Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
這些不同做法亦令《條例草案》的相關條文，成為將來被相關從業者或其他行業經營者質疑的目標。
All these will also render the relevant provisions in the Bill questionable to trade practitioners concerned or business operators in other trades and industries
雖然政府在《條例草案》的審議過程中，已盡量就關乎獲特惠的營業收入但未被吸納的部分作出定義，但這些定義在我看來並不足以令我們安心。
Although the Government has tried to define as far as practicable the part of receipts not absorbed but related to concessionary trading receipts during deliberation of the Bill I consider its efforts not sufficient to set our mind at ease
主席，我無意反對這項《條例草案》，亦無意反對沒有修正案的條文中，有關指定營業收入或應課稅利潤寬減的條文。
Chairman I have no intention to vote against the Bill or clauses on specified trading receipts or chargeable concessionary receipts among clauses with no amendment
但是，正因為這些條文具關鍵性，又或可視之為與基本稅務原則相關的做法，故此才引人憂慮。
However there is a cause for worry and concern since such clauses are crucial or can be regarded as relevant to the basic taxation principles
今天較令人感到遺憾的是，除了運輸及房屋局局長之外，財經事務及庫務局並沒有派出官員前來答辯，為何我有此看法呢？
We find it a bit regrettable that apart from the Secretary for Transport and Housing no official from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau is present today to give a reply on the Bill and why do I think so?
因為現時的做法表面上雖是便利了飛機租賃行業，例如飛機租賃公司或飛機租賃管理公司，但其最大影響其實是在整體稅務政策方面，特別是對相關行業的稅務寬減規定，所造成的影響更遠較《條例草案》本身更加深遠。
It is because superficially the present proposals will facilitate the aircraft leasing industry such as aircraft leasing companies or aircraft leasing managers but the proposals will actually have the greatest impact on the overall taxation policies . In particular the impact brought about by the provisions on tax concession measures devised for the relevant trades and industries will be much more far - reaching than that caused by the Bill itself
因為在飛機租賃項目的寬減條文效力方面，訂明的期間是直至不能再擁有飛機，但是就擁有飛機的定義而言，現時飛機租賃商與航空公司除業務安排外，很多時可能也會有一些稅務和財務安排。
It is stipulated in the Bill that the aircraft leasing tax concessions provisions are to have effect until the corporation concerned has ceased to own the aircraft but under the definition of ownership of aircraft apart from the business arrangements between aircraft leasing operators and airline companies some taxation and financial arrangements between them may also be covered and such arrangements are very common nowadays
對於利潤 轉移這一點，我深感憂慮，因為飛機租賃業務表面上屬於離岸，但承租的航空公司的業務卻在本地進行，即是說有很多在港收入其實是可以計算得到的。
I am gravely concerned about the possible transfer of profits because aircraft leasing is superficially an offshore business but airline companies as aircraft lessees are operating their business locally meaning that many of their trading receipts in Hong Kong are in fact readily quantifiable
我無意反對是項《條例草案》，但我擔心《條例草案》獲得通過後，可能會引入多一個方法，令一些錯綜複雜，普通人難以明白的財務、租賃及融資安排得以蒙混過關。
I have no intention to vote against the Bill but I am worried that after the passage of the Bill an additional means may be available for muddling through with some very complicated financial leasing and financing arrangements not comprehensible to ordinary people
眾所周知，香港的融資成本相對較低，甚至從借貸及利息得到的收入亦無須繳稅，這會否誘使更多航空公司，甚至本地航空公司透過此一途徑減少其可徵稅部分的收入呢？
As we all know financing costs in Hong Kong are relatively lower and gains arising from lending and interest income are not chargeable to tax . Will this provide an incentive for more airline companies local airline companies in particular to reduce the amount of their chargeable trading receipts through this channel?
主席，我主要會就《2017年稅務條例草案》的第4部分，即"飛機租賃稅務寬減：釋義"發言。
Chairman I will mainly speak on clause 4 of the Inland Revenue Amendment No . 2 Bill 2017 the Bill which relates to Aircraft leasing tax concessions interpretation
包括那些稅項不應或從沒有在香港發生，只不過因為政府定出了稅務寬減，便會吸引一些原本離岸的服務——我猜政府一定想愛爾蘭、新加坡等經營此行業的公司轉移來港。
According to the Government it is because of these tax concessions that companies which were offshore companies previously will be attracted to Hong Kong . I guess the Government must be eyeing those companies in such markets as Ireland and Singapore trying to lure them to Hong Kong
首先，那些公司會否轉移來港是一大疑問，因為如果......
First there is a big question as to whether these companies will shift their businesses to Hong Kong as probably I should put it in another way
或許這樣說，除非本港現時的稅務寬減優於他們，甚至有更大吸引力，否則，是否很容易吸引到一些原本在其他國家、地區經營而正享受到並非完全相同但差不多對等的稅務優惠來香港呢？
Unless Hong Kong can offer more favourable and even more attractive concessions I will doubt if we can easily attract these companies to move their businesses to Hong Kong provided that they are enjoying similar if not completely equivalent concessions in other countries or regions
我們又可否排除其他國家、地方，包括新加坡或愛爾蘭完全沒有任何動靜，任由香港政府打壓的可能性呢？
Moreover can we be sure that other countries or regions including Singapore or Ireland will do nothing in response to the Hong Kong Governments competition?
如果立法會通過之後，它們又作出比香港更積極的稅務政策，這不是枉作小人了嗎？
What if they provide some more aggressive concessions after the Council endorses the proposed tax regime . Will this not render our efforts fruitless then?
問題是，萬一沒有離岸的公司轉移來港，而只有很多在岸的公司選擇新的稅務修訂的話，情況就會不同了。
The problem is by any chance the outcome will be entirely different if there is really no offshore company coming to Hong Kong yet a large number of companies currently taking part in onshore businesses opt for tax assessment under the new regime . The Governments endeavours will come to nothing if things happen like this
香港這樣做最終只是枉作小人，這正是我們對整項《條例草案》裏最擔心的部分。
This is our greatest worry over the Bill in general
原本可以在香港產生的稅務收入，卻由於《條例草案》最終的修訂須適用於在岸的飛機租賃公司，而讓它們有機會獲得選擇。
While tax revenues generated from onshore aircraft leasing activities are originally chargeable to tax in Hong Kong these companies are now given a choice as a result of the final amendments to the Bill which propose to extend the scope of the tax concessions to cover onshore businesses
很多人會說，如果完全信任政府或根據政府的分析，它們未必一定要選擇這種做法。
Many people who completely trust the Government or rely totally on its analysis believe that those companies may not necessarily opt for this regime
我相信大家不能不看證據，或許讓我引用一些數據。
I believe Members will never ignore the evidence . Perhaps I can quote some statistics
估計2015年至2034年，亞太地區需要14,330架新飛機，總價值達22,000億美元，即17萬億港元，但內地只需66 33架。
It is forecasted that the Asia - Pacific region will need 14 330 new aircraft between 2015 and 2034 which will totally cost USD2,200 billion or HK17,000 billion . However among the future demand the Mainland will only require 6 633 new aircraft
不單內地，一些本地的航空公司，大家都可能感受得到特別是廉價航空會慢慢侵蝕一些大型的老牌航空公司。
Members may realize that low - cost carriers are gradually taking up the market share of certain major traditional airlines in not only the Mainland but also the local market
這不太難理解，因為賺錢永遠是一個零和遊戲，總飛機票的收入裏包含有很多項開支，這當然包括燃油、職員工資等。
This is not difficult to understand . Earning money is always a zero - sum game . Income derived from air tickets is in fact used to meet a lot of expenses including fuel and salary of course
我很擔心，最初審議此項修例的時候，政府實牙實齒亦說得很清楚，是不會影響原本的條例的，因只會涉及一些離岸公司。
In fact these companies may really benefit from this formula . I am deeply worried . When the legislative amendment was first reviewed the Government firmly assured that the Bill would not affect the existing Ordinance that it would involve offshore activities only
離岸的飛機租賃服務，即它原本不會產生任何可稅務的利益，但如果現時這樣的情況就是包含了境內的經營者了。
Offshore aircraft leasing businesses generated no assessable profit in Hong Kong before but the scope will now be extended to include onshore operators
再加上政府對於境內飛機租賃服務對航空業引致的影響沒有定義，正如我在二讀辯論時提到的那樣。
Furthermore the Government has not assessed the effects of onshore aircraft leasing activities on the aviation sector as pointed out by me during the Second Reading debate
對於香港而言，他們是一定要付錢的，無論哪種經營模式都要付錢。
It is because they will need to make such payments anyway . From Hong Kongs perspective certainly they will have to pay regardless of their business mode
假如那些不是新飛機，每架多用兩三年，根據本來的《稅務條例》或稅務局指引，他們則拿不到八成折舊。
So if the aircraft are not new but have been in use for two or three years instead the companies will not be entitled to the 80 % depreciation allowance under the existing Inland Revenue Ordinance or guidelines issued by the Inland Revenue Department
不過，如果他們使用新稅務寬減，便可以用B餐減，乘以20%，再乘以寬減的稅率，但這不是等值，就如政府在說蘋果和橙一樣。
That said by opting for the new tax concession regime companies will have access to the 20 % tax base concession as well as a generous tax rate . But the two systems are not equivalent . The Government looks like drawing comparison between an apple and an orange
這點是我反對的，我不是反對整項修正案，而是我認為最後引入並順應OECD就BEPS的規定，究竟是政府事前全不知情，還是他們根本早有估計，但留到最後才揭盅？
This is the point that I reject . I do not mean to reject the entire legislative amendment but the decision to yield to OECDs requirements in relation to BEPS in the final stages . So did the Government really know nothing about this in advance?
以愛爾蘭為實例，最新情況是賺了3億歐元，即26億港元，2014年那部分已佔愛爾蘭全國利得稅7%。
Take Ireland as an example . Latest figures indicate a tax revenue of €300 million that is HK2.6 billion . Tax collected from this sector alone in 2014 accounted for 7 % of the overall revenue from profits tax in Ireland
不過，我們與愛爾蘭不同的是，我相信愛爾蘭本身不是航空樞紐，沒有太多利益衝突，坦白說，有多少飛機會在愛爾蘭升降？
However we differ from Ireland in the sense that Ireland is not an aviation hub itself . There is not much conflict of interests in Ireland then
基本上，他們若吸引對於自己的公司採用這做法，即轉移的做法，是沒有好處的。
Basically no interest is involved if they attract Irish airlines to adopt such a shift of tax regime
但是香港不一樣，香港有很多航空公司，將來很可能會越來越多，無論是主要的航空公司還是未來不知有多少間廉航，如今最少有兩間。
But the case in Hong Kong is different . There are many airlines that fly to Hong Kong and the number will likely increase in future regardless of whether they are traditional airlines or any budget airlines that may emerge in the future . By now we have two budge carriers at least
舉例而言，如果一間公司背後的金主是不能從事兩種相關行業的，法例便寫清楚做了A便不能做B。
For example if the laws prohibit a beneficial owner of a company to take part in two related industries the provisions will expressly stipulate such prohibition
例如國內的航空公司要怎樣計算呢？
For example how should we count the benefits related to Mainland airlines?
這是一個大問題，因為國內數間主要航空公司已在香港上市，如東航、南航等。
This is a big question as a few major Mainland airlines are listed in Hong Kong such as China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines and so on
根據現行的《稅務條例》，他們需要交付相應的利得稅。
According to the existing Inland Revenue Ordinance they are chargeable to Hong Kong profits tax
但是，如果這種轉來轉去、極度複雜、普通人難以理解的服務可以在岸做，換言之，未來我們將承受很大的風險。
However we will have to bear substantial risks in the future if these ever - shifting complicated businesses unintelligible to laymen are allowed to operate as onshore businesses
對於這風險，我相信政府至今也無法令我們釋懷，因為很可能會令大家無法從中得益，最終更會因着複雜的交易或做法而將利潤轉移。
Regarding such risks the Government is still unable to give us relief . In the end it may probably result in a situation where none of us will gain any benefit yet those companies are given chances to shift their profits to somewhere else by means of some very complicated transactions or practices
梁振英在2016年的施政報告重申，政府將會制訂措施，發展香港成為航空融資中心；財政司司長亦在2016-2017年度財政預算案中表示，政府會參考海外經驗，研究透過提供稅務優惠，推動飛機租賃業的發展。
In the 2016 Policy Address LEUNG Chun - ying reiterated the Government would formulate measures to develop Hong Kong into a centre for aerospace financing . The Financial Secretary likewise indicated in the 2016 - 2017 Budget that the Government would draw reference from overseas experience and study the promotion of the aircraft leasing industry with the grant of tax concession
政府這次效率很高，今天放在我們面前已經有《2017年稅務條例草案》。
This time the Government is very efficient and we have right before us the Inland Revenue Amendment No . 2 Bill 2017 the Bill today
《條例草案》旨在向一些在香港將飛機租賃予"非香港飛機營運商"的公司提供稅務優惠，包括建議將租賃飛機所得的利潤抽取的利得稅稅率，由現時的16.5%減至8.25%；以及為飛機出租商就飛機租予"非香港飛機營運商"所獲得的租約付款的應課稅款額，訂定稅基為租約付款總額扣減支出後的20%，當然，這不包括折舊的免稅額。
The Bill aims to provide tax concession for companies in Hong Kong which lease aircraft to non - Hong Kong aircraft operators . It puts forth a proposal to reduce the profits tax rate for aircraft leasing profits from the prevailing 16.5 % to 8.25 % . It also proposes to set the assessable lease payments from leasing aircraft to a non - Hong Kong aircraft operator that is the tax base at 20 % of the gross lease payments less deductible expenses
但是，對於政府這項建議，聲稱能夠為香港帶來的經濟貢獻，我真的覺得有誇大成分。
In this regard I honestly think that there is a lot of exaggeration in the Governments claim concerning the economic benefits that the proposal will generate
所以，我在這裏提出的質疑，亦是一些市民的質疑。
Hence I want to raise my queries here and my queries are shared by the public
我希望政府或在今天無條件支持這項《條例草案》的議員，可以釋除我或很多市民的疑慮。
I hope that the Government or those Members who support this Bill unconditionally today can allay the worries that many people and I have
我覺得除了這些經濟貢獻不盡不實之外，亦擔心減免這些項目的稅收，會成為不良的先例。
Besides questioning the economic benefits I also fear that the proposed tax concession may set a bad precedent
首先，我們看看當局提出這項建議，目的是要吸引全世界的飛機租賃商，在香港設立辦事處或遷拆總部往香港，從而令香港成為飛機租賃的中心。
First we can see that the Governments proposal aims to induce aircraft lessors all over the world to set up offices here or to relocate their headquarters to Hong Kong so that Hong Kong can become an aircraft leasing hub
我讀出這堆數字後，真的覺得當中有誇張成分，讓我逐點向大家分析。
After reading these figures out I do find them exaggerating . Let me go through them with you
首先，如果在第二十年，即是2037年可以因為稅務豁免而創造1,640個職位，而這1,640個職位又如何各自產生9個職位，間接創造13,700個職位呢？
First suppose in Year 20 that is in 2037 1 640 positions will be created due to the tax concession . Then how is each of these 1 640 positions going to generate 9 further positions to create a total of 13 700 positions indirectly?
況且，根據政府原本的建議，這次的稅務優惠，只適用租予"非香港飛機營運商"的飛機租賃服務，租出的飛機根本無 需出現在香港。
On top of this according to the original proposal of the Government the tax concession should only be applicable to the aircraft leasing service for non - Hong Kong aircraft operators and the leased aircraft need not appear in Hong Kong
就如譚文豪議員剛才回應另一方的憂慮時提到，香港公司只負責接生意，向"非香港飛機營運商"租出飛機。
This means that as Mr Jeremy TAM remarked when responding to another worry lessors in Hong Kong are only responsible for processing business orders and leasing aircraft to non - Hong Kong aircraft operators
即使你們說，提供法律、會計、金融或保險等服務，可能會創造職位或利益，我也有一個小問號。
Though you may say the provision of legal accounting finance or insurance services may create jobs or economic benefits I still have a small doubt
此外，在20年內累積4,300億元本地生產總值，即每年有200億元的本地生產總值。
Furthermore the 430 billion GDP accumulated in 20 years means a 20 billion GDP created in a year
但問題是，稅務寬免只適用於將飛機租予"非香港飛機營運商"的業務，因此，所產生的本地生產總值可能只涉及租金收入，這些租金收入只會是飛機租賃公司的財務收入，不會走進香港的實體經濟，普羅市民會否因為這些經濟數據而受惠呢？
But the question is that the tax concession applies only to the business of leasing aircraft to non - Hong Kong aircraft operators . Therefore the GDP generated may only involve income from lease payments . These lease payments can only be the financial revenue of the aircraft leasing companies but will not enter the real economy
由此可見，向租予"非香港飛機營運商"的租金收入提供稅務寬免，我懷疑只會令少數人受惠，對經濟沒有很大的幫助。
Then can the general public gain benefit as shown by the economic data? . In the light of the above the provision of tax concession in relation to the lease payments made by non - Hong Kong aircraft operators presumably benefits only a handful of people without bringing too much help to the economy in general
我另一個擔心是，譚文豪議員剛才指我們過慮的事情。
Another concern of mine is one which was said to be unfounded by Mr Jeremy TAM just now
如果向"非香港飛機營運商"租賃飛機的公司，以香港為基地，無論那些飛機是否主要服務香港，會否同樣需要使用香港的基礎建設呢？
As those companies which lease aircraft to non - Hong Kong aircraft operators are based in Hong Kong will those aircraft use our infrastructure whether the aircraft serve Hong Kong primarily?
即那些飛機會否停泊在香港國際機場，在有需要時才租出，這樣便會令我們的設施需求上升，因而令各項設施的收費也可能上升。
That is to say will the aircraft park at the Hong Kong International Airport and be leased out when need arises . If so the demand for our facilities will be driven upward leading to possible increases in the fees of various facilities
事實上，我也曾細讀審議這項《條例草案》的法案委員會報告，當中亦有委員問及在稅務寬免後，會否為空運基建帶來龐大成本，但政府則表示未曾考慮這個因素，因為過去沒有類似的公司在香港營運。
As a matter of fact I have studied the Bills Committee report of this Bill carefully . In the report Members asked if the tax concessions would give rise to a huge cost in air transport infrastructure . The Government said it had not considered that factor for no similar company had run in Hong Kong before
政府只表示，如果有飛機在香港升降，便會為機場帶來收入。
The Government only said that aircraft landing and taking off in Hong Kong would bring revenue to the airport
如果說沒有考慮過，我覺得是有點粗疏。
I consider it a bit sloppy if they have not given this a thought
當然，有人覺得這是杞人憂天，根本不會有那麼多飛機在香港停泊。
Of course some would consider this worry groundless as there will not be many aircraft parking in Hong Kong
我們且看看兩間中資飛機租賃上市公司，最近提供的行業概覽資 料。
Let us look at the market overview provided by two publicly - listed Chinese - financed aircraft leasing companies
在2013年，全球二十大飛機租賃公司的飛機總數共有6,193架，這只是2013年的數字，而2013年的訂單數目是1,624架，即在2013年之後數年，二十大飛機租賃公司的飛機數目可以多達7,500架以上。
In 2013 the top 20 aircraft lessors of the world collectively owned 6 193 aircraft . This is only a 2013 figure . In the same year 1 624 purchase orders for aircraft were made
再者，你可以說飛機租賃公司只在香港融資，不會把飛機停泊在香港機場。
Moreover you may say that aircraft leasing companies will only conduct financing activities in Hong Kong but are not going to park their aircraft at the Hong Kong airport
所謂飛機租賃，只是把飛機長期租予其他地區的航空公司，因此，我們不用擔心香港的機場設施。
The so - called aircraft leasing in fact means leasing aircraft to overseas airlines on a long - term basis . Hence we do not have to worry about the facilities at the Hong Kong airport
既然租賃公司只在香港進行金融融資，又沒有實質業務，那麼，就回到我剛才的問題。
Given that leasing companies are only doing financing but not real business in Hong Kong my previous question comes up again
他們可能像現時在香港上市的中國光大集團旗下的中國飛機租賃集團控股有限公司，或中國銀行旗下的中銀航空租賃有限公司，在香港上市或好像其他在香港"借殼"上市的中資集團，不單可以在香港借貸融資，更可以透過供股、配股集資，我們是否需要提供稅務優惠來吸引他們來港設立公司呢？
These lessors may seek listing in Hong Kong in a way similar to these two public companies China Aircraft Leasing Group Holdings Limited a China Everbright Limited subsidiary and BOC Aviation Limited under the Bank of China Group . Alternatively they may seek backdoor listing in Hong Kong like some Chinese - financed groups . In Hong Kong these companies not only can seek loans and finances but also can raise funds with rights issues or placements
此外，如果大家預期這些飛機租賃公司的飛機不會來港，即從不會在香港出現，又怎得到在20年裏會衍生4,300億元本地生產總值及超過13,000個職位的結論呢？
Do we really have to provide tax incentives for them to set up companies in Hong Kong? . Furthermore if we do not expect the aircraft under these lessors to come to and appear in Hong Kong at all how can we conclude that a GDP of 430 billion and more than 13 000 positions will be created in 20 years?
大家要知道，現時全球一體化，如果只論融資或行政工作，香港的行政工作可能會被內地、印度、東南亞或其他生產及人力成本較低的地方取代，這樣，建議就難以為香港帶來最大的經濟效益。
We have to note that with regard to financing and administrative work under globalization the administrative support provided by Hong Kong can be easily replaced by the services offered by the Mainland India Southeast Asia or other places in which the cost of labour is lower . Therefore the proposal can hardly bring about the greatest economic benefit possible to Hong Kong
所以，所謂的經濟效益可能只存在於帳面上，香港的勞工可否享有藉維修、保養飛機而衍生就業機會等實際效益呢？
These so - called economic benefits may only exist on paper . Will Hong Kong workers get any actual benefits such as job opportunities from repairing or maintaining aircraft?
所以，這也是我憂慮的其中一點。
Therefore this is also one of my worries
此外，在法案委員會期間，有人問稅務優惠會否令到內地飛機的機主從中獲得最大的得益？
Aside from the above a question was raised in the Bills Committee inquiring if owners of Mainland aircraft will gain the largest benefits from the tax concession
"至於哪一方可從此項建議中得益最多，政府當局解釋，關於條例草案實施後將會在香港進行交易的飛機租賃業務中的飛機的擁有權，當局並無這方面的資料。
As regards which party may benefit most from the proposal the Administration explains that there is no information on the ownership of such aircraft in the aircraft leasing business that would be transacted in Hong Kong following the implementation of the Bill . We can therefore say that the Government has not studied this topic
"由此可見，政府沒有研究此題目，而2017-2018年度的財政預算案作出此建議之後，亦只想盡快完成建議。
After the proposal was raised in the 2017 - 2018 Budget the Government just wants to complete its details as soon as possible
我必須指出，在作出稅務優惠之後，香港向非本地航空公司、租賃飛機公司徵收的利得稅將會降至8.25%，較內地的17%至25%為低，內地的飛機租賃公司很可能會轉移以香港作為總部。
I must point out that with the tax concession the profits tax that Hong Kong is going to impose on companies leasing aircraft to non - Hong Kong airlines will decrease to 8.25 % way lower than the 17 % to 25 % tax rate in Mainland China . Mainland aircraft lessors are highly likely to relocate their headquarters to Hong Kong
現時兩間在香港上市的內地飛機租賃公司，每年向內地政府繳稅金額平均是2億元以上。
The two Hong Kong - listed Mainland aircraft lessors are now paying an average of more than 200 million tax to the Mainland Government annually
如果這些公司把主要業務轉移到香港，中國大陸的稅收最低限度會減少7億元，如果多1間內地銀行旗下的飛機 租賃公司把總部設在香港，不用向中國政府納稅，中國政府損失的稅務收入可能高達數十億元。
If these companies transfer their main businesses to Hong Kong the Mainland Government is going to lose at least 700 million in tax . If one more Mainland bank relocates the headquarters of its aircraft leasing subsidiary to Hong Kong and hence stop paying tax to the Chinese Government the Chinese Government may lose as much as billions of tax revenue
我不是擔心中國政府，我覺得本港搶去了它的生意，整體上是減少了，這又是我的另一個問題。
I do not worry about the Chinese Government but I think the total tax revenue will decrease if Hong Kong draws away the business from Mainland China . This is another question I have in mind
最後，當局以爭取香港成為飛機租賃中心為由，向飛機租賃公司提供稅務優惠。
Finally the authorities provide tax concession to aircraft leasing companies on the grounds of developing Hong Kong into an aircraft leasing hub
很多人會問，為了打造香港成為甚麼中心，以後是否就可以爭取更多稅務優惠。
Many may ask if more tax concession can as well be provided in the future out of the need to develop Hong Kong into a hub of other businesses
在整個諮詢過程裏，政府只諮詢業界的意見，業界或周邊的業界當然支持稅務優惠，有當然較好，最好是完全不用繳稅。
Throughout the consultation the Government has asked only the opinions of the industries concerned . The industry and its related industries certainly support the tax concession proposal . To them it is nice to have tax concession and it will be perfect if the tax is fully exempted
在業界的吹捧之下，香港政府以香港沒有相關業務，因此提供的稅務優惠不會造成財務損失為由，建議提供優惠。
With the cheerleading of the industries the Hong Kong Government suggests providing tax concession on the grounds that the relevant business is not operating in Hong Kong now and the tax concession to be offered will not lead to any financial loss to Hong Kong
道理很簡單，那些錢本來不是你賺到的，現在是賺到1元就得到1元，你不提供優惠，就沒有人在這裏經營這門生意，而你根本不會虧蝕。
The logic is simple . Since you have never made any money out of that business every dollar earned from that business is an extra dollar to you . If you do not provide tax concessions no one is going to run this business here and there will not be any issue of losing out at all
然而，我想告訴政府，世界很大，還有很多新興行業是香港沒有的。
However I would like to advise the Government that the world is so big and many emergent industries have yet to set foot on Hong Kong
這些行業日後是否都可以向政府施壓，要求提供稅務優惠？
Can all these industries also pressurize the Government one day and demand tax concession?
單單只說這方面，如果沒有一些相應的配套措套或政策而只憑減稅，未必能夠得到當局預期的效果，我希望政府今天或未來，要向公眾或本會更詳細的交代這方面。
If we focus only on providing tax concession but not other measures to dovetail with the development of that business we might not get the result as desired by the authorities . I hope that the Government can give the public or this Council more detailed explanation in this regard either today or tomorrow
因此，如果沒有針對真實情況，而一併向飛機租賃公司提出租金收入減去可扣稅開支後的餘額，再乘以20%便等於應課稅利潤的優惠，並表示以此彌補飛機租賃公司不能享有折舊費用的扣稅安排，這便是有些偏頗的，特別是對於新興的內地飛機租賃公司。
Therefore we will be very partial indeed if we ignore the actual situation offer all aircraft lessors a uniform tax concession of calculating taxable profits based on the above mentioned formula and claim that this is meant to compensate aircraft lessors for the lack of depreciation allowances . This is especially the case with emerging Mainland aircraft lessors
此外，我亦必須指出，在政府的相關文件中，並沒有交代20%背後的理據或相關研究資料，局長剛才也只是說他相信這個數字，並請各位議員支持。
Besides I must also point out that all the relevant papers of the Government fail to set out any justifications and relevant research information to support the rate of 20 % . Just now even the Secretary himself could only talk about his trust in this percentage when asking Members for their support