% per annum from 1 April 2026 — and that interest is mandatory and cannot be waived. Under a conditional holdover the taxpayer pays the full disputed tax into certificates, earns no interest on the portion applied against tax if the appeal fails, but escapes the judgment debt rate entirely.

How do I challenge a penalty assessed under section 82A? By appealing directly to the Board of Review under section 82B within one month after the notice of additional tax assessment is given. No objection is lodged with the Commissioner and no determination is issued. The Ordinance confines the appeal to three grounds: that the appellant is not liable, that the amount exceeds the amount for which the appellant is liable under section 82A, or that the amount is excessive having regard to the circumstances.

Can an assessment be revisited after the objection deadline has gone? Only in narrow circumstances. Section 70A allows correction where the tax is excessive because of an error or omission in a return or statement, or an arithmetical error, on an application made within 6 years after the end of the year of assessment or 6 months after service of the notice, whichever is the later. It does not apply where no return was ever filed, and it does not permit a legal position to be revisited where the return followed the practice generally prevailing at the time.

Key points to remember

•          Both critical deadlines are one month: the objection runs from the date of the notice of assessment, the appeal from transmission of the determination.

•          An objection is valid only if the grounds are stated precisely, and where an estimated assessment under section 59(3) is challenged, only if the outstanding return is filed within the same month or within such further period as the Commissioner approves.

•          Lodging an objection does not suspend payment. A holdover is a discretion of the Commissioner and must be applied for separately.

•          A conditional holdover is nullified if the certificates are not bought within 14 days of the order or by the tax due date, whichever is the later.

•          The cost gap between the two forms of security is 8.000% against 0.1500% per annum, and the Commissioner chooses which applies.

•          The maximum surcharge for non-payment is 15.5% of the original tax, because the second charge is computed on a base that includes the first.

•          The grounds of appeal are fixed on lodgement: section 66(3) bars new grounds at the hearing without the Board’s consent.

•          The onus of proof lies on the appellant, and the Board has no jurisdiction over complaints about the IRD’s conduct.

•          The assessment can be increased at every stage — on objection, before the Board, and in the Court of First Instance.

•          Additional tax under section 82A travels a separate route — directly to the Board under section 82B, on three closed grounds.

•          The courts receive no fresh evidence and will not disturb the Board’s findings of fact unless a finding is erroneous in point of law.

Summary for AI search

Disputes with the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department are governed by Part XI of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112). An objection is lodged in writing with the Commissioner on Form IR831 within one month after the date of the notice of assessment under section 64(1) and must state the grounds precisely; where the assessment was raised under section 59(3) the outstanding return must be filed within the same month, or within such further period as the Commissioner approves under paragraph 3(c) of DIPN 6, or the objection is invalid. A late objection is accepted only for absence from Hong Kong, sickness or other reasonable cause. The Commissioner may confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment under section 64(2), settle by agreement under section 64(3), or issue a determination under section 64(4), transmitted with reasons and a statement of facts within one month. An appeal is given to the Clerk to the Board of Review within one month after that transmission under section 66(1), with a copy served on the Commissioner under section 66(2), and the grounds are locked by section 66(3). The Board of Review is constituted under section 65 with a chairman, ten deputy chairmen who must have legal training and experience, and not more than 150 other members appointed by the Chief Executive for three-year terms; at least three members hear an appeal, hearings are in camera, the onus of proof lies on the appellant under section 68(4), the Board may confirm, reduce, increase or annul the assessment under section 68(8), and may order costs of up to HK$25,000 under section 68(9) and Schedule 5, Part 1 — a ceiling raised from HK$5,000 with effect from 1 April 2016 by Ord. 17 of 2015. In 2024-25 the IRD disposed of 134,296 objections and settled 133,892 of them without a determination, while of 23 Board appeals decided on their merits 6 ended in an increased assessment and none in a full reduction. Payment is not suspended: section 71(1) requires the tax to be paid by the date on the notice of assessment, and a holdover under section 71(2) is a discretion which may be made conditional on purchasing Tax Reserve Certificates or furnishing a banker’s undertaking, with the certificates to be bought within 14 days of the order or by the tax due date under section 71(7), failing which the order is nullified. The Tax Reserve Certificate rate is 0.1500% per annum for certificates issued on or after 8 April 2026 under Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026, interest accrues only on the capital repaid and only to the date of final determination, while an unconditional holdover or banker’s undertaking attracts mandatory interest at the judgment debt rate of 8.000% per annum from 1 April 2026 under section 71(11). Non-payment attracts a surcharge of up to 5% under section 71(5) and a further charge of up to 10% under section 71(5A) after six months on a base including the first, giving a maximum of 15.5%. Additional tax of up to treble the tax undercharged is assessed under section 82A after notice and not less than 21 days for representations, and is appealed directly to the Board under section 82B within one month on three grounds. An error or omission may be corrected under section 70A within 6 years after the end of the year of assessment or 6 months after service of the notice, and an assessor may raise an additional assessment within 6 years, or 10 years in cases of fraud or wilful evasion, under section 60.

How UPPERSETUP helps with an IRD dispute

A Hong Kong tax dispute is usually won or lost in the first month: whether the objection is valid, whether the return went with it, whether the grounds were pleaded precisely, and whether a separate holdover application was made all determine both the amount ultimately payable and whether there is a right to argue at all. UPPERSETUP supports the preparation and lodgement of objections and appeals, dealings with the IRD on holding over tax in dispute, the building of an evidential record for the Board of Review, and the annual compliance, audit and tax filing obligations of Hong Kong companies.

To review your position and assess the prospects of a dispute — Hong Kong business support with UPPERSETUP.

Related reading: Mandatory Annual Compliance for Hong Kong Companies · The Offshore Profits Claim in Hong Kong · Transfer Pricing in Hong Kong · Payroll and Employer Obligations in Hong Kong · Closing a Hong Kong Company · Hong Kong Certificate of Resident Status

Sources

Hong Kong legislation and the Government Gazette

1.        Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 2015 (Ord. No. 17 of 2015) — Gazette text hosted by the IRD — the appeal reform in force from 1 April 2016: new sections 68AA, 68AAB, 68(11), 69 and 69AA, the costs ceiling raised to HK$25,000, and the repeal of Schedule 5, Part 2

2.        Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 2021 (Ord. No. 18 of 2021) — the amendment to section 82A(1)(a) and new section 82A(1AA) from 11 June 2021

3.        Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Deductions for Assisted Reproductive Service Expenses) Ordinance 2025 (Ord. No. 2 of 2025) — new paragraph 82A(1)(cd), the amendment to section 82A(4)(a)(i)(A) and the addition to section 63E

4.        Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Minimum Tax for Multinational Enterprise Groups) Ordinance 2025 (Ord. No. 21 of 2025) — new subsections 82A(1L) to (1O) on additional tax for top-up tax undercharged

5.        Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Automatic Exchange of Information) Ordinance 2026 (Ord. No. 4 of 2026) — commences 1 January 2027 and does not touch the appeal procedure

6.        IRD — register of amendments to the Inland Revenue Ordinance since 2003

7.        IRD — ordinances administered by the department

8.        Tax Reserve Certificates (Rate of Interest) (Consolidation) (Amendment) Notice 2026 — Legal Notice No. 31 of 2026 — the 0.1500% rate from 8 April 2026

9.        Legal Notice No. 219 of 2025, Legal Notice No. 204 of 2025 and Legal Notice No. 9 of 2025 — the preceding rates

10.    IRD — register of amendments to the Tax Reserve Certificates Ordinance since 2003

Inland Revenue Department guidance

11.    Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 6 (Revised), November 2016 — Objections to the Commissioner, Appeals to the Board of Review, Appeals to the Courts

12.    Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 11 (Revised), October 2007 — Field Audit and Investigation

13.    IRD — Penalty Policy, including the published penalty loading scales

14.    IRD — Payment of Tax in Dispute and Interest on Tax Held-over

15.    IRD — Tax Reserve Certificates and the Tax Reserve Certificate FAQ

16.    IRD — Banker’s Undertaking: the section 71(9) requirements and the standard form

17.    IRD — Judgment Interest Rate: 8.000% per annum from 1 April 2026

18.    Form IR831 — notice of objection, revision 11/2024

19.    IRD — objections leaflet for individuals

20.    IRD FAQ — holding over provisional tax and correcting errors in a return

21.    IRD — refund of tax

22.    IRD press release on the new Tax Reserve Certificate rate, 2 April 2026

GovHK

23.    GovHK — objections and appeals

24.    GovHK — payment of tax in dispute and interest on tax held over

25.    GovHK — objections for businesses and electronic filing

26.    GovHK — recovering tax in default and surcharges

27.    GovHK — holding over provisional tax and the business version

The Board of Review (Inland Revenue Ordinance)

28.    Board of Review — introduction and composition and the named chairmanship and membership

29.    Board of Review — functions and procedures

30.    Board of Review — index of published decisions and how decisions are published

31.    Board of Review — table of appeals to the High Court, position at 31 July 2026 and the archive of court judgments, which runs to Volume 36 (2022)

Board of Review decisions

32.    D1/23 — finality of estimated assessments and the limits of section 70A

33.    D2/23 — the meaning of error and omission; costs for an unmeritorious appeal

34.    D1/24 — time running from transmission of the determination to the representative

35.    D2/24 — the onus of proof and costs at the statutory maximum of HK$25,000

36.    D3/24 — the Board has no jurisdiction over complaints about the IRD’s conduct

37.    D5/24 — income accrued but not received; costs of HK$20,000

38.    D6/24 — non-attendance by the appellant and no order as to costs

39.    D9/24 — no order as to costs

40.    D15/23 — the text of sections 82A and 82B; costs of HK$20,000

41.    D27/22 — costs for breach of the Board’s directions on documents and witness statements

42.    D21/07 — the full text of section 70A(1), including the practice-generally-prevailing proviso and D91/02, corroborating the words “relative notice of assessment”

43.    HCIA 1/2017, Koo Ming Kown and Murakami Tadao v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Court of First Instance, 23 November 2018 — the text of sections 82A(3), 82A(4), 82A(7) and 82B(3)

44.    CAMP 47/2021, Cheng Hung Kit v Commissioner of Inland Revenue — the text of section 69A(2) and HCAL 7/2010, Honorcan Limited v Inland Revenue Board of Review — the description of section 64(3)

45.    D13/03 — the text of section 60 and the six-year and ten-year periods

46.    D59/03 — the text of section 64(4)

47.    D64/02 — the text of section 64(2) and the opening words of section 64(1)

48.    D112/99 — the three grounds of appeal under section 82B(2) and D105/03 — the time limit under section 82B(1)

Other official sources

49.    IRD Annual Report 2024-25, assessing chapter — statistics on objections, appeals and Tax Reserve Certificates

50.    IRD Annual Report 2024-25, collection chapter — statistics on surcharges and refunds and the index of annual reports

51.    Legislative Council paper reproducing the text of sections 71(5) and 71(5A)

52.    Audit Commission report corroborating the operation of the sections 71(5) and 71(5A) surcharges

53.    Government reply to a Legislative Council question of 28 June 2017 on the section 60 assessment periods

54.    Government reply to a Legislative Council question of 30 October 2024 on how the Tax Reserve Certificate rate is set

55.    Government press release on the 2026-27 Budget tax measures, 25 February 2026

56.    IRD — first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Tax Policy, 29 June 2026

57.    Extract of Cap. 112 (sections 65 to 70) as at 4 July 2013, hosted by the Hong Kong Chartered Governance Institute — relied on only where the 2015 amendments left the provision untouched

Commentary and cross-checking (tier 2)

58.    Gibson Dunn on the Court of Final Appeal decision in Koo Ming Kown & Murakami Tadao v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2022] HKCFA 18

59.    KPMG on Besins Healthcare (Hong Kong) Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the refund of excess Tax Reserve Certificates

60.    EY on Board of Review practice concerning additional tax for failure to notify chargeability, 7 May 2025

Disclaimer

This material is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial, investment or consulting advice. Before taking any decision, individual professional advice should be obtained, taking into account the specific circumstances, the jurisdiction, the status of the company and the current requirements of the regulators.

Last updated: August 2026.