Inside Asian Gaming

IAG MAY 2020年5月 亞博匯 71 專欄 withholding was to accustom the junket operators to the discipline of being taxed on their earnings, at the time a novel concept. As someone involved intimately in the set up and execution of this regime, it would be tempting to go defensive. I don’t need to do more than cite history and the responses adopted to the hand dealt to Macau. The current regulatory regime has delivered results consistent with context, circumstance and the public interest of the people of both Macau and arguably the PRC, which has had none of the issues it has experienced with the Hong Kong SAR. I reckon that makes for good law, just as there are other good gaming laws as pertain in Nevada and Singapore: they speak to their origins and respective public interests, and allow pragmatism a role. 夠容易解決的問題。這某程度上亦解釋了為何中國持續地強烈要 求特區進行經濟多元化。這很明顯是一件說易行難的事，畢竟在 過去十年間都沒有在這方面看到任何顯著的進步。 最後，關於稅務考量方面，16/2001法律就引入了中介人佣 金預扣稅。中介人通過分享博彩總收入而得到的報酬，不會被徵 收入息稅，這是因為總收入已經在賭牌承批人手上被課稅，雖然 整整5%的稅率未有被採納，但預扣稅本身就讓中介營運商習慣 就他們的盈利被課稅，這在當時還是一個嶄新的概念。 作為在這個制度的建立及執行時都有緊密地參與其中的人， 實在很容易便有想為它辯護的衝動。其實我並不需要做太多，只 需要重述歷史以及澳門經歷事情時所作的回應。現時的監管制度 所帶出的結果完全符合澳門以至整個中國的實際情況以及公眾 利益，讓後者不需要經歷其在香港特區面對的問題。 我認為這實在是很好的法律制度，正如內華達州及新加坡的 法律制度一樣：這些地區都追隨本心，並且尊重公眾利益，同時亦 容許務實繼續存在 。