INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Case No. D41 ...

INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS
(b) A draft case stated was prepared by the Chairman and submitted to the parties
for comment and agreement. The format and content used was based on that used in the
Chinachem case.
(c) Neither party was in agreement with the format or content of the draft case
stated. Counsel for the Taxpayer produced a new and different draft which was rejected by
Counsel for the Commissioner who then prepared a new and again different draft. Counsel
met and were in correspondence for some considerable length of time in an endeavour to
reach agreement and ultimately were able to do so in a format similar to that originally
proposed by the Chairman of the Board (that is, the Chinachem format) but certain matters
could not be agreed.
(d) Counsel for the parties were unable to resolve: (i) whether or not the transcript
of the proceedings in whole or in part should be incorporated into the case stated; (ii) to what
extent the Board of Review should make separate or additional findings of fact; (iii) whether
statements as to the credibility of the witnesses should be included; (iv) whether the
acceptance by the Board of Review of the documentary evidence before it should be
repeated; (v) whether the Commissioner’s determination should form part of the case stated;
and (vi) whether the application for the case stated should be included.
(e) It was agreed by both Counsel that: (i) it was not appropriate for separate
findings of fact to be prepared; (ii) that the decision of the Board should form part of the case
stated; and (iii) that the facts found should be in the form of the decision of the Board.
(f) It was further agreed by Counsel and confirmed by the Chairman that the Board
of Review had accepted the evidence before it in toto by incorporating into the decision the
following statement:
‘ The facts of the case stated are found in the determination of the Commissioner,
in evidence given before the Board of Review by Mr A, in two Affidavits one
by Mr B and the other by Mr C and in certain Exhibits produced by the witness
who appeared before the Board of Review.’
(g) Section 69 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance provides that the decision of the
Board of Review shall be final save and except for appeal by way of case stated on a
question of law. It has been held that the case stated procedure is a useful and effective
method of applying to the High Court for legal rulings on precise questions of law but it is
not a practical way to rehear a case on appeal.
(h) When making application for a case stated under section 69, it is necessary to
particularize the question of law on which the opinion of the High Court is required. The
question ‘whether the decision was correct in law’ is insufficiently precise because it does
not state the point of law in issue and makes it impossible for a case stated to be drafted. It is
necessary to particularize the point or points of law on which it is alleged the Board has
erred.