Secondment Agreement Hong Kong

16 12 2020

One of the most controversial issues arising from cross-border intragroup activities is the “right of return.” If arguments do not depend on the choice of the law, they often go hand in hand with other complexities to be dealt with as part of a separation agreement. As has already been discussed in Goepfert, U.S. companies employed a taxpayer. It was set up as a result of the detachment of Hong Kong Company Corporation. Hong Kong was a branch of the company based in the United States. He was not a permanent employee of the Hong Kong branch and was not hired by that branch after the secondment. As a result, he remained an employee of the foreign company. In this context, the key to determining whether a Dispatching Enterprise institution or business location is constituted as part of a detachment agreement, whether the Second works for dispatching Enterprise or Host Enterprise. If it is the first, the answer would be positive. When calculating the reasonable time frame for long-term benefits, the earliest date of employment should be taken into account. If a new employer does not explicitly provide for continuity of employment, it is possible to break the chain of employment. However, if successive jobs are held within the same group, continuity can be maintained.

This can also lead to the complexity of developing a separation agreement. The other case is Cantor Fitzgerald Europe -v- Boyer [2012]. Boyer`s circumstances were almost identical to Wallace`s: hired in London; English law contract (without worker`s right at PILON); Hong Kong Order; Years later, the employee files PILON. The only other feature was that Boyer`s delegation letter stated that any “Hong Kong compulsory labour law” would apply. According to HSBC -v- Wallace, reyes J. was not bound by the Assistant Judge`s judgment in the previous case and found that an explicit regulatory clause was not such as to terminate worker protection under the Section 70 Labour Regulation. If the basic test is met and one of the above factors has been found as part of a secondment agreement, it is very likely that such a secondment agreement will be considered an institution/office or AEP (if any) of the shipping company, and the CPP`s CIT is paid in accordance with applicable tax laws and regulations. Of the 5 factors, the 4th is particularly interesting. This is the first time that the payment of the CPP IIT has been considered a factor to be considered in an ICT-related issue. According to Market Notice 19, it is not certain that the salary or remuneration of a second mentioned by the shipping company in the 4th factor is limited to the salary or remuneration to be paid to La Seconde for his work in the PRC. On April 19, 2013, the state tax office issued the 19. This year`s Notification “Communication on Corporate Tax Collection (CIT) issues on the provision of work services by staff seconded by non-resident companies in China” (Communication 19, a more specific criterion for determining whether, under its related agreement, a company subject to accounting activity in the Cpp has created a stable/stable establishment or even a stable institution (“PE”) in CHINA REPUBLIC, so that it is subject to the CPP CIT.