Glynn v. C.I.R. (Hong Kong), [1990] BTC 129 (PC)

The taxpayer was held to have derived a "perquisite" of employment equal to the amount of his daughter's school fees which his employer had agreed under his contract of employment to pay directly. "There is no difference between a debt of the taxpayer discharged by an employer pursuant to the contract of service and money paid for the benefit of an employee by his employer pursuant to the contract of service." (p. 129)

In interpreting the word "perquisite" found in the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Hong Kong), Lord Templeman applied the "logical and sensible principle that expressions employed in British legislation and authorities on the meaning of such expressions are of assistance in construing identical expressions in Hong Kong legislation concerned with the same subject matter."