• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
location icon香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈五樓503室phone-icon +852 2868 0696 linkedintwitterfacebook
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 繁
    • ENG
    • 简
    • FR
    • 日本語
Oldham, Li & Nie
OLN IP Services
close-btn
OLN IP Services
Get bespoke and commercially-driven advice to your Intellectual Property
Learn More
OLN IP Services
OLN Online
close-btn
OLN Online
Powered by Oldham, Li & Nie, the law firm of choice for Hong Kong’s vibrant startup and SME community, OLN Online is a forward-looking and seamless addition to traditional legal services – a true disruptor.
Learn More
OLN IP Services
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處

Suite 503, St. George's Building,
2 Ice House Street, Central, Hong Kong

Tel. +852 2868 0696 | Send Email
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN Blue

OLN

  • Block Content Examples
  • Client Information & Registration
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy (EU)
  • Globalaw
  • OLN Podcasts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Review
  • Test Blog
  • 加入我們
  • 專業服務
  • 律師團隊
  • 我們的歷史
    • 獎項與排名
    • 高李嚴律師行的企業社會責任
  • 所獲獎項
  • 標準服務條款
  • 聯繫我們
  • 評價
  • 評語
  • 辦事處
  • 關於我們
  • 高李嚴律師行
  • 高李嚴律師行和社區
  • 關於
        • 獎項與排名
        • 企業社會責任
  • 專業服務
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 破產法
        • 爭議解決
        • 投資基金
        • 公證服務
        • 長者法律服務
        • 家事法
        • 保險
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 人身傷害法
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 知識產權法
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 日本事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 法國事務
        • 合規、調查和執法
        • 加拿大公證服務
        • 中國事務
        • 家事法
        • 知識產權法
        • 香港僱傭法和商業移民法律服務
        • 保險
        • 金融服務監管部
        • 破產法
        • 私人客戶 – 遺產規劃和遺囑認證
        • 爭議解決
        • 人身傷害法
        • 日本事務
        • 投資基金
        • 稅務諮詢部
        • 商業詐騙和資產追踪
        • 公證服務
        • 法國事務
        • 公司和商業法
        • Startups & Venture Capital
        • 長者法律服務
        • 中國委托公証服務
        • 合規、調查和執法
  • 律師團隊
  • 最新消息
  • 辦事處

香港批出首個原授標準專利註冊

Test Blog

香港批出首個原授標準專利註冊

June 30, 2021 by OLN Marketing

知識產權署於2021年6月4日, 即自申請人提交原授專利申請之日起14個月內, 批出首個原授標準專利註冊。

原授專利制度是於2019年推出的專利制度改革的其中一部份, 為發明人提供可獲取標準專利保護額外之途徑,從而節省了需要先在香港以外的指定司法管轄區提交專利申請,然後在香港進行再註冊的需要。

有關原授專利和專利改革的其餘部分的詳細資訊,請參閱我們較早之前的”香港新專利制度“文章。

如果您就任何有關香港的專利發明保護或其他知識產權保護方面有任何疑問,請隨時與我們的知識產權團隊聯絡 info@oln-ip.com 。

2021年7月

Filed Under: 知識產權法

Wearing Red Soles has a Price

June 22, 2021 by OLN Marketing

Distinction, that was the key. The day Louboutin took his assistant’s nail polish in 1993 and painted the sole of the shoe he was making, he was telling the entire world, or at least the European Union, that shoes with red soles must be Louboutin’s. 

In 2021, the French shoe designer is suing Amazon for trademark infringement… again. 

The worldwide well-known online marketplace is offering High Heeled shoes with red soles, similar to those protected by Louboutin’s trade mark.

The case has been referred by the Luxembourg Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Red Sole Monopoly recognised in 2018 

Louboutin’s red is well protected: on 12th June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Case C-163/16 Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV that a trade mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe may be registered in the EU. 

The Court held that a sign, such as that at issue, cannot, in any event, be regarded as consisting ‘exclusively’ of a shape, where the main element of that sign is a specific colour designated by an internationally recognised identification code. 

Previously, the Paris Court of Appeal had also considered that the application of a colour to a specific location on a product constituted a distinct and protectable trademark. 

Therefore, in the European Union, only Louboutin is allowed to paint the sole of its shoes with the bright red number 18.1663TP in the Pantone colour chart. 

Louboutin vs Amazon  – Chapter 1, Belgium

Marketplaces like Amazon are online sales platforms connecting buyers and sellers. 

Let’s say that a seller other than Louboutin wishes to offer Red Sole Shoes through Amazon. Should Amazon be liable for trademark infringement by a seller on the platform? 

Is the storage of counterfeit goods for sale considered an infringement of trade mark rights in the European Union? 

Amazon was sued by Louboutin in Belgium in order to engage its liability. 

In August 2019, Amazon was found directly liable for the counterfeiting of the red Louboutin sole by a Brussels Court even though Amazon was only in charge of the storage and shipping of the products. 

However, in April 2020, in Coty vs Amazon case, the Court of Justice of the European Union excluded any liability of Amazon judging that only the seller and not the platform has the purpose of offering those goods for sale.

National Courts within the European Union are bound by the Court of Justice of the European Union decisions. Based on the recent Coty Vs Amazon C 567/18 decision, the Brussels Court of Appeal partially overturned Louboutin’s decision in June 2020. Therefore, Louboutin lost its case. 

Louboutin vs Amazon – chapter 2, Luxembourg 

Amazon is evolving, mainly through new services launched during the pandemic. Nowadays, Amazon not only stores and ships the products, but also promotes and advertises counterfeit products through its “Fulfilment by Amazon” offer. This new era of online services could be considered as the platform’s active involvement in the sale of infringing products.

Louboutin has sued Amazon before the Court of Luxembourg. The novelty of the case compared to the 2020 Belgian lawsuit is the “Fulfilment by Amazon” offer.

Is the use of a sign identical with a trade mark in an advertisement displayed on a website attributable to its operator if, in the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user, that operator has played an active part in the preparation of that advertisement or if that advertisement may be perceived by such an internet user as forming part of that operator’s own commercial communication?

Is the shipment, in the course of trade and without the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark, to the final consumer of goods bearing a sign identical with the mark constitutes a use attributable to the shipper only if the shipper has actual knowledge that that sign has been affixed to those goods?

Is such a shipper the user of the sign concerned if the shipper itself or an economically linked entity has previously made an active contribution to the display, in the course of trade, of an advertisement for the goods bearing that sign or has taken the final consumer’s order on the basis of that advertisement?

The Court of Justice of the European Union was seized on those terms by the Luxembourg Court on the 8th of March 2021. 

Given the reasoning of the previous ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, we foresee a different issue for Amazon this time. Since Amazon is now actively promoting the goods, the Court of Justice of the European Union might consider that the platform The expected judgement will be crucial for Amazon services in the entire European Union. 

Are you considering exporting your products to the European Union? OLN’s French Practice and IP Department can assist you to make sure you are not infringing EU trademark law. 

Written: June 2021

Filed Under: 法國事務, 知識產權法

OLN IP Ranked Tier 1 in Copyright/Trademarks in ALB IP Rankings 2021

May 21, 2021 by OLN Marketing

Congratulations to Benjamin Choi and Vera Sung and the rest of the OLN IP team on being listed as a tier 1 firm for Trademarks/Copyright and as a tier 2 firm for Patents in the Asian Legal Business ‘Asia IP Rankings 2021’ for Hong Kong. For more details, please click here.

We are especially proud of this news given OLN IP is new venture. Established by OLN Oldham, Li & Nie on the 1st January 2021, OLN IP is a consultancy led by Benjamin Choi and Vera Sung. It offers tailored, commercially-driven advice to intellectual property owners, across the different IP asset classes, including IP portfolio management. For more details, please click here.

May 2021

Filed Under: 最新消息

Proposed Changes to the Profit Requirement for Main Board IPO

May 17, 2021 by OLN Marketing

Introduction

2020 was a year of turmoil, with the outbreak of COVID-19 in late 2019 and early 2020, global economy experienced the biggest slowdown in recent decades. Despite the economic downturn and the poor market sentiment, the Hong Kong IPO market saw an increase in the total IPO funds raised in 2020 by more than 26% when compared with 2019 totalling HKD397 billion and if compared with 2018, total IPO funds raised rose by 38%, while the total number of new listings dropped by approximately 15% compared with 2019 and by approximately 29% compared with 2018. 

Consultation of the Stock Exchange

The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (“Stock Exchange”) published a number of consultation papers in 2020, out of which the consultation on Corporate WVR Beneficiaries and Main Board Profit Requirement are likely to have bigger impact on the IPO market performance in 2021.

In January 2020, the Stock Exchange published the Consultation Paper on Corporate WVR Beneficiaries (“WVR Beneficiaries Consultation Paper”) proposing to extend the WVR regime to permit corporates to benefit from WVR, subject to appropriate safeguards. 

In November 2020, the Stock Exchange published the Consultation Paper on the Main Board Profit Requirement (“Profit Requirement Consultation Paper”) proposing to increase the profit requirement for Main Board listing applicants. 

The current requirement for a Main Board listing applicant is that the minimum profit attributable to shareholders shall be HKD50 million for the 3 years preceding the application, with HKD20 million for the most recent financial year and an aggregate of HKD30 million for the 2 preceding financial years. In the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper, the Stock Exchange proposed 2 options for the increase:

Option 1: raises the overall profit requirement by 150%, with a minimum profit attributable to shareholders of HKD50 million for the most recent financial year and HKD75 million for the preceding 2 financial years

Option 2: raises the overall profit requirement by 200%, with a minimum profit attributable to shareholders of HKD60 million for the most recent financial year and HKD90 million for the 2 preceding financial years

Reasons for the change

The main reason for this proposed change is that since the increase in the market capitalisation requirement from HKD200 million to HKD500 million in 2018, the implied historical P/E ratio based on the market capitalisation requirement jumped from 10 times to 25 times. The new profit requirement will bring the implied historical P/E ratio of companies only marginally meeting the profit and market capitalisation requirements down to 8-10 times, a level similar to that prior to the market capitalisation increase in 2018. The Stock Exchange has indicated that the proposed increase in profit requirement is aimed at:

  • Deterring creation of shells for subsequent disposal at a profit. 
  • Further distinguishing Main Board from GEM, attracting only sizeable companies that can meet high market standards to list on Main Board.
  • Improving the overall quality of Main board issuers.

Who would be affected most by this proposed increase in profit requirement? Obviously, companies that originally planned to list on GEM, pre-revenue biotech companies and those companies that can meet the new profit requirement will not be affected by this proposal. This proposed increase will surely drive some of the intended applicants who just marginally met the current profit requirement out of the game, unless they turn to list on GEM instead, or wait a few more years until their profits meet the new requirement. The new profit requirement does not only apply to potential Main Board listing applicants, but it also applies to listed issuers who intend to transfer their listing from GEM to the Main Board.

Effect of the new Profit Requirement

With the increase in the profit requirement for new listing applicants, the Stock Exchange expects the number of eligible companies to drop drastically. Based on the number of applications received by the Stock Exchange between 2016 and 2019, about 60% of the applicants would have become ineligible for listing upon adoption of either Option 1 or Option 2 of the new profit requirement.

Companies in early stage of development or small to medium-sized companies which have lower profits will be affected by the new profit requirement. But this does not mean they will be refused access to the capital market at all. These companies can still apply to list on GEM and raise funds for their future development. They still can transfer their listing to Main Board once they are able to meet the new Main Board profit requirement.

Transitional arrangement

The Stock Exchange acknowledges that there are companies who may have already commenced their listing project on the basis of the current profit requirement. As the new profit requirement is expected to come into effect not earlier than 1 July 2021, the Stock Exchange believes that there should be sufficient time for these potential applicants to prepare and submit their listing applications prior to the new profit requirement coming into effect. 

As indicated in the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper, applications submitted prior to the new profit requirement becoming effective will be assessed under the current profit requirement, provided that such applications have not lapsed for more than 3 months, been withdrawn, rejected or returned by the Stock Exchange. All applications submitted prior to the new profit requirement effective date will be allowed to be renewed ONCE after the new profit requirement effective date if the renewal is submitted within 3 calendar months after the original application is lapsed such that the application will continue to be assessed under the current profit requirement. But any further renewal of applications after the first renewal will be subject to assessment under the new profit requirement.

It should be noted that any applicant who has submitted their listing application prior to the new profit requirement coming into effect will not be permitted to withdraw their application and re-submit again just shortly before the new rules’ effective date such that the application will have a longer period of assessment and vetting under the current profit requirement.

Temporary relief

This may even apply to companies which might otherwise have fulfilled the new profit requirement but for the economic downturn in 2020 which caused its final year of profit attributable to shareholders to drop below the proposed new threshold. In the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper, Stock Exchange raised a point on whether temporary relief shall be granted to good quality companies with strong historical financial performance whose financial results were adversely affected by COVID-19 if certain conditions were met. If such temporary relief is adopted by the Stock Exchange, any potential company seeking such relief shall submit an application to the Stock Exchange for consideration on a case-by-case basis. As it is unclear whether this temporary relief will eventually be adopted after the consultation, it would seem unwise for companies to wait for the consultation conclusion rather than submitting their listing application prior to the effective date of the new profit requirement. If it turns out the temporary relief is not adopted, these companies may lose the chance of submitting their application before the new rule comes into effect, and will have to wait until they meet the new profit requirement.  

Conditions for granting temporary relief:

1. Aggregate profit during Track Record Period (TRP) meets the aggregate proposed profit requirement;
2. Positive cash flow from operating activities from ordinary course of business;
3. Circumstances affecting the financial performance is only temporary;
4. At least 6 months of TRP falls in 2020;
5. Sufficient disclosure on the likelihood of recurrence of circumstances affecting its financial performance plus mitigation measures undertaken plus profit forecast covering 1 full financial year after listing

GEM transfer of listing

Since the publication of the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper, sponsors have been actively pursuing potential cases trying to persuade and convince interested companies considering listing on the Main Board or a transfer to the Main Board from GEM to kick start the process in order to meet the last day for submission prior to the new rules becoming effective such that their applications will still be considered and assessed under the current profit requirement. 

Outlook for 2021

Since the proposed change in the profit requirement, if eventually adopted, will only come into effect not earlier than 1 July 2021 together with the proposed transitional arrangements which apply to applications filed before the effective date of the new rules, we can most certainly expect a surge in the number of new listing applications and transfer of listing applications to be submitted prior to the effective date of the new profit requirement. Applicants who have commenced their IPO or transfer of listing projects will definitely speed up their process with a view to submit the application before the new rule comes into effect. Even the Stock Exchange indicated in the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper that it is expected the number of applications will increase before the new rules come into effect. In fact, the Stock Exchange has accepted 102 Main Board listing applications since 1 January 2021 which is more than the combined applications for July to December 2020. Just in April 2021 the Stock Exchange has accepted 33 Main Board listing applications. It is very likely that the expected increase in number of both Main Board listing applications and GEM transfer applications will inevitably delay the process and vetting time of applications, whether these applications can proceed to listing within the original 6 months plus the additional 6 months of a renewed application under these circumstances in order to rely on the current profit requirement remain to be seen.

Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act

In addition to the proposed new profit requirement, the passing of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA) by the US government in December 2020 will also be a driving force for more US-listed Chinese companies to apply for secondary listing on the Stock Exchange pursuant to Chapter 19C of the Listing Rules. The Act requires auditors of US listed foreign companies to allow the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to inspect their audit work papers as a means to protect investors and further public interests in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit report. If a company fails to comply with this for 3 consecutive years, the Act requires that the SEC prohibit the securities of such company from being traded on a national securities exchange, including OTC trading.  will render the company liable to be delisted from the US stock exchange. 

With the HFCAA becoming law in the US, and the successful homecoming listings of US-listed Chinese companies in Hong Kong in 2020, we can expect the number of homecoming listings of US-listed Chinese companies to continue to grow in 2021. Amongst the top 10 largest IPOs in terms of funds raised in 2020, three of which are secondary listing of NASDAQ primary listed Chinese companies, ranking first, third and sixth. All three of these secondary listing companies are in the TMT sector, their total funds raised comprised 18.5% of the total IPO funds raised in 2020. TMT continues to be the hottest sector ranking first in terms of total funds raised in the Hong Kong IPO market in 2019 and 2020.

Consultation Conclusion on Corporate WVR Beneficiaries

The Consultation Conclusion on Corporate WVR Beneficiaries published in October 2020 further opened the gate for Greater China Issuers (having centre of gravity in Greater China) that are:

1.    controlled by one corporate WVR beneficiary (or a group of corporate beneficiaries acting in concert) which is the largest shareholder in terms of shareholders’ votes and such votes controlled by the WVR beneficiary is not less than 30% of the total shareholders’ votes (at or before 30 Oct 2020); and 
2.    primary listed on a Qualifying Exchange (being NYSE, NASDAQ and London Stock Exchange Main Market and belonging to the Premium Listing segment) on or before 30 October 2020,

to apply for secondary listing in Hong Kong.

These issuers, known as Qualifying Corporate WVR Issuers, will be treated in the same way as the Grandfathered Greater China Issuers under Chapter 19C of the Listing Rules. Qualifying Corporate WVR Issuers seeking to secondary list on the Stock Exchange shall be an innovative company and shall satisfy the qualifications for listing set out in Chapter 19C of the Listing Rules.

The total number of new listings in 2020 under the new listing regime, i.e. biotech companies, innovative companies with weighted voting rights structures and concessionary secondary listings, was 27, compared with 11 in 2019 and 7 in 2018, showing an increase by 145% and 286% respectively. 

Conclusion

The consultation period for the change in Main Board profit requirement ended on 1 February, the consultation conclusion is not yet available when this article is published. We will find out when the consultation conclusion is published which option the Stock Exchange will adopt.

In the 3 months since the Stock Exchange published the Profit Requirement Consultation Paper, the Stock Exchange has accepted a total of 44 new listing applications (including transfer of listing applications and Reverse Takeover) in November, December 2020 and January 2021. As rightly predicted by the Stock Exchange, the number of new listing applications (including transfer of listing applications and Reverse Takeover) accepted by the Stock Exchange in the three months between February and April 2021 almost doubled, totalling 85 applications. We shall see whether the number of applications accepted in the coming months prior to the new profit requirement coming into effect will continue to increase.

If you wish to learn more about listing in Hong Kong, please feel free to speak to our Simon Wong.

Simon Wong
+852 2186 1848 / +852 9460 9816
simon.wong@oln-law.com
Partner, Corporate & Commercial
Oldham, Li & Nie

May 2021

Filed Under: 公司和商業法

您為全球的稅務改革作好準備嗎?

May 6, 2021 by OLN Marketing

~討論跨國公司應如何應對經合組織就自動信息交換及轉讓定價問題的新措施~

AEOI和CRS –對逃稅的收緊控制措施

隨着世界全球化,跨境經濟活動近幾十年來已成常態。從前,跨國公司(MNC)會採取較進取的稅務策略,將其公司利潤大部分藏於避稅天堂內。由於這些避稅天堂過往很少與外國稅務機關分享資料,因此世界各國的稅務部門往往難以搜集納稅人的離岸資產和交易資料及在其國家管轄範圍內針對有關納稅人進行稅收評估。為堵塞這些漏洞,經合組織開始率領國際實施自動信息交換(Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI))和採用通用報告標準(Common Reporting System (CRS))。

為確保參與國能在信息分享交換上互惠互利,參與國的金融機構必須定期向當地稅務機關提供財務信息,然後將其轉交至海外稅務機關,以換取其他參與國司法管轄區所提供的相關信息。值得注意的是,截至2020年6月,已有100多個司法管轄區同意實施AEOI。

政策對我有什麼影響?

假設您是國家A的稅務居民,並且在國家B擁有離岸資產或收入。如果兩個國家都承諾遵守AEOI,國家B將有義務向國家A的稅務部門自動分享您的財務信息,以便該稅務部門追縱您的跨國境外投資,並進行避稅調查和執行違規行為。在新的披露制度下,涵蓋的信息包括稅務申報和財務報表、公司董事/股東、公司註冊、權益、股息、賬戶餘額、金融資產的銷售收益等,令透過非披露(non-disclosure)作避稅的方法極為困難,而納稅人居住地亦會針對其離岸而未申報的金融資產作出調查。

香港於2016年已就《稅務條例》進行修訂,以提高稅收透明度和打擊跨境逃稅。香港政府與合作管轄區夥伴之間訂立了雙邊協議後,雙方便可進行有關信息交換。直至2020年初,香港須報告的管轄區已增加到126個,法律亦要求香港的金融機構收集個人/公司賬戶持有人的信息及其金融賬戶信息,以便與其他管轄區進行信息交換。此外,香港的金融機構必須要求帳戶持有人填寫自我證明表格(self-certification form)以宣告其稅務居民身份,任何蓄意就居民身份作出虛假陳述的人士都有可能須負上刑事責任。

由於AEOI制度相對較新, 有關CRS制度下的潛在缺陷的新聞時有報導。例如,許多離岸司法管轄區仍未有公眾公司查冊制度,而最終受益人身份亦可能無法確定。但是,隨著CRS制度日益完善,過去透過離岸公司用作保密的做法將被逐步淘汰。

重點

隨着全球稅務透明度提高,公司內部的法律專業人士應在實施任何跨境交易(尤其當某些離岸金融信息可能會被披露並向其本國機關報告)前,向他們的稅務顧問徵詢意見。值得留意的是,它們可能不再基於保密或客戶機密的原因而受到保護。此外,由於AEOI制度可能會在某些司法管轄區起追溯作用,因此,有外國業務的公司也應審查過往的交易,並確保已經充分披露有關稅務資料,以避免因為將來面對調查而受罰。
 
轉讓定價是如何運作?

如上所述,稅務機關會經常密切注視跨國公司,確保其運作不會將其利潤轉移到海外公司。“轉讓定價”是一種經常會受到挑戰和審查的稅務策略。跨國公司可透過“轉讓定價”人為地確定關聯公司之間的定價,以降低整個集團的稅務負擔。當一間公司位於高稅率管轄區而另一家關聯海外公司處於低稅率管轄區時,轉讓定價是一種常見的安排。試想像,當公司A是一間中國半導體製造商,而公司B是一家在香港成立促進全球銷售的貿易公司,集團便有機會通過壓低公司A的產品價格來操縱關聯公司間的定價,令集團的製造利潤的一部分在出售予第三方最終客戶前從中國轉移到香港,並享受香港更優惠的稅率。以下圖表解釋這種情況。

世界各地的稅務機關已積極採取措施透過反避稅立法防止人為價格操縱以打擊其徵稅收入。雖然各個司法管轄區的立法細節或有所不同,其共同目標均是以公平交易(arm’s length)為原則,要求定價按非關聯方間進行的交易釐訂。我們以下將簡介香港有關轉讓定價的法律和實務的最新情況。

香港的轉讓定價(TP)

在2018年的立法修訂前,《稅務條例》第20條(現已廢除)是一條過往長期被用作處理轉讓定價問題的法律。根據該條文,如果一個非香港居民與一個與它有密切聯繫的居民展開業務,而這些業務的安排導致該香港居民沒有產生香港利潤或低於一般交易的利潤,該非香港居民的業務將會因被視為在香港展開業務而被香港當局徵稅。現時,香港的轉讓定價問題主要按第50AAF條連同其他反避稅條款來處理。如果兩個關聯方之間的交易(i)有異於兩個獨立個體之間的交易和(ii)賦予潛在的香港稅收利益,該條文則授權香港稅務局按公平交易原則對收入或支出進行轉讓定價的調整。這原則與經合組織的《2017 OECD移轉訂價報告指導原則》(2017年7月發布)對應,並從2018年4月1日(即2018/19稅務年度)起開始生效。值得注意的是,納稅人有責任證明交易是否以公平交易進行,如果他們不能滿足香港稅務局的要求,稅務局可能會做出相應的轉讓定價調整。

三層架構的轉讓定價文件 

總體檔案和分部檔案

縱使新法律已經出台,我們了解到香港的一些企業並未得悉他們可能須符合三層架構的轉讓定價文件要求。事實上,自2018年4月起,香港稅務局會要求任何從事關聯交易的香港實體準備一個總體檔案(Master File)和一個分部檔案(Local File)。它們必須在提交報稅表時披露他們是否需要準備任何轉讓定價相關的文件。然而,如果某實體在一個指定的會計期間至少符合以下兩個豁免標準,則可獲豁免擬備有關文件。

•    跨國公司集團的總收入不超過4億美元。
•    資產總價值不超過3億美元;和/或
•    平均僱員人數不超過100人。

此外,如果相關的關聯交易不超過以下金額,香港公司就不需要準備分部檔案。

•    物業轉讓(無論是動產還是不動產,但不包括金融資產和無形資產) – 2.2億港元。
•    金融資產的交易 – 1.1億港元。
•    無形資產的轉讓 – 1.1億港元;以及
•    其他交易 – 4400萬港元。

香港稅務局已經發表了《釋義及執行指引》第58號,訂下了總體檔案和分部檔案的詳細內容。例如,總體檔案必須包含公司集團的概況(包括全球業務的運營和轉讓定價政策),以便香港稅務局評估任何重大的貿易風險。至於分部檔案方面,公司必須記錄企業在每個司法管轄區內的詳細交易的轉讓定價信息,包括交易細節、涉及金額和與這些交易有關的轉讓定價可比性分析。

國別報告

若然跨國公司集團在上一個會計期間的綜合集團收入至少為68億港元,而該集團在兩個或更多司法管轄區擁有組成實體或業務,那麼該集團亦必須提交一份國別報告。該報告應包括全球收入分配、已繳稅款以及跨國企業集團經營的稅收管轄區之間的經濟活動位置的某些指標。

轉讓定價可比性分析

該原則規定了五種轉讓定價方法,以便進行可比性研究時確定關聯交易是否符合公平交易原則。確定合適的轉讓定價分析方法是一項非常技術性的工作,此分析已超出了本文的範圍。然而,律師需要注意,稅務顧問通常會根據納稅人所從事的行業或商業活動利用外部數據庫進行財務數據的搜尋,並確立與同一國家內關聯交易可相比較的數據,如沒有相關數據的話,則會使用亞洲或世界其他地區類似市場以作比較。在許多情況下,四分位數範圍等統計學概念會被用作確定關聯交易是否符合公平交易原則。

懲罰

考慮到轉讓定價的不精確性,香港稅務局已將懲罰上限訂低於其他違反稅例的水平,對不遵守該規則的處罰限於少繳稅款的100%(而不是3倍)。如果納稅人已作出合理的努力來確定公平交易的金額,則不會被徵收額外的稅款。香港稅務局亦認為,準備一份帶有可比性分析的分部檔案將被視為這方面的合理努力,而漏報或少報收入的處罰則較為嚴厲。

重點

對香港稅務局而言,確定哪些公司有義務提交轉讓定價文件並不困難。 很多時候,由於香港稅務局並未向納稅人提出要求,企業並沒有意識到新法規對他們的直接影響。 因此,除非法定豁免範圍適用,跨國公司可能會因不遵守有關規定而誤墮法網。 因此,我們建議他們在進行有關關聯交易前儘早作出準備。鑑於上述涉及技術性問題,公司應徵詢會計和法律專家的意見以減低轉讓定價潛在的風險。

Filed Under: 稅務諮詢部

We Need to Talk About Your Website Terms of Use

May 5, 2021 by OLN Marketing

We know that you’re busy developing your MVP and growing your business but we need to talk about your website and specifically, your Terms of Use (sometimes referred to as Terms & Conditions or Terms of Service and abbreviated as “ToU” or “ToUs”).

We need to talk about them because the risks associated with operating a website with inadequate ToUs (or none at all) are huge. By “huge”, I mean that they could result in lawsuits or reputational loss that could bankrupt your business.

So, let’s briefly examine those risks and how to manage them. We can start by looking at the typical dangers of using your website as an extension of and/or marketing portal for your business.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Firstly, in Hong Kong, websites are not legally required to have any ToUs unless they are used for collecting or using data that could be used to identify users, in which case they are required to at least contain a suitable privacy policy that satisfies our privacy laws. Failure to comply will result in heavy fines. Furthermore, if the website is intended to be used by users in other countries, it may also need to comply with privacy laws there.

Even if your website isn’t legally required to have a privacy policy, ToUs are still worth having, to avoid or minimise the impact of things that can go wrong. Businesses use various kinds of contracts to deal with third parties for the same reason.

Here are just a few examples of the kind of things that can go wrong with various kinds of websites: 

  • Digital bulletin board-type businesses normally sell advertising space, allowing users to post content on the website, usually in exchange for payment. Without appropriate protections in their ToUs, such businesses will be liable for whatever content is posted even if that content is illicit. They may also become the target of complaints and lawsuits if service interruptions prevent the bulletin board from operating after advertisers have paid to advertise. 
  • A digital payment operator like AsiaPay or Ezypay will usually have full e-commerce capabilities, allowing users to access a source of funds and arrange delivery to a designated recipient. Most will request and store only the minimum information required to complete the transaction but nevertheless that information is potentially at risk of being used for improper/illegal purposes. A rival business owner might launch a DDOS attack to disable the website or a hacker could deface the website to diminish goodwill or make a political statement. 
  • Although school websites typically store a lot of information (i.e.: about the school, its academic programs, and its faculty, etc.), they seldom feature any e-commerce capabilities. Their intended use is primarily for users to access and take note of information but again, that information may be stolen or illegally altered without being detected. 
  • A bank’s website might conceivably feature all of the above operational features as well as provide connections to third party websites offering various non-bank services or goods. Criminals often use bank websites to gain access to customer records for the purpose of later committing fraud. 

Also keep in mind that any services available on your websites might be interrupted either due to failure of a designated internet content provider (ICP) or a server or other hosting medium. Alternatively, the software responsible for conducting business on your website could malfunction, resulting in transactions that are not recorded, products not being delivered, and refunds not processed. 

Without suitable exclusions of liability set out in ToUs, the worst possible outcome won’t just be loss of confidence in your brand; your business could be sued and held liable for any losses that customers suffer due to interruptions or failures. 

However, an appropriate set of ToUs can avoid or limit the impact of all of the above risks.

How ToUs Can Protect Your Business

The primary role that ToUs play is to regulate how the website can be used and by whom. They function like the terms and conditions of a conventional written contract because they are regarded as legally enforceable contracts that you stipulate.

All websites engaged in e-commerce should contain suitable terms of sale (i.e.: addressing pricing, refunds, shipping policies, risk of loss, etc.). They should also include limited representations and warranties tailored to the business, so that potential liabilities for certain foreseeable events such as interruption/suspension of service, late delivery and/or loss of data, will be excluded. 

Websites that are merely used to project an online presence for the business (but not involved with selling goods or services) still need ToUs but the scope of protections will usually be more limited because the risks associated with operating such websites are more limited.

In other words, ToUs are essentially risk management tools: by ensuring that all necessary protections are spelt out in the ToUs, you will set clear expectations for users and hopefully avoid most disputes. And, for any disputes which you cannot unavoid, the scope of liability will be reduced because users will be legally bound by your ToUs. 

Final Comments

Online businesses need to comply with all relevant laws as well as exercise appropriate oversight over the use of their websites to ensure that the business is fully protected and not prone to embarrassing lapses that might reduce public confidence in them. 

We know that you’re busy and you might not have budgeted for any legal expenses but now that we have highlighted some of the legal risks involved with operating your website, would it be prudent to take your website ‘live’ without a properly curated set of ToUs? Would you risk waiting to install a sprinkler system in your business until after it has been destroyed by fire?

In addition to helping to limit your legal risks, a set of properly drafted ToUs can also serve as an effective “blueprint” for your business, outlining the appropriate procedures that users need to follow in order to complete their purchase or other desired functions. It tells users that you are complying with the law and best practices. 

If your website currently doesn’t have proper ToUs or if your business has scaled significantly since the ToUs were first prepared, now would be a good time to have them reviewed by a lawyer.  

We have helped develop ToUs for clients in nearly every conceivable sector and won’t over-complicate the process. We can also give you sensible advice about whether or not to incorporate a privacy policy and/or a cookies policy.

May 2021

Filed Under: 公司和商業法

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 19
  • Page 20
  • Page 21
  • Page 22
  • Page 23
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 54
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

This website uses cookies to optimise your experience and to collect information to customise content. By closing this banner, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. Please read the cookies section of our Privacy Policy to learn more. Learn more

Footer

OLN logo

香港中環雪厰街二號聖佐治大廈
五樓503室

電話 +852 2868 0696 | 電郵我們
關於 律師團隊 辦事處 OLN IP Services 私隱政策
專業服務 最新消息 加入我們 OLN Online
關於 專業服務 律師團隊 最新消息 辦事處
加入我們 OLN IP Services OLN Online 私隱政策
linkedin twitter facebook
OLN logo

© 2025 Oldham, Li & Nie. All Rights Reserved.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}
聯絡我們

請在此處分享您的訊息的詳細資訊。我們將盡快與您聯繫。

    x