Hong Kong SAR issues updated guidance on DIPN 42

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Hong Kong SAR issues updated guidance on DIPN 42

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
mike-kononov-lfv0v3-2h6s-unsplash.jpg

Lewis Lu and John Timpany of KPMG analyse the taxation of financial instruments and foreign exchange differences and its impact on taxpayers.

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) released an updated version of Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes (DIPN) No. 42 in June 2020, dealing with the taxation of financial instruments and the taxation of foreign exchange differences. The update primarily reflects:

  • The judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Nice Cheer Investment Limited v CIR (2013) 16 HKCFAR 813 (Nice Cheer), which held that accounting practice did not form an appropriate basis for the measurement of taxable profits where they contained unrealised profits;

  • The resulting legislative amendments (Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 2019) which took effect from March 1 2019, allowing taxpayers to elect to be taxed in respect of financial instruments on the basis of their accounting profits notwithstanding the verdict in Nice Cheer; and

  • The introduction of Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standard 9 Financial Instruments (HKFRS) 9, which makes significant changes to the accounting rules for measuring financial instruments.


The revised DIPN is not legally binding and sets out in some detail the effect of making an election to be taxed on an accounting basis and goes through various examples in the form of different financial instruments. It largely reflects established practice and marks a stepping back from the practice of assessing all taxpayers on unrealised profits as advocated in the previous version. The broad principles of taxation still take precedence over accounting presentation such that (among other things):


  • The distinction between capital and revenue for accounting purposes remains as best indictive for tax purposes and other relevant factors must also be considered;

  • The source of profits still needs to be determined separately;

  • The legal nature of a contract still takes priority over accounting classification, preference share dividends, for example, remain treated as dividends for tax purposes even if accounted for as interest.


Revised DIPN 42 mainly focuses on the case where a taxpayer has elected to be taxed on the accounting basis, although there are general comments on assessing practice and the impact of accounts in the appendix. These continue the IRD’s view that legal form should determine the taxability or deductibility of an item and that accounting entries should only be relevant once the source and nature of the amount has been determined. 




It is not clear how fully these are supposed to apply to companies taxing on the realised basis and given that many companies will not elect to tax on the accounting basis, further guidance on this would be welcome.



The rules on bad and doubtful debts may be of particular interest. While the DIPN makes it clear that the normal restrictions on bad debts do not apply, it paraphrases the legislation in limiting deductions to losses on credit impaired assets. 



In effect, Stage 1 and Stage 2 expected credit losses are not allowed while Stage 3 should be allowed. This has the advantage of reducing the need for additional analysis beyond what is required for the preparation of the accounts and it is hoped that following the logic laid out in the DIPN, the IRD might extend the logic of allowing a deduction for all credit impaired debts to companies also applying the realisation basis. 



The IRD also provides some interesting comments on the deductibility of impaired assets, noting that most trading securities are measured at fair value with changes taken to profit and loss (P&L) and that any movement would therefore be reflected in the tax computation.



However, it also notes that where an asset is held for trading purposes but with fair value differences taken to other income or even recorded at amortised cost, an adjustment can be made in the tax computation as though it were recorded at fair value. It is not clear what sort of evidence the IRD would require to accept the trading intent where a deduction for impairment were being claimed.



Taxpayers should evaluate and consult with their usual tax advisors to weigh out the costs and benefits of adopting the realisation basis or electing to adopt the fair value accounting basis for tax assessment.




Lewis Lu

T: +86 10 8508 5002

E: lewis.lu@kpmg.com



John Timpany

T: +852 2143 8790

E: john.timpany@kpmg.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The UK is ‘heading to Scandinavia’ as its tax burden increases and isn’t creating an attractive environment for a wave of investment, experts have told ITR
Japan, South Korea and Germany increased their R&D tax budgets at a much greater rate over a 14-year period, say RCK Partners and the London Business School
Under the proposed directive, multinationals with numerous EU presences would have to make only one filing to comply with pillar two
Robert Venables of Old Street Tax Chambers had previously brought multiple cases against HMRC on behalf of clients
No further action will be taken in relation to the four cases, however the regulator said it hopes to conclude five remaining investigations into PwC’s tax leaks scandal ‘as soon as possible’
The OECD also reported ‘political issues’ in reaching a consensus on amount B; in other news, PwC introduced new managing director roles as a partnership alternative
Coca-Cola ‘strongly believes’ the IRS and the Tax Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations for its TP dispute over foreign affiliates
Nigeria is pondering the adoption of pillar two despite rejecting it in the past, local experts also suggest
The self-governing UK dependency said that over 95% of Jersey companies will be unaffected by pillar two and that Revenue Jersey is ‘well-equipped’ to implement the rules
Clough, EY’s global tax chief data officer, tells ITR about chasing great ideas, tax’s potential to be an AI hotspot, and what makes tax cool
Gift this article