myIR, payments and more
We focus on producing items that accurately and fairly reflect taxation legislation, and are useful in practical situations. Your input into the process is highly valued.
On this page:
Let us know what you think about our drafts. Are they technically accurate? Do they fairly reflect taxation legislation? Are they in line with commercial reality and useful in practical situations?
PUB00319: When is an arrangement considered to be "materially different" from the arrangement identified in a private or product ruling?
This item considers when an arrangement (the revised arrangement) will be “materially different” from the arrangement identified in a private or product ruling for the purpose of ss 91EB(2)(a) and 91FB(2)(a). The item concludes that the revised arrangement is “materially different” for the purpose of ss 91EB(2)(a) and 91FB(2)(a) if, in relation to a tax type, the difference between the revised arrangement and the arrangement identified in the ruling is capable of affecting the tax outcome referred to in the ruling. Whether the revised arrangement is materially different from the arrangement identified in the ruling will be considered on a case-by-case basis, because it will turn on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Comment deadline: 31 January 2018
PUB00319 - PDF format (245 kb | 6 pages)
PUB00296: When is income from a cash dividend paid on ordinary shares derived?
This item addresses issues that can arise with the timing of the derivation of income for recipients of cash dividends. In particular, timing differences between cash-basis and accrual-basis taxpayers (other than when a specific timing regime applies), and dividends derived from closely-held companies where more diverse practices concerning dividends can arise.
Comment deadline: 22 December 2017
PUB00296 - PDF format (328kb | 14 pages)
PUB00318: Binding Rulings – Effect of the Commissioner changing her mind in relation to the application of s BG 1
This item considers the situation where a binding private or product ruling has been issued for an ongoing arrangement, and the Commissioner’s view of how the general anti-avoidance provision applies to the arrangement subsequently changes. The item concludes that the Commissioner can apply the anti-avoidance provision to any period following the expiry of the ruling.
Comment deadline: 20 December 2017
PUB00318 - PDF format (216 kb | 6 pages)
You can email your comments to us at email@example.com This email address is only for providing feedback on public drafts.
For all other feedback, please use our Comments and feedback form
If you wish to post us your comments, send them to:
Team Manager, Technical Services
Office of the Chief Tax Counsel
Inland Revenue Department
PO Box 2198
Download Microsoft Word Viewer to access .doc files if you do not have Microsoft Word.