Since late 2023, Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has launched a wave of tax investigations targeting the media sector, raising fresh concerns over press freedom in the city. According to the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), at least eight independent media organisations and 20 journalists have received tax demands, some relating to income reported as far back as seven years ago, with claims totalling over HK$1 million.
A Hong Kong journalist was shocked to learn that tax authorities were investigating her for income from a firm that did not even exist at the time. This is just one example of how, according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), tax probes can go beyond legitimate tax collection and used to suppress press freedom.
According to HKJA, some of the affected media are small-scale independent outlets, such as The Witness, ReNews, and InMedia HK. The scrutiny also includes freelance journalists working for international publications and, in some cases, their family members.
Inconsistent Practices Raise Alarm
The HKJA has cited several irregularities in the IRD’s approach. In some cases, individuals with no business registration were assigned unrelated business registration numbers. One media outlet was reportedly investigated for tax records predating its formation. In other cases, alleged under-reported income was grossly inflated—sometimes estimated at double the actual earnings.
Furthermore, some journalists discovered the IRD treated all bank deposits as taxable income without deducting legitimate expenses, even counting internal transfers as revenue. Despite some having submitted tax returns and formal objections by hand or post, the IRD allegedly claimed these were never received.
HKJA and Chairperson Also Targeted
HKJA Chair Selina Cheng and the association itself are also among those under investigation. Cheng disclosed that the IRD claimed her annual income in 2018–2019 was HK$630,000—around HK$400,000 more than what she had declared. The discrepancy led to a demand for approximately HK$46,000 in back taxes.
At the time, Cheng was working in the investigative team at HK01, earning a monthly salary of around HK$18,000. Her annual income was approximately HK$230,000, which, after applying the HK$20,000 personal allowance, should have exempted her from taxation.
“There was absolutely no documentation, evidence, or rationale provided to justify this revised assessment,” she said.
Cheng also noted instances where the IRD reviewed the finances of unmarried journalists’ spouses or parents despite them not being claimed as dependants on tax forms.
“Pay First, Investigate Later” Approach
The IRD typically sends out tax assessment notices stating the amount owed and requiring payment before initiating formal investigations—effectively enforcing a “pay first, audit later” policy. Only those who formally object are granted a review.
InMedia HK Editor-in-Chief Damon Wong stated that the publication received a notice from the IRD in March 2023, claiming a mismatch in reported and actual profits from seven years ago. Although a reprieve was granted after an appeal, the outlet received another demand in March 2024. The ongoing probe, he said, has created significant administrative strain, requiring extensive document retrieval and nearly HK$20,000 in accountant fees.
“Chilling Effect on Journalism”
HKJA Chair Cheng underscored the dual financial and psychological toll on journalists, many of whom earn modest incomes and lack the resources to challenge the IRD’s demands. “How many reporters can really afford to hire accountants and lawyers? These tax probes are disrupting journalism. Some reporters have even reduced their workload or assignments as a result.”
She questioned the legitimacy of the investigations: “If this isn’t a tool to pressure the media, who would believe otherwise?”
In response to mounting concerns, the IRD stated it does not disclose details about ongoing investigations and insisted that sector or profession does not influence its audit decisions. However, the HKJA warned that a lack of transparency and procedural fairness in tax enforcement risks eroding public confidence in both the tax regime and the broader legal system.