Stefano accepts instructions in tax disputes and appeals to the specialist tax tribunals and higher Courts. From his experience in Hong Kong, he also accepts instructions in matters engaging the tax codes of other common law jurisdictions in East Asia and the Caribbean whose revenue statutes are based on the Model Income Tax Ordinance and the Stamp Act 1891. He also has extensive experience advising on trusts disputes and matters relating to charities.
Barristers in England and Wales are regulated by the Bar Standards Board
Stefano advises on both personal and corporate tax planning, with a focus on cross-border matters and international taxation. From his experience as the head of the tax practice in the oldest and largest domestic law firm in Hong Kong, he collaborated with some of the most prominent corporate tax teams in the City of London on corporate structuring and restructuring with Asia-Pacific elements. He is also experienced in structuring remuneration packages for executives in the investment and fund management industries.
Stefano accepts instructions to assist in matters engaging the tax codes in common law jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean, which, like Hong Kong, are derived from the Model Income Tax Ordinance and the Stamp Act 1891.
Stefano is experienced in handling all stages of tax inquiries, audits, and disputes. He has collaborated closely with ‘Big 4’ accounting firms in successfully resolving tax disputes by way of negotiated settlement with the revenue. His recent successes have included successfully settling a tax appeal shortly before it was scheduled to be heard before the Inland Revenue Board of Review (broadly, equivalent to the UK First-tier Tribunal) entirely in favour of the taxpayer, a European pharmaceuticals multinational, thereby obtaining the repayment of around £20 million of tax, and a tax inquiry by the Inland Revenue Department on the deductibility of payments made by a Hong Kong conglomerate to the Government with respect to the exploitation of a natural resource extraction site. He has also successfully negotiated the settlement of complex stamp duty appeals, recently including matters arising from the transfer of shares following the dissolution of a Luxembourg law trust and from a sale and leaseback agreement of an industrial property in Hong Kong.
Stefano accepts instructions in all areas of revenue practice including corporate, international, employment, private client, VAT, SDLT, Stamp Taxes, customs and excise duty, and international tax. Stefano has appeared as sole advocate before the Inland Revenue Board of Review, Magistrates’ Court, District Court, Court of First Instance, and Court of Appeal in Hong Kong. For illustrative experience, please refer to Featured Cases.
With experience in Jersey and Hong Kong, Stefano assists clients in all areas of revenue involving the revenue law codes of other common law jurisdictions and, in particular, those in the Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean whose revenue law codes present analogous concepts and principles to the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Ordinance and Stamp Duty Ordinance.
Stefano advises on the structuring and restructuring of trusts, and trusts disputes. He also advises charities in all constitutional and contentious matters, including disputes with the revenue and/or charities regulator.
Nomura Funds Ireland Plc v Collector of Stamp Revenue [2019] HKDC 406; [2019] HKDC 852; [2021] 3 HKLRD 744
Acted for the duty-payer in a leading stamp duty appeal to the Court of Appeal on whether the merger of two UCITS involving the transfer by operation of law of beneficial ownership of shares listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange was dutiable and, separately, whether stamp duty refunded by the Collector of Stamp Revenue was repayable with interest.
Heath Brian Zarin v CIR [2020] 2 HKLRD 229; [2020] HKCA 147; [2021] HKCFI 1846
CIR v Heath Brian Zarin [2022] HKCA 412
Acted for the taxpayer in a complex set of appeals and Revenue cross-appeals on whether post-cessation payments made to the taxpayer pursuant to a severance agreement were chargeable to salaries tax (broadly, Schedule E income).
Tse Sum Ping v Collector of Stamp Revenue [2021] HKEC 1219; [2021] HKEC 4465
Acted for the duty-payer on whether it was open to the Revenue to impute a resulting trust or constructive trust with respect to an intra-family arrangement for the acquisition of property for the purposes of assessing Buyer’s Stamp Duty.
Jeremy Gar Yin Ip & Ors v Secretary for Justice [2021] HKEC 4870
Acted for a prominent English language school in Hong Kong in application to liberalise the terms of a charitable trust in order to make it consistent with the current social and demographic composition of the school.
Newfair Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2022] HKEC 1434
Acted for the taxpayer in an appeal from the decision of the Inland Revenue Board of Review (broadly equivalent to the First-tier Tax Tribunal in the UK) on whether the source of profits arising from the sale of merchandise manufactured in Mainland China and sold in Europe via a Hong Kong incorporated company was chargeable to profits tax in Hong Kong.
Inland Revenue Board of Review D18/22 36 IRBRD 699
Acted for the taxpayer in a tax appeal relating to the validity for salaries tax purposes (broadly equivalent to Schedule E income) of a dual-employment contract he had concluded with different employers in the same corporate group, respectively in Hong Kong and Macau, including resisting the claims advanced by the Revenue that the dual-contract arrangement fell within the ambit of the general anti-avoidance provisions in ss.61 – 61A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance.
Besins Healthcare (Hong Kong) Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (No.2) [2022] 1 HKLRD 224; [2022] 4 HKLRD 939
Acted for the taxpayer in an application for judicial review against the decision of the Revenue not to refund tax paid, but agreed by the parties not to be due, when the assessments under which the tax had been paid were still under appeal.
John Wiley & Sons UK2 LLP & Anor v Collector of Stamp Revenue (No.2) [2022] HKDC 716; [2022] HKDC 1078 (under appeal)
Acted for the duty-payer in a leading stamp duty appeal (now under appeal to the Court of Appeal) on whether relief under s.45 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (essentially, s.42 of the Finance Act 1930) can extend to a transfer from a UK limited liability partnership to a Delaware limited liability company, despite the former not having “issued share capital”.
Re The K.S. Shahani Trust [2023] 1 HKLRD 512
Acted for the beneficiary of a family trust in an application to discharge the professional trustee of the trust on the grounds that it had a conflict of interest.
Servicemen’s Guides Association v Commissioner of Inland Revenue D2/22 36 IRBRD 551; [2023] HKEC 71
Acted for a nonprofit organisation in an appeal against the decision of the Revenue to cease to treat the appellant organisation as a charitable institution exempt from tax under s.88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance.
Pamela Aldred & Anor v Castle Fiduciaries & Anor [2023] HKCFI 1325 (led by Victor Joffe KC, SC) [2023] HKCI 1325; [2023] HKCFI 2366
Acted for the trustee of a family trust in a complex interlocutory application on whether: (1) the plaintiff beneficiary had standing to bring an action against the trustee; (2) the trustee should make interim disclosure of information and documentation relating to the trust; and (3) the injunction restraining the trustee from disposing of trust property should be continued until substantive adjudication of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Patrick Cox Asia Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2023] HKEC 3893
Acted for the taxpayer in an appeal on whether royalties arising from the licensing of intellectual property rights in Japan were taxable in Hong Kong and whether a lump sum payment paid in connection with the conclusion of a joint venture with a Japanese partner was a capital or income receipt (under appeal to the Court of Appeal).
1. This is a privacy notice that describes how, why and for how long I will process or keep your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’).
2. The GDPR governs how an individual’s personal data is used, and your rights in relation to that data.
3. I, Stefano Mariani, have been instructed by you or your litigation friend (usually a parent), through your solicitor or agent, or via the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
4. It is necessary for me to process your personal data in order for me to provide you with legal services, for example:
5. Processing means anything done to data such as: recording, organising, adapting, altering, copying, consulting, transmitting, combining, erasing or storing it.
6.The processing for the purposes listed above will take place in accordance with either Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, depending on how you instructed me.
7. If you have instructed me on a direct access basis, or engaged a solicitor (or legal agent), to assist you in bringing or defending a claim then the processing is necessary to perform a contract to which you are a party (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). To give effect to that contract (i.e. to bring a claim) it is necessary for me to process your personal data for litigation purposes.
8. If I am assisting you on a pro bono basis, it will be necessary for me to seek your consent to be able to represent you (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR). In this scenario, you will be sent a consent form.
Recipients of your data
9. I may also be required to share your data with others, depending on the nature of your case. This may include:
(i) Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;
(ii) Your solicitors, or agent representing you, through whom I have been instructed;
(iii) Potential witnesses, experts and other persons involved in the case;
(iv) Solicitors, barristers, or other legal representatives;
(v) Ombudsman and regulatory authorities;
(vi) Education and examining bodies; and
(vii) Current, past or prospective employers.
Special Categories of Data
10. In some cases I will have been given your personal data that is within the ‘special categories’ of data described in GDPR Article 9(1). For example, personal data that reveals your race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership or health. There are also restrictions for processing information regarding criminal convictions.
11. This type of personal data will only be processed where it is necessary in order to represent you in your legal claim, or advise on the prospects of a legal claim.
Retention
12. I will retain your personal data for no longer than is necessary, and where it is possible, I will anonymise your data.
13. How long your personal data is kept will depend on a number of factors. The retention period will be reviewed when the service I am providing you with is complete. However in general, I am obliged by the Bar Code of Conduct to retain records of my cases, and by HM Revenue and Customs to retain records for 6 years.
14. Once your case has concluded and fees have been paid, I shall retain only the personal data necessary for the following purposes:
(i) The legal and professional obligation to retain information relating to my cases;
(ii) To check for any potential conflict of interests that may arise in the future when I am instructed on other cases;
(iii) For use in the defence of potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes;
(iv) To refer back to in future cases which raise similar legal, factual, or procedural issues.
15. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14 (ii), (iii), and (iv) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. That is, for the purposes of legitimate interests that are not outweighed by your interests or fundamental rights and freedoms.
16. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14(i) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. That is, the processing is necessary for me to comply with a legal obligation.
Your Rights
17. Where processing of your personal data was based on your consent (see paragraphs 6 and 8) you have the right to withdraw that consent at any time. This does not affect the lawfulness of the processing based on consent before its withdrawal.
18. Withdrawal of your consent to process such data will most likely mean that I am no longer able to provide you with the legal services you seek.
19. You may request confirmation that your personal data is being processed by me and details about the personal data, the source, the processing, the purposes of the processing, the recipients and the retention period.
20. You may request a copy of your personal data that is being processed by me. You may also request rectification (i.e. correction) where there are inaccuracies in the personal data.
21. You have the right to object, on grounds relating to your particular situation, at any time, to processing of your personal data in paragraph 14 of this privacy notice. Should you object, the processing will only continue where there are compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests.
22. Where the processing or retention of your data is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims, it will not be possible to object.
23. You have the right to request that your personal data is erased where any of the following apply:
(i) The personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed;
(ii) You withdraw your consent where the basis of processing was based on consent and where there is no other ground for the processing;
(iii) Where your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests override the legitimate interests of processing in paragraph 14;
(iv) The personal data has been unlawfully processed; or
(v) The personal data have to be erased to comply with a legal obligation.
24. You have the right to request that your personal data is restricted from processing, so that it is simply stored, for the following reasons: as an alternative to deletion; so that it can be corrected; for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; to verify if a legitimate ground exists (paragraph 14).
25. Where it is necessary to correct your personal data, or you have requested the restriction or erasure of your personal data, I shall endeavour to contact the recipients of the personal data, unless this involves disproportionate effort.
Security
26. I take appropriate physical and technical procedures to safeguard your personal data to prevent it from being accidentally lost, used or accessed in an unauthorised way.
Complaints or Queries
27. If you have any questions regarding this privacy notice, or how I use your personal data please email me: mailto: stefano.mariani@tbgbarrister.co.uk, or my clerks: clerking@exchequerchambers.com telephone 01823 247 247.
28. I shall aim to respond as soon as possible, and within 30 days.
29. You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) if you believe I have not handled your request in an appropriate manner. For information on contacting the ICO please go to: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
If you’d like to work with Stefano Mariani or any of our other specialist barristers, send us your details and we’ll get back to you. Or you can contact our Senior Clerk Tyroon Win (based in London) on 0203 1500 001 or to start working together.
