Tax treatment of terminal payments

Written By

diana purdy Module
Diana Purdy

Partner
China

I am a partner leading the Greater China Employment team comprising lawyers in Hong Kong and China. I also co-lead the firm's CSR and D&I Committees in Hong Kong. I have over 27 years of experience handling the full range of employment matters, including advising on contracts, policies and handbooks, contentious terminations, investigations, discrimination claims, restrictive covenants, absence issues, performance management, executive compensation, transfers of employment, M&A, variation of contracts, bonus issues, employment litigation, remote working, data privacy, restructuring and international employment projects.

Poon Cho-Ming, John v Commissioner of Inland Revenue FACV 1/2019 [2019] HKCFA 38

In November, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Commissioner's appeal and reaffirmed the long-standing position that payments made in return for services of employment are taxable.  

Summary of Facts

Mr Poon was employed as an executive director and the Group Chief Financial Officer with a multinational company.  He was terminated by the company, and threatened to escalate the matter to the shareholders. To avoid an acrimonious and costly dispute, the company entered into a separation agreement with Mr Poon, under which he would receive a payment in lieu of any discretionary bonus ("Sum") and acceleration of the vesting schedule of certain option shares granted to him by the company ("Share Option Gain").

Decision

The key issue

The Court was asked to consider whether the Sum and Share Option Gain were chargeable to salaries tax.

Analysis

The Court relied on the landmark decision in Fuchs v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2011) 14 HKCFAR 74, and distinguished between (i) payments made as a reward for past, present, or future services in employment, and (ii) payments made to discharge obligations other than pursuant to the terms of a contract of employment.  Payments, including terminal payments, made under ground (i) fall within the operation of the Inland Revenue Ordinance ("Ordinance") and are chargeable to salaries tax. In contrast, payments made under ground (ii) fall outside the operation of the Ordinance and are non-taxable.

When determining whether the Sum and Share Option Gain are chargeable to salaries tax, the Court found that Mr Poon had no existing contractual entitlement to either of these payments. Applying Fuchs, the Sum and Share Option Gain were not paid as a reward for the services of Mr Poon, but for him to go quietly.  Therefore, both the Sum and the Share Option Gain were not taxable.

Key Takeaways

  • This landmark decision clarifies the tax treatment of terminal payments. The key is the purpose for which the money is paid – if the payment is made in accordance with the contract of employment, or to reward services of employment, then the payment is taxable.
  • The definitive judgment is relevant in negotiations of terminal payments between the employer and the employee, and in the construction of separation agreements.
 

Latest insights

More Insights
Pair of glasses

Frontline UK Employment Law Update Edition 36 2025 - Case Updates

May 28 2025

Read More
Crowds crossing lines 782x440

UK Government’s White Paper: Restoring Control over the Immigration System

May 28 2025

Read More
Curiosity line blue background

Political agreement reached over the revised EWC Directive

2 minutes May 23 2025

Read More