Is the $8,000 VHIS tax deduction cap per policy or per insured person? A full breakdown of the 2026 claim rules

TL;DR Qualifying premiums for a VHIS Certified Plan are deductible from assessable income, capped at $8,000 per taxpayer, per insured person, per year of assessment — there is no limit on the number of insured persons, so a household insured individually stacks the allowance person by person. But a deduction is not a refund: $8,000 comes off your income, it is not money the government hands back. The box that loses people money is a shared policy: who paid the premium, who is the policy holder, and how the insured person is related to you together decide who can deduct.

---

#What is a "Certified Plan", and why are only those premiums deductible?

What is deductible is not "medical insurance" but the net premium attributable to the Certified Plan part of a policy certified by the Secretary for Health. Three terms have to be kept apart first: a Certified Plan (the certified insurance plan), a VHIS policy (a policy issued under a Certified Plan, whether wholly or in part), and qualifying premiums (the net sum under that policy so far as it relates to the Certified Plan). They are not the same thing, and only the third is deductible.

Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), section 26I, English text:

"qualifying premiums (合資格保費), in relation to a VHIS policy, means the net sum of moneys that is payable under the policy to the insurer for writing or renewing the policy in so far as it relates to the insurance plan certified by the Secretary for Health to be in compliance with the Government's Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme (VHIS)"

The same section's definition of the policy:

"VHIS policy (自願醫保計劃保單) means an insurance policy that is in whole or in part issued under an insurance plan certified by the Secretary for Health to be in compliance with the VHIS."

In other words: a policy that merely "contains" a VHIS component does not make the whole policy's premium deductible. The wording is unforgiving — only the net sum "in so far as it relates to" the Certified Plan counts.

VHIS is itself a policy measure, not a statutory scheme. Preamble to the Standard Plan Policy Template (1 July 2022 version), English text:

"The Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme ("VHIS") is a policy initiative introduced by the Health Bureau ("HHB", formerly known as the "Food and Health Bureau") of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Government") concerning indemnity hospital insurance plans ("IHIP") offered to individuals, with voluntary participation by insurance companies and consumers." "The Scheme Documents are non-statutory in nature. They should not supplant or conflict with any applicable statutes, laws, rules, regulations, codes or guidelines."

Which is to say: VHIS has no ordinance of its own, and the only part of the whole scheme with legal force is the tax deduction — and that lives in the Inland Revenue Ordinance, not in the VHIS scheme documents. Certified Plans come in two classes, Standard Plans and Flexi Plans; both are Certified Plans and both are treated alike for the deduction. Health Bureau, VHIS Frequently Asked Questions, question 22, English text:

"As of 30 June 2026, there were 100 Certified Plans available in the market (including Standard Plan and Flexi Plans) which altogether offered 573 products."

Who most needs to know this: anyone holding a combined "medical plus life" or "medical plus accident" policy — what you need from your insurer is not the total premium figure but the net premium for the Certified Plan part. The section below on when you cannot deduct explains why.

---

#Which year of assessment did this deduction start? Why is the cap $8,000?

The $8,000 cap was fixed when the law was made in 2018 and has never once been changed; but on which year of assessment it starts, two official sources disagree — the legislation says 2019/20, GovHK says 2020/21. The legislation governs.

Start with where it came from. The Government press release of 1 March 2018 announcing the VHIS details, English text:

"As announced in the 2018-19 Budget, to provide an incentive for the public to purchase certified plans under the VHIS, the Government will amend the law to allow tax deduction for relevant premiums paid. Premiums paid by a person for himself/herself and their dependants will be allowed for deduction. The deduction ceiling is $8,000 per insured person per year. There is no cap on the number of dependants that are eligible for tax deduction."

So the $8,000 figure and the "no cap on the number of dependants" design were stated by the Government itself seven months before the Ordinance was passed, as an incentive setting rather than a cost-recovery calculation. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 8) Ordinance 2018 was subsequently gazetted as law on 9 November 2018, inserting Subdivision 6 of Part 4A (sections 26H to 26M) and Schedule 3E into the Inland Revenue Ordinance.

The legislation itself is explicit. Inland Revenue Ordinance, section 26H, English text (the Ordinance is bilingual legislation, and the Chinese and English texts are equally authentic):

"26H. Application This Division applies in relation to the year of assessment commencing on 1 April 2019 and to all subsequent years of assessment."

Schedule 3E, English text, in full (with its heading, provision references and amendment record):

"Schedule 3E [ss. 26K, 26L, 63CA & 63E] Maximum Deduction for Qualifying Premiums Paid for Each Insured Person (Schedule 3E added 31 of 2018 s. 14) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Item Year of assessment Amount

1. For the year of assessment 2019/20 and for each year after that year $8,000"

Schedule 3E has one item only. There is no second row, no tapering by year, no exception year.

Two official sources do not agree. The page written by the Inland Revenue Department and hosted on GovHK, "Tax Deduction for Qualifying Premiums Paid under Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme Policy" (revision date: May 2026), English text:

"The specified maximum deduction for the year of assessment 2020/21 onwards is $8,000."

The Chinese version says the same thing, 「2020/21 及其後課税年度」. Both language versions say 2020/21 consistently, while the legislation and the Department's own Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 56 (DIPN 56) consistently say 2019/20. DIPN 56, paragraph 25:

"For the year of assessment 2019/20 and subsequent years, the maximum deduction for each insured person is $8,000 (subject to any subsequent amendments)."

The Department's Guide to Tax Return – Individuals (4/2025), Part 9, also says:

"The deduction is applicable to the year of assessment 2019/20 and after."

How this site reads it (taking the four sources together): three Inland Revenue documents (the legislation, DIPN 56 and the tax return guide) point to 2019/20, and only one GovHK page says 2020/21 — and that page does not itself cite Schedule 3E. The text of the Ordinance has legal force; guidance notes and web pages do not. This article therefore uses 2019/20 throughout.

One point worth noting: the basis for correcting that GovHK sentence is the legislation itself, not an English-only document. Section 26H and Schedule 3E both state, in black and white, a year of assessment commencing on 1 April 2019 and the year of assessment 2019/20; DIPN 56 is corroboration, not the sole ground. As at 1 August 2026 both statements were still online, the Inland Revenue Department has published nothing addressing the point, and no official document explains the difference — so if you see "2020/21" on GovHK you have not misread it; it simply does not match the legislation.

Incidentally, the earliest column in the year table of the Department's Allowances, Deductions and Tax Rate Table (PAM 61(c), June 2026) is 2020/21, so it neither confirms nor contradicts 2019/20 as the starting point.

Who most needs to know this: the back-claim window for 2019/20 has in fact already closed. The GovHK sentence saying 2020/21 would lead you to think that year was never deductible at all; the legislation and the tax return guide are right — 2019/20 is within scope. But read that together with the 6-year claim limit in the filing section below: the 2019/20 year of assessment ended on 31 March 2020, so the 6-year limit expired on 31 March 2026, earlier than this article's own retrieval date of 1 August 2026. Which means that even if you only now learn that the legislation does cover 2019/20, you can no longer go back for it — the window for 2019/20 closed before this article was written. If you want to back-claim, the years to look at are the more recent ones still inside the 6-year limit.

---

#How is the $8,000 cap actually calculated?

The cap is "per taxpayer x per insured person x per year of assessment" — not per policy, and not $8,000 per taxpayer for life. Section 26K(3), English text:

"The maximum deduction allowable to a taxpayer in respect of qualifying premiums paid during a year of assessment for each insured person, whether the insured person is insured under one or more than one VHIS policy, is the amount specified in Schedule 3E in relation to the year of assessment."

In one line: however many policies you buy, for the same insured person in the same year, in your hands it is at most $8,000.

Three things the legislation puts no limit on. DIPN 56, paragraph 24:

"Regarding the deduction for qualifying premiums, there is no cap on the number of: (a) specified relatives in respect of whom a taxpayer may claim tax deduction; (b) taxpayers who can make a claim for deduction of premiums for the same insured person; and (c) policies per insured person in respect of which taxpayers can claim tax deduction."

Anything above $8,000 is use-it-or-lose-it. DIPN 56, paragraph 25:

"Qualifying premiums in excess of the statutory maximum deduction for any year will lapse. The excess of premiums paid cannot be carried forward and claimed as deduction in any subsequent year of assessment."

First worked example: one taxpayer, three insured persons; all figures taken from question 1 of the Inland Revenue Department's frequently asked questions on Tax Deduction for Qualifying Premiums Paid under the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme (VHIS) Policy, set in the year of assessment 2025/26. The taxpayer buys one Certified Plan policy each for himself, his spouse and his child, paying qualifying premiums of $10,000, $6,000 and $2,000 respectively in that year (a total of $18,000). Apply the cap to each insured person:

• Himself: $10,000 → capped at $8,000 (the excess $2,000 lapses)
• Spouse: $6,000 → the full $6,000 (below the cap)
• Child: $2,000 → the full $2,000 (below the cap)
• Total deductible: $8,000 + $6,000 + $2,000 = $16,000

The Department's answer to question 1 gives exactly that figure:

"Taxpayer can claim a total deduction of $16,000 (capped at $8,000 for his own VHIS policy, $6,000 and $2,000 for his spouse and his child's VHIS policies respectively) for the year of assessment 2025/26."

Note the units: all Hong Kong dollars, and all amounts actually paid within the same year of assessment — not the face value of the policy, and not amounts due but unpaid.

How large can the lapsed part be? DIPN 56, example 8 (set in 2019/20), uses six insured persons: premiums of $51,000 in total, of which three — grandmother $16,000, father $12,000, mother $11,000 — exceed the cap:

"the amount of deduction would be $36,000 (i.e. $5,000 + $4,000 + ($8,000 × 3) + $3,000). The excess of $15,000 ($51,000–$36,000) paid would not be carried forward for deduction in subsequent years of assessment."

Who most needs to know this: anyone who has bought a high-premium Flexi Plan for an elderly relative. An annual premium over ten thousand dollars for a father aged 70 is common, but the deduction always stops at $8,000 and the remainder lapses that year — you do not get it back the following year.

---

#A deduction is not the same as "what you save"

This is the point most often misunderstood: the $8,000 comes off your assessable income, not off the tax you owe. Inland Revenue Department frequently asked questions, question 11, English text:

"Deduction of qualifying premiums paid for a VHIS policy is a 'concessionary deduction' under Part 4A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, which means that the net sum of premiums paid will be deducted from taxpayer's assessable income under salaries tax, or from total income under personal assessment. The balance will then be subject to progressive tax rates (after deducting personal allowances) or standard rate. That is to say, a person taxed at standard rate is also eligible to claim deduction of qualifying premiums paid for a VHIS policy."

In other words, the same $8,000 deduction converts into a different amount of tax for different people, because each person's applicable band differs. That answer also disposes of another common question: a person assessed at the standard rate can claim just the same, and does not lose the deduction by not being on progressive rates.

This article will not calculate how much tax you actually save — the real figure depends on which band your assessable income for that year falls in and whether you are assessed at progressive or standard rates, which are individual matters for the Inland Revenue Department or a professional to judge. But it is not true that no marginal-rate figures are available: the "3. Calculation of Tax Payable" page of the Department's Allowances, Deductions and Tax Rate Table (PAM 61, the same document cited in the section "Will the cap rise in 2026/27?" below) carries the full progressive band table:

"On the First 50,000 2% 1,000 / On the Next 50,000 6% 3,000 / On the Next 50,000 10% 5,000 / On the Next 50,000 14% 7,000 / Remainder 17% / Standard Rate 15% / Two-tiered Standard Rates: On the first $5,000,000 of net income 15% Remainder 16%"

On that table, the $8,000 deduction is worth $8,000 × 2% = $160 at the lowest 2% marginal band; $8,000 × 17% ≈ $1,360 at the highest 17% band; and for someone assessed at the 15% standard rate, $8,000 × 15% = $1,200. That is an illustrative range derived from the official band table, not the amount you personally would save — which band you fall in, whether you straddle bands, and which basis of assessment you choose will all move the real figure within that range, and this article does not compute it for you.

Who most needs to know this: anyone who thinks "buy VHIS and you get $8,000 of tax back". That misunderstanding overstates the financial return on the insurance several times over.

---

#Several people sharing one policy — how is it split? This is the one that loses money

If a policy has more than one policy holder, the law treats all of them as having paid "in equal shares" — who actually paid how much is disregarded entirely. Section 26K(2), English text:

"If there is more than one policy holder for a VHIS policy, the qualifying premiums paid during a year of assessment for each insured person under the policy are taken as paid by all of the policy holders in equal shares."

This is not an anti-avoidance provision, and there is no "unless you produce evidence" escape. The words the provision uses are "are taken as".

Worked example (2): two brothers sharing one policy; all figures taken from question 3 of the Department's frequently asked questions, year of assessment 2025/26. The two brothers together buy one Certified Plan policy for their father, with qualifying premiums of $12,000 for the year, and both are policy holders; the taxpayer actually pays $8,000 and his elder brother actually pays $4,000.

• Statutory apportionment: $12,000 ÷ 2 policy holders = $6,000 taken as paid by each
• The taxpayer: taken as having paid $6,000, below the $8,000 cap → deducts $6,000 (he actually paid $8,000, so $2,000 is lost)
• The brother: taken as having paid $6,000, below the cap → deducts $6,000 (he actually paid $4,000, so he has $2,000 more to deduct)

The Department's answer to question 3:

"Yes. If there is more than one policy holder for a VHIS policy, the qualifying premiums paid under the policy are taken as paid by all of the policy holders in equal shares. Taxpayer and his brother can each claim a deduction of $6,000 in year of assessment 2025/26."

How this site reads it (taking questions 2 and 3 together): the same two brothers, the same father, the same year, the same $12,000 of premiums in total — and the two holding structures produce different results.

Which is to say: buying separately, each person uses his own $8,000 to the full, but the higher-premium policy hits the ceiling; buying jointly, the law forces an even split, so the total deduction suffers no loss at all — it is only that the person who actually paid more loses out. The Department's answer to question 2 sets out how the cap works when buying separately:

"Yes. There is no limit on the number of taxpayers who can make a claim for tax deduction for the same insured person. However, the maximum deduction allowable to a taxpayer for each insured person is capped at $8,000."

This comparison is one this site derives from two official questions and answers, not a conclusion the Department itself draws; nor is it advice on which to choose — policy-holder arrangements involve the insurance contract, renewal, claims and so on, and this article addresses only the tax effect.

With more than two policy holders, the apportionment is just as mechanical. DIPN 56, example 12 (2019/20): four policy holders share one policy insuring Mrs N, with premiums of $24,000 for the year:

"the premiums would be taken to have been paid by Mr. and Mrs. N, Mr. O and Miss P as policy holders in equal shares (i.e. $6,000 would be regarded as having been paid by each of them)." "Deduction allowable to Mr. O would be restricted to $6,000 (i.e. the amount of premiums taken to have been paid by him)."

$24,000 ÷ 4 = $6,000. Mr O claimed $8,000 and was cut back to $6,000.

A person who paid but is not a policy holder deducts nothing. Department frequently asked questions, question 6, English text:

"No. Only the taxpayer as policy holder or his spouse is eligible to lodge deduction claim."

That single sentence is the one most likely to leave someone paying for nothing: the entitlement to have paid rests on being a policy holder, not on the bank transfer record.

But someone at home claiming the dependent parent allowance does not block anyone else's premium deduction. Department frequently asked questions, question 4, English text:

"There is no direct relationship between the deduction claim of qualifying premiums paid for a specified relative and the allowance claim in respect of the same specified relative. Despite dependent parent allowance in respect of an insured person claimed by one taxpayer (regardless this taxpayer is one of the policy holders or not), the other policy holder(s) can still lodge deduction claim for qualifying premiums paid in respect of the same insured person for the same year of assessment."

Which is to say: the eldest brother having claimed the dependent parent allowance for the father does not stop the other policy holders claiming the qualifying premium deduction for that same father — the two need not be pooled or conceded. Set that alongside the four conditions in the next section: who holds the dependent parent allowance is not one of them.

Who most needs to know this: families where siblings club together to pay a parent's policy. Whether you are one policy holder or several on the policy, and which of you is a holder, decides directly who can deduct and how much; how much each of you paid makes no difference at all.

---

#Who can claim, and for whom? A self-check list

Four conditions must hold at once: the premiums are paid by you or your cohabiting spouse as a policy holder; the insured person is yourself or your "specified relative"; the insured person holds a Hong Kong identity card (or meets the under-11 parental exception); and the premiums are actually paid within that year of assessment. Section 26K(1), English text (with its opening words):

"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and to sections 26L and 26M, a deduction in respect of qualifying premiums paid during a year of assessment for an insured person under a VHIS policy is allowable to a person (taxpayer) for the year of assessment if— (a) the qualifying premiums were paid by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse, not being a spouse living apart from the taxpayer, as a policy holder of the policy; (b) the insured person is either— (i) the taxpayer; or (ii) a specified relative of the taxpayer in the year of assessment; and (c) the insured person is either— (i) a holder of an identity card issued under the Registration of Persons Ordinance (Cap. 177) (HKID card holder) at any time during the year of assessment; or (ii) under the age of 11 and not an HKID card holder at any time during the year of assessment but an individual— (A) unless the insured person has been adopted—whose natural parent was, at the time of birth of the insured person, an HKID card holder; or (B) if the insured person has been adopted—whose adoptive parent was, at the time of adoption of the insured person, an HKID card holder."

Note four roles that must not be confused: the taxpayer (who claims), the policy holder (the legal capacity in which payment is made), the insured person (who is covered) and the person who actually pays (legally irrelevant). Two of them are defined terms in the legislation. Section 26I(1), English text:

"insured person (受保人), in relation to a VHIS policy, means an individual whose risks are covered by the policy; policy holder (保單持有人), in relation to a VHIS policy, means a legal holder of the policy;"

In one line: the policy holder is the "legal holder" — the person named on the policy, not the person who pays. The taxpayer and the policy holder need not be the same person: the Department's frequently asked question 7 confirms that a spouse who is not a policy holder and has not paid a single dollar may still claim in respect of premiums paid by the taxpayer (the Chinese version of the question expressly posits that the spouse "has chargeable income"; the English version does not state that condition in the question).

"Hong Kong resident" is the Health Bureau's colloquial phrasing; the statutory test is the Hong Kong identity card. DIPN 56, paragraph 22, adds a boundary that is easily misread:

"For the avoidance of doubt, the requirement is only applicable for the purpose of tax deduction. Insurers are free to sell Certified Plans to consumers (be they policy holders or insured persons) with or without HKID cards."

Which is to say: being able to buy it is not the same as being able to deduct it.

#The full statutory conditions for a "specified relative"

Section 26J(1)–(3), English text, in full:

"(1) An individual is a specified relative of a person in a year of assessment if the individual is, in relation to the person, at any time during the year of assessment— (a) a spouse; (b) a parent or grandparent who fulfils the condition mentioned in subsection (2); or (c) a child or sibling who fulfils the conditions mentioned in subsection (3). (2) The condition is that the parent or grandparent is, at any time during the year of assessment— (a) aged 55 or more; or (b) under the age of 55 but eligible to claim an allowance under the Government's Disability Allowance Scheme. (3) The conditions are that the child or sibling is, at any time during the year of assessment, unmarried and— (a) under the age of 18; (b) aged 18 or more but under the age of 25 and receiving full time education at a university, college, school or other similar educational establishment; or (c) aged 18 or more but incapacitated for work by reason of physical or mental disability."

That list is exhaustive — three classes only. No uncles or aunts, no cousins, no nephews or nieces, no unmarried cohabiting partner. The "yours or your spouse's" extension in the table above is not something this site has added; it is written into the statutory definitions in section 26J(4) itself. Section 26J(4), four definitions, English text, quoted in full in the order the provision itself uses (with both notes):

"(4) In this section— child (子女), in relation to a person— (a) means a child of the person or of the person's spouse or former spouse, whether or not the child was born in wedlock; and (b) includes the adopted or step child of either or both of the following— (i) the person; (ii) the person's spouse or former spouse; grandparent (祖父母或外祖父母), in relation to a person, means a grandparent or grandparent of his or her spouse; Note— See the definition of grandparent or grandparent of his or her spouse in section 2(1). parent (父母), in relation to a person, means a parent or parent of his or her spouse; Note— See the definition of parent or parent of his or her spouse in section 2(1). sibling (兄弟姊妹), in relation to a person, means— (a) a full or half blood sibling of the person or of the person's spouse; (b) an adopted sibling of the person or of the person's spouse; (c) a step sibling of the person or of the person's spouse; (d) if the person or the person's spouse is adopted—a natural child of an adoptive parent of the person or of the person's spouse; or (e) if the spouse is deceased—an individual who would have been a sibling of the person under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) had the spouse not died."

In other words: for parent, grandparent and sibling, the statutory definitions all take in the equivalent relative on your spouse's side; child takes in the children of you or your spouse (or former spouse), whether or not born in wedlock, and includes adopted and step children. As for what "adopted" means, section 26I(1) also defines it, English text:

"adopted (領養) means adopted in any manner recognized by the laws of Hong Kong;"

"Recognized by the laws of Hong Kong" is a threshold, not a turn of phrase. DIPN 56, paragraph 21, sets out what counts:

"With effect from the implementation of the Adoption Ordinance (Cap. 290) on 1 January 1973, an adoption order validating the adoption must be made under that Ordinance while adoptions made under Chinese law and custom prior to 1 January 1973 are also recognized. For an overseas adoption, it would be considered in accordance with section 17 or 20F of the Adoption Ordinance, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case."

Which is to say: for adoptions after 1 January 1973, without an adoption order it does not count. A family arrangement passing a child to relatives by word of mouth, with the form of address changed and no court ever involved, does not satisfy "adopted in any manner recognized by the laws of Hong Kong" — and both the "child" and the "sibling" definitions in the Ordinance rely on that word to carry the adoptive relationship.

If a spouse has died, do that side's parents and grandparents still count? The Ordinance says so expressly only for siblings: paragraph (e) of the "sibling" definition in section 26J(4) preserves a deceased spouse's siblings, but the "parent" and "grandparent" definitions carry no equivalent wording, only a note pointing to section 2(1). DIPN 56, paragraphs 18 and 20, give the Department's reading:

"18. "Parent" means a natural, adoptive or step father or mother of a taxpayer or the taxpayer's living or deceased spouse; whilst "grandparent" means a natural, adoptive or step grandfather or grandmother of a taxpayer or the taxpayer's living or deceased spouse." "20. "Sibling" means a full blood, half blood, adopted or step sibling of a taxpayer or the taxpayer's living or deceased spouse."

Which is to say: after a spouse's death, the Department's position on premiums you pay for your parents-in-law or grandparents-in-law is that they remain your specified relatives (the age or disability condition on the parent/grandparent side, and the unmarried plus age/education/disability conditions on the sibling side, still have to be met). Like several points below, this appears only in the English DIPN 56; the text of the legislation does not write "deceased" into the "parent" and "grandparent" definitions, and this article has not consulted the section 2(1) definitions those two notes refer to.

#The word "unmarried", which several official documents omit

The legislation requires a child or sibling to be "unmarried"; but two Inland Revenue filing guides, and two Health Bureau consumer pages, do not list that condition.

Start with what the legislation says. Section 26J(3), English text:

"The conditions are that the child or sibling is, at any time during the year of assessment, unmarried and—"

"Unmarried" is part of the condition, and like the age, education and disability conditions it is governed by the "at any time during the year of assessment" test — the same logic as the divorce timing discussed in the section on spouses below. How this site reads it: so long as the child or sibling was, at some moment within that year of assessment, simultaneously unmarried and meeting one of the age, education or disability conditions, they remain a specified relative for that year of assessment; marrying later in the same year does not knock them out of that year immediately — it takes until the next year of assessment before they cease to qualify by reason of being married. In other words, marrying does not end the status "immediately": the dividing line falls between years of assessment, not at the moment of the wedding — the same principle as premiums for the whole year of divorce being deductible while those after it are not.

Inland Revenue Department, Notes and Instructions — Form BIR60C (4/2025), item 22, English text:

"If the specified relative is your child, your/your spouse's brother/sister, he/she must be at any time during the year of assessment under the age of 18; or aged 18 or more but under the age of 25 and receiving full time education at a university, college, school or other similar educational establishment; or aged 18 or more but incapacitated for work by reason of physical or mental disability."

Inland Revenue Department, Guide to Tax Return – Individuals (4/2025), Part 9, English text:

"If the specified relative is your child, your or your spouse's brother / sister, he / she must be at any time during the year of assessment under the age of 18; or aged 18 or more but under the age of 25 and receiving full time education; or aged 18 or more but incapacitated for work by reason of physical or mental disability."

Both run from the age condition through to the disability condition, and neither says "unmarried". Question 41 of the Health Bureau's VHIS Frequently Asked Questions (review date: 9 July 2026) likewise lists no marital-status condition — in either language; and the tax-deduction page on vhis.gov.hk (review date: 23 June 2025) omits even the age and disability conditions. Form IR6173, which the Department uses to report each relative individually, has no "unmarried" tick box either.

Only three official sources currently carry the complete statutory conditions: the Ordinance itself, DIPN 56 (English version only), and the GovHK deduction page. The GovHK page, English text:

"a child or sibling of you or your spouse, who is at any time during the year of assessment unmarried and"

Incidentally, the Chinese texts of the two filing guides render "incapacitated for work by reason of physical or mental disability" as 「因身體或精神問題而無能力工作」, which is not the wording the legislation uses.

Who most needs to know this: anyone who has bought a policy for a married adult child or a married sibling and means to claim it at filing time. If you read only the filing notes or the VHIS website, you would think meeting the age, education or disability condition is enough — the legislation also requires the person to be unmarried.

#Spouses: separation, divorce, same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage

The legislation treats "spouse" in two asymmetric ways, and only the English DIPN 56 makes that clear. Paragraph 17:

"If a taxpayer is living apart from the spouse, deduction in respect of qualifying premiums paid for the spouse is allowable so long as their marriage has not been dissolved. If a divorce occurs in a year of assessment (year of divorce), the full amount of premiums paid for the ex-spouse during the year of divorce is allowable for deduction. Any premium paid for the ex-spouse after the year of divorce is not deductible."

In other words: premiums "paid by" a separated spouse are not deductible by you (section 26K(1)(a) requires a cohabiting spouse), but premiums you pay "for" a separated spouse remain deductible until the marriage is dissolved (they are still a specified relative). Different direction, different answer. The Department's frequently asked question 9, English text, covers only the first half:

"No. Taxpayer cannot make deduction claims for premiums paid by a spouse who is living apart."

On same-sex marriage, DIPN 56, paragraph 15, cites the Court of Final Appeal in Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service (2019) 22 HKCFAR 127:

"Therefore, a taxpayer, whether in a heterosexual marriage or same-sex marriage, is entitled to claim deduction in respect of the premiums paid by the taxpayer for the taxpayer's spouse."

That sentence appears only in the English DIPN 56; no Chinese official text carries it.

Polygamous marriage: only the principal spouse counts. The "spouse" row in the specified-relative table above carries no age, education, disability or marital-status condition, but "spouse" does not mean "every spouse". DIPN 56, paragraph 16:

"The definition of "marriage" shall not, in the case of a marriage which is both potentially and actually polygamous, include marriage between a person and any spouse other than the principal spouse."

The concluding sentence of the same paragraph:

"Deduction is only allowed in respect of the qualifying premiums paid by a taxpayer for the principal spouse."

Which is to say: in a polygamous marriage only the principal spouse is a specified relative, and premiums paid for any other spouse are not deductible. Like the separation/divorce timing and the same-sex marriage points above, this appears only in the English DIPN 56; no Chinese official text carries it, and it appears in none of the Department's frequently asked questions, the tax return guide or any consumer page.

#Between spouses: divisible, but not enlargeable

A married couple may each claim, but two limits apply at once. Section 26L(2), English text:

"The qualifying premiums paid are allowable as a deduction under section 26K to either the married person or the person's spouse, or to both of them, so long as— (a) the deduction allowed to each of them for the insured person does not exceed the amount specified in Schedule 3E in relation to the year of assessment; and (b) the total deduction allowed to them does not exceed the qualifying premiums paid."

The Department's frequently asked question 8 works through two scenarios: premiums of $14,000 for the year on a son's policy. In the first scenario, the spouse has no chargeable income, English text:

"As the spouse had no income chargeable to tax (i.e. salaries income, rental income and business income), the couple could not be assessed under joint assessment or personal assessment jointly. Therefore, the maximum amount of deduction allowable to the taxpayer in respect of each insured person is restricted to the individual limit of $8,000."

Scenario 2, both have chargeable income, English text:

"Therefore, the couple have to agree how to divide the amount of deduction, like taxpayer and his spouse may claim deductions of $8,000 and $6,000 respectively or each may claim $7,000."

$8,000 + $6,000 = $14,000; $7,000 + $7,000 = $14,000. Both combinations are lawful, because neither person exceeds $8,000 and the total does not exceed the $14,000 actually paid. But $8,000 + $8,000 = $16,000 is not allowed, exceeding what was paid.

The consequence of over-claiming is written into the legislation. Section 26L(3) to (5), English text:

"(3) If the Commissioner has reason to believe that a deduction under section 26K would, if allowed, be contrary to subsection (2)(b), the Commissioner must not consider any claim for the deduction until the Commissioner is satisfied that the married person and the person's spouse have reached an agreement that would result in a total deduction that accords with that subsection. (4) Subsection (5) applies— (a) if deductions under section 26K have been allowed to a married person and the person's spouse contrary to subsection (2)(b); or (b) if— (i) a deduction under section 26K has been allowed to a married person; and (ii) within 6 months after the date of allowing the deduction, the person's spouse claims a deduction under section 26K that would, if allowed, be contrary to subsection (2)(b). (5) The Commissioner may— (a) invite the married person and the person's spouse to reach an agreement that would result in a total deduction that accords with subsection (2)(b); and (b) make additional assessments under section 60 in consequence of— (i) such an agreement reached by the married person and the person's spouse within a reasonable time; or (ii) their failure to reach such an agreement within a reasonable time."

In other words: either the couple settle the split themselves, or the Commissioner "must not consider any claim for the deduction". Note the 6 months in subsection (4)(b)(ii) — even after you have been allowed a deduction, a spouse filing within six months a claim that takes the total over the limit will have both claims reopened. DIPN 56, example 13, shows what failure to agree produces:

"In the absence of an agreement, both claims made by Mr. Q and Mrs. Q would not be considered."

Which is to say: claiming more than was actually paid does not get scaled back pro rata — both sides are put on hold.

Who most needs to know this: couples planning to "each claim $8,000 and call it a win". Not only will it fail, it will hold up both tax returns.

---

#When can you not deduct?

The table below lists the non-deductible situations that official sources set out expressly, and as against those official texts it is complete. One question readers often ask has never been addressed officially (the insurance levy); see after the table.

Several of these need expanding.

Combined policies: it is the net amount after discount that counts. The GovHK page, English text:

"If an insurance policy covers a Certified Plan and a life insurance plan, only the premium paid for the Certified Plan is deductible."

DIPN 56, example 1, even works the discount through:

"Premiums payable for the VHIS policy were $10,000 ($7,000 for the Certified Plan and $3,000 for the life insurance plan). Mr. A paid the premium annually and was given a 5% premium discount. Net premiums of $6,650 (i.e. $7,000 × 95%) paid for the Certified Plan would qualify for deduction."

$7,000 × 95% = $6,650. That is what the "net sum" in the provision means — the discount comes off first.

Group insurance is outside the scope of VHIS. Question 3 of the Health Bureau's VHIS Frequently Asked Questions states that group insurance bought by an employer for employees is not a product covered by VHIS. It is not a Certified Plan, so there are no "qualifying premiums" to begin with — even if you pay part of it yourself, nothing is deductible. (This site's record of that question is the English text, so it is reported rather than quoted; the question also lists other categories of product outside the scope of VHIS, and this site's record captured only the group insurance item in full, so this article states only that one.)

The payment date decides everything. The Department's frequently asked question 12, English text:

"No. Taxpayer cannot claim deduction in the year of assessment 2025/26 because he did not pay any qualifying premiums during that year. Therefore, taxpayer should claim deduction in respect of the premiums paid in the year of assessment 2026/27."

The question as set posits $8,000 of premiums due on 30 March 2026 and paid by the taxpayer on 2 April 2026. Three days apart, and it crosses a year of assessment — the claim falls into 2026/27. Question 55 of the Health Bureau's Frequently Asked Questions for Insurance Companies (version of 25 September 2025) goes further and deals with a change of policy holder mid-year: each person may claim only in respect of premiums paid while they or their spouse were the policy holder; if the whole year's premium was paid in one sum before the change, the new holder has nothing to deduct for that year. (That document is in English.)

A refund carries a three-month written notification duty. Section 26M(2) and (3)(a), English text (subsection (1) states when the section applies and subsection (3)(b) provides for additional assessment; neither is quoted here):

"(2) The qualifying premiums paid are taken to be reduced by the amount of the refund. (3) In addition, if the refund is made after a person claims a deduction under section 26K in respect of the qualifying premiums paid— (a) the person must notify the Commissioner in writing of the refund within 3 months after the date of refund"

The GovHK page states the consequence, English text:

"If a taxpayer, without reasonable excuse, fails to notify the Commissioner in writing of the refund of premiums within the specified period, the Commissioner will consider imposing penalty. The Commissioner will consider imposing a fine on the taxpayer or assessing additional tax in respect of the tax undercharged."

⚠️ The three months run from the date of the refund, not from the filing date or the assessment date.

The Commissioner may rewrite "how much you paid". Section 26K(4) and (5), English text:

"(4) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the qualifying premiums paid during a year of assessment for an insured person under a VHIS policy are not commensurate with the risk profile of the insured person— (a) the Commissioner may determine the amount of qualifying premiums that is, in the Commissioner's opinion, commensurate with the risk profile of the insured person; and (b) the amount so determined is taken to be the qualifying premiums paid. (5) The Commissioner may exercise a power under this Division in the way that the Commissioner considers appropriate having regard only to the information in the Commissioner's possession when exercising the power."

DIPN 56, paragraph 27, says what the provision is for:

"This is an anti-avoidance provision aimed at guarding against any possible abuse of tax deduction by claiming unreasonably high premium for a VHIS policy."

In other words: the provision not only lets the Commissioner cut the amount you claim, subsection (5) also states expressly that he may act on the information already in his hands alone. This article states only that the power exists, not how it is used in practice — it has not consulted any court or Board of Review decision on the point.

The insurance levy (Insurance Authority levy): officially never addressed. The Inland Revenue sources this article relies on — the GovHK page, the Department's frequently asked questions, DIPN 56, the filing notes, the tax return guide and PAM 61 — mention the Insurance Authority levy nowhere; the word "levy" does not appear in any of them. The Health Bureau's Code of Practice and premium search page do mention the levy, but in the context of disclosure requirements (premium tables must state that they exclude the levy collected by the Insurance Authority), not deductibility. This article therefore says nothing about whether the levy is deductible — no official document has addressed it, and either answer would be inference.

Who most needs to know this: anyone renewing between January and March, or who has just changed policy holder at the start of the year. Those two situations are the easiest to file in the wrong year.

---

#What do you actually do at filing time?

The deduction is reported in Part 9 of the tax return, in four boxes; you need not attach receipts, but you must keep them for six years; and your insurer has a duty to issue you proof of payment by the end of April each year.

Guide to Tax Return – Individuals (4/2025), Part 9, English text:

"Qualifying premiums paid under a VHIS policy is deductible under Salaries Tax and Personal Assessment. The deduction is applicable to the year of assessment 2019/20 and after. (boxes 116, 123, 130 & 137) • Enter the amount of qualifying premiums paid by you or your spouse for an insured person under a VHIS policy. Premiums already claimed in your spouse's return should be excluded."

The GovHK page, on how to claim and on supporting documents, English text:

"You may claim the deduction for qualifying premiums paid in Part 9 of your Tax Return – Individuals (BIR60). If you wish to claim for the deduction after submitting the tax return, you may complete form IR831 and return it to the Department. The claim should be lodged not later than 6 years after the end of the year of assessment in which the claim relates." "When you file your tax return, you need not attach documents to support your claim. However, you should retain documentary evidence (e.g. Premium receipts and annual premium statement) for 6 years after the expiration of the relevant year of assessment for verification when required."

⚠️ The tax return itself and its notes never state the figure $8,000 anywhere. Both say only that the deduction allowable shall not exceed the amount prescribed in the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Anyone filing from the return alone will not find the cap figure on the return — for that you need the GovHK page, PAM 61 or Schedule 3E to the Ordinance. Also, Part 9 has only four boxes, so the return itself accommodates four insured persons; but the legislation sets no limit on the number of relatives or policies (DIPN 56, paragraph 24), so beyond four you must supply the information on a separate sheet, and IR6173 likewise notes that more than two relatives must be submitted on a separate sheet in the same format.

What your insurer must give you. The Inland Revenue Department itself imposes no document requirement on insurers; the requirement sits in paragraphs 6.10 to 6.13 of the Health Bureau's Code of Practice for Insurance Companies under the Ambit of the VHIS, English text:

"6.10 Companies should provide proof of premium payment to assist Policy Holders to claim tax deduction for the qualifying premiums of Certified Plans. The proof must show clearly the information required by the Inland Revenue Department for claiming tax deduction, including – (a) the marketing name and certification number of the Certified Plan; (b) the policy number; (c) the names of the Policy Holder and the Insured Person; (d) the amount of premium net of discount paid for each Insured Person of the Certified Plan; (e) the benefit coverage period that the premium covers; and (f) the premium payment date (i.e. the date when the premium is collected by the Company). 6.11 The proof of premium payment may be in the form of premium receipt or annual premium statement. In any case, the proof has to be issued to the Policy Holders on or before end of April every year for the premium paid in the past 12 months ending March of that year of tax assessment. 6.12 In case of refund of premium, Companies should provide the relevant proof of premium refund to the Policy Holders within four weeks after the refund of premium. 6.13 The required practices stated in Section 6.10 to Section 6.12 are subject to revision upon the advice from the Inland Revenue Department."

Which is to say: the proof of payment must set out six items in full — product name, certification number, policy number, the names of the policy holder and insured person, the net premium after discount, the coverage period and the payment date; the insurer must issue it by the end of April each year; a refund requires a separate refund proof within four weeks; and these requirements may themselves be revised on the Department's advice.

Who most needs to know this: anyone wanting to back-claim an earlier year. The six-year limit runs from the end of the year of assessment, and the form is IR831; claiming for a relative means filing IR6173 as well, on which each relative's name, Hong Kong identity card number, date of birth, relationship and amount claimed must be entered.

---

#Will the cap rise in 2026/27?

Checked 1 August 2026: nothing has changed, and both 2025/26 and 2026/27 are $8,000. This is not merely "nothing seen so far" — of four documents, three each state expressly that the $8,000 figure is unchanged (see the PAM 61 table below, the appendix to the Budget Speech, and Schedule 3E to the Inland Revenue Ordinance); the fourth, the Department's "2026-27 Budget – Tax Measures" page, makes no mention at all of VHIS or health insurance — its support for the conclusion "no change" comes from the absence of VHIS from a list of seven measures (evidence by absence), not from any express statement that VHIS is unchanged.

PAM 61 footnotes the last column: "# until superseded".

The table of proposed allowances and deductions in the appendix to the 2026-27 Budget lists this row directly, English text:

"Qualifying Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme Policy Premiums | $8,000 per insured person | $8,000 per insured person | — | —"

The four columns are "Present / Proposed or New ($) / Increase ($) / (%)", and the VHIS row sits in Supplement (3) of the appendix. By contrast, in the adjacent Supplement (2), on the page before the page break, Elderly Residential Care Expenses rises from $100,000 to $110,000 — Supplements (2) and (3) run consecutively within the same Budget appendix and reuse the same set of four column headings, but they are two separately numbered schedules, not one table sharing a heading. Which is to say: the Government did move allowances and deductions this year, but it did not move VHIS. The Department's "2026-27 Budget – Tax Measures" page (page last updated 22 May 2026) lists seven measures, of which four (the one-off reduction, the allowance adjustments, the adjustment to elderly residential care expenses, and the extension of the additional child allowance for newborns) were enacted by the Legislative Council on 13 May 2026 and gazetted on 22 May; that page makes no mention whatever of VHIS or health insurance. And in the text of the Inland Revenue Ordinance as consolidated by that amendment (consolidation date 22 May 2026), Schedule 3E still has only the single item of $8,000, with no added year rows and no sunset clause.

Who most needs to know this: anyone asking "is this year's filing any different from last year's" — as far as VHIS is concerned, no.

---

#Where official documents do not line up, and why you need to know

This section is not fault-finding; it is here because you may hit one of these documents and then reach a different conclusion from another. As at 1 August 2026 all of the following were simultaneously live on official websites:

1. Starting year: the legislation says 2019/20, GovHK says 2020/21. Discussed above. The legislation governs.
2. The "unmarried" condition: in the legislation, absent from two filing guides and two VHIS consumer pages. Discussed above.
3. The most detailed official guidance exists only in English. DIPN 56 (February 2020) is the only official document carrying all fourteen worked examples and dealing with apportionment, separation and divorce timing, polygamous marriage and same-sex marriage. The Department's Chinese index of Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes states, against number 56:

   「56. 釋義及執行指引編號56的 英文版 已經發出，請瀏覽本局英文網頁。」 That entry states that the English version has been issued and directs the reader to the Department's English pages. Which is to say: a taxpayer who reads only Chinese cannot reach a single one of that document's examples. Where the Chinese edition of this article quotes it, it keeps the English original and adds a translation alongside, precisely so that you know you are reading a restatement of an English document.

4. DIPN 56 is itself out of date and has not been reissued. Throughout, it still says "Food and Health Bureau" and "Secretary for Food and Health"; section 26I has since been amended by Legal Notice 144 of 2022 to read "Secretary for Health". Cite its reasoning, but not its bureau names.
5. The Chinese and English texts of the same page diverge. In the Department's frequently asked question 6, the Chinese answer is 「只有納税人作為保單持有人或其同住配偶」 while the English answer says only "his spouse", dropping "cohabiting". Here it is the English version that has lost something: the Chinese text of section 26K(1)(a) itself says 「由有關納稅人或其同住配偶，以保單持有人身分繳付」, so the Chinese answer is the one aligned with the legislation. Reading only the English version of that question, you would not learn that a separated spouse does not count. Likewise, where GovHK describes the deductible amount, the English says "the qualifying premiums paid" while the Chinese says 「實際支付的款額」 — the Chinese has dropped the "qualifying" qualifier, and read on its own would suggest the whole policy's premium enters the cap comparison. The legislation and the English text are the correct reading here.

How this site reads it: these five points share a structure — the closer a document is to the reader, the less complete it is. The Ordinance, which has legal force, is the most complete; the most detailed guidance is in English; and the filing notes and insurance websites the consumer is most likely to open are the ones that omit the most. So the real risk with this deduction is not "not knowing it exists", but "claiming it by following a simplified official document, and claiming it wrongly".

Who most needs to know this: everyone who intends to fill in Part 9 themselves. The filing notes are a summary, not a complete list of conditions.

---

#What to do next

1. Check first whether what you bought is a Certified Plan. Only qualifying premiums on a Certified Plan are deductible; group insurance bought by an employer is outside the scheme.
2. Count insured people, not policies. The cap is $8,000 per insured person, with no limit on how many, so a household insured individually stacks.
3. Before sharing one policy, settle who pays and who is the policy holder. Those two facts, plus how the insured person is related to you, decide who can deduct — and they cannot be fixed after the event.
4. Do not read the deduction as a refund. $8,000 comes off your income; what you actually save depends on your band and how you are assessed.
5. Pay the premium inside the year of assessment. A few days across the year end crosses into another year, and it is the payment date that counts.
6. Keep the insurer's payment receipt. It has to carry the plan name, certification number, policy number, policy holder and insured person, net premium, period of cover and payment date.
7. If you are claiming for an earlier year, count the 6-year limit first. Past that limit it cannot be recovered, and only the more recent years are actually still open.

#Frequently asked questions

Is the $8,000 cap per insured person counted once for each policy?

No. Section 26K(3) states that whether the same insured person is insured under one or more than one policy, the cap is the amount specified in Schedule 3E, that is $8,000. Buy three policies for the same insured person and in your hands they still total at most $8,000.

I paid most of the premium — why can I deduct only half?

Because the policy has more than one policy holder. Section 26K(2) requires the premiums to be taken as paid by all the policy holders in equal shares, and who actually paid what is disregarded. The Department's frequently asked question 3 gives the example: a $12,000 policy with two holders, one actually paying $8,000 and the other $4,000, and each deducts $6,000.

I pay my mother's premiums but I am not a policy holder — can I deduct?

No. The Department's frequently asked question 6 answers that only the taxpayer as policy holder, or the taxpayer's spouse, may claim.

My eldest brother already claims the dependent parent allowance for our father — can I still deduct his premiums?

Yes. The Department's frequently asked question 4 states that there is no direct relationship between deducting a specified relative's qualifying premiums and claiming an allowance for that relative; even where someone has claimed the dependent parent allowance for the same insured person, the other policy holders may still claim the premium deduction.

In a polygamous marriage, can I deduct for each spouse?

No. DIPN 56, paragraph 16, states that only the principal spouse counts, and premiums paid for a spouse other than the principal spouse are not deductible. That paragraph exists only in English.

My spouse has died — can I still deduct for that side's parents?

DIPN 56, paragraph 18, defines "parent" and "grandparent" as those of the taxpayer or of the taxpayer's living or deceased spouse, so the Department's position is that they remain specified relatives (the age or disability condition still has to be met). That paragraph exists only in English, and the text of the legislation does not write "deceased" into the definitions.

My child is married — does that still count as a specified relative?

It depends on the year of assessment and when the marriage took place. Section 26J(3) requires the child or sibling to be "unmarried" at any time during that year of assessment and at the same time to meet one of the age, full time education or disability conditions — if they were married throughout the year, that year does not count; but if within the same year they went from unmarried to married (marrying mid-year, say), then provided that during the unmarried period they also met one of the other conditions, that year of assessment still counts, and they cease to qualify only from the next year of assessment (see the section on the word "unmarried" above). The filing notes and the VHIS website do not list "unmarried" as a condition, but the legislation does.

Due in March, paid in April — which year does it count in?

The year of actual payment. The Department's frequently asked question 12 gives the example: $8,000 of premiums due on 30 March 2026 and paid on 2 April 2026 may be claimed only in the year of assessment 2026/27.

I am taxed at the standard rate — can I still deduct?

Yes. The Department's frequently asked question 11 states that the qualifying premium deduction is a "concessionary deduction" under Part 4A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, coming off assessable income first, with the balance then taxed at progressive or standard rates; a person taxed at the standard rate is equally eligible.

#What this article does not state

• The official disagreement about the starting year is unresolved. GovHK says 2020/21; the legislation and DIPN 56 say 2019/20, and as at 1 August 2026 both were online. This site adopts 2019/20 on the basis of the Ordinance, but has not put the point to the Inland Revenue Department, and has seen no official document explaining the difference.
• Whether the Insurance Authority levy is a qualifying premium has never been addressed officially. None of the Department's relevant documents mentions the levy. This article states nothing either way.
• The Government publishes no overall statistics on VHIS premiums. There is no mean, no median, and no distribution by age or sex. The Health Bureau publishes each Certified Plan's own premium table but expressly gives no warranty as to the accuracy, validity or completeness of any aggregated result, and states that it does not regulate the premiums of Certified Plans. This article therefore provides no cross-plan premium comparison table: such a table could only be assembled by stitching together individual products' own premium tables, is not a figure the Government publishes, and there is no official overall premium statistic to use instead. For an individual plan's premium table, consult that plan's own premium table document on vhis.gov.hk.
• This article does not calculate how much tax anyone would actually save. The "3. Calculation of Tax Payable" page of PAM 61 itself carries the full marginal rates and bands (see the section on a deduction not being the same as what you save, and the illustrative range of $160 to about $1,360); what this article has not done is apply that table to an individual reader to work out their real saving — that figure depends on annual income, allowances and basis of assessment, is an individual matter, and is for the Inland Revenue Department or a professional to judge.
• DIPN 56 exists only in English and has not been reissued since February 2020. All fourteen of its worked examples are in English only, and the document still uses "Food and Health Bureau", renamed in 2022.
• No court or Board of Review decision on sections 26H to 26M has been consulted. Section 26K(4) — the Commissioner's power to determine an amount where premiums are not commensurate with risk — is a provision with no precedent seen; this article states only that it exists, not how it is applied.
• No Legislative Council bills committee papers or minutes have been consulted, so this article does not explain how the $8,000 level was set, nor state whether indexation to inflation was considered when the law was made.
• There is no figure for how many taxpayers actually claim this deduction, or for its revenue cost. None of the sources this article relies on carries that data.
• The statutory definitions of "parent" and "grandparent" each carry a note pointing to section 2(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, and this article has not consulted that section. What this article states about a deceased spouse's parents and grandparents is the Department's reading as set out in paragraphs 18 and 20 of DIPN 56, not the text of section 2(1). Those two paragraphs exist only in English.
• This article reports rather than quotes three Health Bureau documents. For questions 3 and 41 of the VHIS Frequently Asked Questions, the vhis.gov.hk tax-deduction page, and the Frequently Asked Questions for Insurance Companies, this site's record holds the English text only. Of those, the VHIS Frequently Asked Questions (question 22 of the same document does have a Chinese version) and the vhis.gov.hk tax-deduction page (which has its own Chinese URL) both have Chinese versions; but for the Frequently Asked Questions for Insurance Companies this site could find no Chinese version anywhere — it appears to be published in English only, so this is not a case of "we only have the English", but of the document having no Chinese version at all. To avoid passing a translation off as a quotation, all three are reported rather than quoted in the text, without quotation marks. For question 22 of the same VHIS Frequently Asked Questions, and for paragraphs 6.10 to 6.13 of the Code of Practice for Insurance Companies under the Ambit of the VHIS, this site's record does hold a Chinese text, so those two are quoted.

---

Data status: compiled from the Inland Revenue Ordinance and public documents of the Inland Revenue Department and the Health Bureau; every figure is attributed with its source and date.

#Sources

• Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), sections 26H–26M and Schedule 3E (years of application; definitions of qualifying premiums and policy holder; specified relative; the $8,000 cap; equal shares between multiple policy holders; the Commissioner's power to determine; claims by married persons and excess claims; refund notification), Hong Kong e-Legislation: elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap112, consolidated version of 22 May 2026 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, "Tax Deduction for Qualifying Premiums Paid under Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme Policy", GovHK (eligibility; the definition of specified relative including "unmarried"; the amount of allowable deduction; combined policies; the refund penalty; how to claim; supporting documents): https://www.gov.hk/tc/residents/taxes/salaries/allowances/deductions/vhis.htm, revision date: May 2026 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, frequently asked questions on Tax Deduction for Qualifying Premiums Paid under the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme (VHIS) Policy (questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12; worked examples set in the year of assessment 2025/26): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/faq/vhis_qp.htm, revision date: 4 May 2026 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 56 (Revised), February 2020, English version only (paragraphs 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27; examples 1, 6, 8, 12 and 13): https://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/dipn56.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, Chinese index of Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes (recording that number 56 was issued in English only): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/ppr/dip.htm (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, Guide to Tax Return – Individuals (4/2025), Part 9 (boxes 116/123/130/137; applicable to 2019/20 and subsequent years; specified relative conditions): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/pdf/bir60_cguide.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, Notes and Instructions — Form BIR60C (4/2025), item 22 (specified relative conditions, "unmarried" not stated): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/pdf/BIR60C_notes.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, form IR831 (11/2024), item 14 (claiming after filing): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/pdf/ir831c.pdf; form IR6173 (12/2022, bilingual, information reported for each relative): https://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/ir6173.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, Allowances, Deductions and Tax Rate Table, PAM 61(c), June 2026 (the cap is 8,000 for every year from 2020/21 to 2026/27; the "3. Calculation of Tax Payable" page separately carries the progressive bands, standard rate and two-tiered standard rate tables, quoted in the section on a deduction not being the same as what you save): https://www.ird.gov.hk/chi/pdf/pam61c.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026; progressive band table re-checked and retrieved: 9 August 2026)
• Appendix to the 2026-27 Budget Speech (table of proposed allowances and deductions: the VHIS premium cap stays at 8,000 per insured person): https://www.budget.gov.hk/2026/chi/pdf/c_budget_speech_2026-27.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Inland Revenue Department, "2026-27 Budget – Tax Measures" (seven measures, VHIS not among them; the related legislation passed on 13 May 2026 and gazetted on 22 May): https://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/tax/budget.htm, page last updated: 22 May 2026 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• VHIS Standard Plan Policy Template (1 July 2022 version), Preamble (the nature of VHIS; the Scheme Documents are non-statutory): https://www.vhis.gov.hk/doc/tc/information_centre/c_standard_plan_template.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Government press release, "Government announces Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme details", 1 March 2018 (the original announcement of the $8,000 cap and of there being no limit on the number of dependants): https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201803/01/P2018030100434.htm (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Health Bureau, VHIS Frequently Asked Questions, question 3 (group insurance bought by an employer for employees is outside the scope of VHIS), question 22 (as of 30 June 2026, 100 Certified Plans offering 573 products) and question 41 (definition of specified relative, "unmarried" not stated): https://www.vhis.gov.hk/tc/consumer_corner/faqs.html, review date: 9 July 2026 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Health Bureau, "Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme – Tax Deduction" page (the consumer-facing account of specified relatives): https://www.vhis.gov.hk/tc/consumer_corner/tax-deduction.html, review date: 23 June 2025 (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Health Bureau, Code of Practice for Insurance Companies under the Ambit of the VHIS, paragraphs 6.10 to 6.13 (the six items of the proof of payment; issue by the end of April each year; a refund proof within four weeks; requirements revisable on the Department's advice), Chinese text: https://www.vhis.gov.hk/doc/tc/information_centre/c_cop_20200709.pdf (retrieved: 9 August 2026); English text: https://www.vhis.gov.hk/doc/en/information_centre/e_cop_20200709.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Health Bureau, Frequently Asked Questions for Insurance Companies (25 September 2025, English version only), question 55 (change of policy holder mid-year): https://www.vhis.gov.hk/doc/en/information_centre/e_insurer_faq.pdf (retrieved: 1 August 2026)
• Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service (2019) 22 HKCFAR 127 (a same-sex spouse's entitlement to the deduction, as cited in paragraph 15 of DIPN 56)

#Further reading

• On this platform: VHIS complete guide

This article was compiled by the editorial team from the Inland Revenue Ordinance and public government documents; every rule and figure is attributed. It is an organisation of information, not tax advice; individual cases are for the Inland Revenue Department or a professional to judge.