Hong Kong SAR’s IRD issues guidance on tax issues arising from COVID-19

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Hong Kong SAR’s IRD issues guidance on tax issues arising from COVID-19

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
The IRD guidance should be welcomed by many businesses

Lewis Lu and John Timpany of KPMG discuss the Inland Revenue Department’s views on COVID-19 and the potential tax implications for taxpayers.

COVID-19 has brought border closures and unprecedented disruption to the global business environment for more than 18 months.  

Many companies have had to change the way in which they operate, and employees have been forced to work in locations outside their usual place of employment.  On July 29 2021, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) issued guidance examining certain tax issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic (the IRD guidance). The IRD guidance outlines the IRD’s general views around tax issues relating to tax residence of companies and individuals, permanent establishment, employment income of cross-border employees and transfer pricing (TP).

The IRD’s views and approach in relation to the above tax issues are generally in line with the ‘Updated guidance on tax treaties and the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic' (the COVID-19 tax treaty guidance) and ‘Guidance on the transfer pricing implications of the COVID-19 pandemic' (the COVID-19 TP guidance) released by the OECD in December 2020 and January 2021, respectively. 

It is worth noting, however, the IRD guidance is not legally binding and only represents the IRD’s general views. Each case will be assessed based on its own facts and circumstances. For a detailed discussion of our comments on the IRD guidance and the OECD Secretariat’s analysis of the impact of COVID-19, please refer to KPMG’s Hong Kong Tax Alerts Issue 8, August 2021 and Issue 6, April 2020 respectively.

The IRD guidance should be welcomed by many businesses as it provides a degree of reassurance for taxpayers that may have employees temporarily stranded overseas a result of these restrictions.

Whilst it is good to see the IRD generally following the OECD’s views, the guidance does not cover situations where potential tax liabilities may arise under domestic tax law due to a change in which businesses are being forced to operate or are managed or controlled during the pandemic. This is particularly relevant for cross-border workers who, habitually travel overseas to perform services or conclude contracts on behalf of their employers, are now being forced to work in Hong Kong SAR because of the travel restrictions. This is a situation commonly faced by many businesses during this period and such taxpayers may have treated part of or all of their profits as offshore sourced and non-taxable.

Given Hong Kong SAR’s territorial system of taxation, the territorial concept fundamentally requires taxpayers to determine the location where the profits are derived and profits which have an offshore source are generally not taxed in Hong Kong.  

Taxpayers with an offshore profits claim may therefore find themselves in a predicament and risk such profits being challenged and regarded as Hong Kong SAR sourced as a result of their employees performing profit generating activities in Hong Kong SAR during the pandemic. Further clarification from the IRD would be welcomed in this regard.

Nevertheless, the IRD Guidance should provide a degree of reassurance for taxpayers in determining their tax positions during the pandemic – if they can apply a double tax agreement. If a double tax agreement cannot apply, the guidance is only helpful in that it confirms that no concession or relaxation will be accepted by IRD.

Notwithstanding the guidance, employers who have employees that are temporarily dislocated should continue to monitor their circumstances and the government travel rules regulations closely to assess whether if it is really a temporarily dislocation as a result of COVID-19 or a matter of choice.

In particular, consideration should be taken that this guidance given by the IRD only applies to the interpretation of tax treaties and the application of transfer pricing principles. The IRD Guidance does not apply to the interpretation of domestic law nor where the dislocation of the employee is by choice, rather than being imposed by restrictions arising from external factors. Taxpayers should tread with caution and work closely with their tax advisors to carefully assess their tax positions during the pandemic. 

Lewis Lu

Partner, KPMG China

E: lewis.lu@kpmg.com

 

John Timpany

Partner, KPMG China

E: john.timpany@kpmg.com

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Despite the Netherlands featuring an unusual concentration of World Tax-ranked technology-led providers, sources believe there’s a long way to go to challenge the established players
Ethics seems to be playing a subservient role to an entitlement culture borne out of a pervasive ‘revenue at all costs’ mentality at the big four
Historical World Tax data suggests the ‘largest law firm merger in history’ may not pose a serious threat to the world's leading tax practices
The repeal of Libya’s statute of limitations and tougher enforcement leave taxpayers navigating a high-stakes choice between conciliation and litigation
Gift this article