Legal decisions - case notes: Case notes 2006
List of cases
In this section you will find brief notes of decisions made by the Taxation Review Authority, the High Court, Court of Appeal, Privy Council and the Supreme Court. These case notes do not set out Inland Revenue policy, nor do they represent our attitude to the decision.
| Title | Decision date | Case | Appeal status |
High Court substantially upholds validity of Section 17 Notice issued to taxpayer |
22 December 2006 |
Lupton v CIR |
Section 17 does not authorise the Commissioner to require a person, other than the person named in the notice to vouch for the correctness of the information given. Not appealed. |
20 December 2006 |
Manu Chhotubhai Bhanabhai & Douglas Mark Andrew Burgess v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Mr Bhanabhai had breached the undertaking given and the amount of the compensation awarded was upheld. Appealed. |
|
19 December 2006 |
J A Reid & Others v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The plaintiff alleged misfeasance in public office against the Commissioner in relation to the tax investigation and Serious Fraud Office referral of the plaintiff's investment scheme. Not appealed. |
|
Commissioner directed to consider remission of penalties and interest |
15 December 2006 |
Chesterfields Pre-Schools Limited and Other v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The taxpayer obtained directions against the Commissioner regarding aspects of their tax affairs. Not appealed. |
31 October 2006 |
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Churton Farms Limited. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Ngaturi Properties Limited |
During the course of liquidation proceedings Rule 146 of the High Court Rules prevents a defence from being raised on the ground of counterclaim or set-off once the liquidation proceeding is issued. Not appealed. |
|
02 August 2006 |
Jeffrey George Lopas and Lorraine Elizabeth McHerron v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue SC 2/2006 [2006] NZSC 56 |
The applicants were unsuccessful in their appeal to the Court of Appeal, and sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The first issue in dispute was whether the proviso to s. 51(1) of the GST Act 1986 is incorporated into s. 52(1). The second issue was whether the Commissioner's second argument in the Court of Appeal that the applicants were not eligible for deregistration was recorded in the Statement of Position. Appealed. |
|
08 August 2006 |
TRA04/2005 Decision Number 9/2006 |
A case similar to Ch'elle Properties where the taxpayer obtained GST refunds on the purchase of real estate on very long settlement terms. Ch'elle Properties was not directly applied to the arrangement but was influential and a Shortfall Penalty confirmed. Not appealed. |
|
07 July 2006 |
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Philip John Duncan |
A trustee who incurs an obligation to a finance house to develop and sell a property prior to being bankrupted is not liable for GST that he incurs on behalf of the trust as a result of the sales after the date of bankruptcy. The debt is provable in his bankrupt estate in terms of section 87(1) of the Insolvency Act 1987 (the Act). Appealed. |
|
Over-market payments to a related person in the course of business |
08 November 2006 |
TRA Decision Number 15/2007 |
The disputant had entered into an arrangement to pay an above-market income to an administration assistant provided by a related company. As that company had significant carry-forward losses, a significant tax advantage accrued to the disputant. This was held to be so by the Taxation Review Authority ("TRA"). Not appealed. |
09 June 2006 |
TRA No. 018/05, Decision No. 8/2006 |
The Commissioner sought to counteract the tax advantage by disallowing the refunds claimed by the 0 disputants. To permit these refunds would be to allow the disputants to benefit from an arrangement designed to defeat the intent and application of the GST Act. Therefore, the scheme in this case was void against the Commissioner pursuant to section 76. Not appealed. |
|
23 May 2006 |
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Zentrum Holdings Ltd |
In circumstances where the evidence exclusion rule did not apply the Commissioner was held to be allowed to raise a ground to justify an assessment on appeal which had not been included in the Notice of Proposed Adjustment or raised in the Taxation Review Authority. Appealed. |
|
Taxpayer successfully opposes Commissioner's application to adduce new evidence |
03 May 2006 |
TRA003/003 Decision Number 7/2006 |
The Commissioner was unsuccessful in his attempt, under section 138G(2) TAA, to adduce new evidence which section 138G(1) excluded. Not appealed. |
01 May 2006 |
TRA Number 145/04, Decision Number 006/2006 |
When a purported valuation is subject to review, evidence of events that have occurred post that valuation date can be relied upon to help determine whether a valuation made was reasonable and justified at the time. Not appealed. |
|
30 March 2006 |
Donald Eugene Allen v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
To dispute and then challenge a "default" assessment a taxpayer must file the outstanding return and a NOPA within the response time. Appealed. |
|
24 February 2006 |
Prophet Investments Limited |
The Commissioner considered the list of documents prepared by the plaintiff was deficient and made an application for further and better discovery, which was granted. Not appealed. |
|
28 February 2006 |
J G Russell v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The Court of Appeal accepted that an appeal deemed abandoned by the Court of Appeal Rules was not dismissed. It declined to use its resources accepting an appeal by the taxpayer where that appeal was filed out of time and the substantive dispute was not a real controversy. Not appealed. |
|
High Court discusses Commissioner's ability to settle tax litigation |
13 February 2006 |
Accent Management Limited & Ors v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The plaintiffs made two applications. The first was that Venning J disqualify himself from hearing the non-party costs award against Dr Muir, and also that he should not have heard the substantive case. The second was an application that the substantive Trinity scheme judgment be recalled. Both applications were refused. This summary only considers the recall application. Not appealed. |
15 February 2006 |
Re: Next Generation Investments Ltd (in liq) v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Judicial Review) |
The Commissioner may employ section 17 notices during the liquidation of a company even though he is a creditor of the company. Section 17 prevails over section 256 Companies Act 1993 ("CA"). A as long as the Commissioner's status as a creditor is merely incidental to the subject matter of the notice. Not appealed. |
|
10 January 2006 |
TRA 003/05 Decision No 001/2006 |
The TRA found that the relief courier drirver was a casual employee of the disputant. The disputant was therefore responsible for the PAYE. Not appealed. |
|
31 March 2006 |
Graham Ashley Robert Palmer v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The District Court struck out causes of action 3,4,5 & 6 of the Taxpayer's Statement of Claim under the proviso to section 44 District Courts Act 1947 as the aggregate of the causes of action in the proceeding exceeded the District Court' jurisdiction of $200,000 and the Taxpayer knew his claim exceeded the jurisdiction. Not appealed. |
|
30 March 2006 |
Clarence John Faloon v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
The Taxpayer sought an order recalling a prior High Court judgment of Asher J. The taxpayer essentially re-litigated his complaints contained in his Statement of Claim from Asher J's prior judgment. Referring to the leading case on recall of Wild CJ in Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632, Asher J found that there was no proper basis in which the taxpayer can recall the judgment. Not appealed. |
|
Taxpayer unsuccessful in attempt to compel Commissioner to accept and allow late objection |
22 March 2006 |
FB Duvall v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
Neither the taxpayer nor the TRA could determine an objection for the Commissioner, regardless of the delay in determining the objection. Appealed. |
21 March 2006 |
New Zealand Ostrich Export Company Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue |
All losses incurred by an LAQC must be attributed. The net loss for attribution cannot be partly reduced by an offset against the income of a profit company under the loss offset provisions. Appealed. |
Note: We are currently converting historical case notes into HTML format. If you are looking for case notes that are not published here you may find them by referring to the Tax Information Bulletin.
Date published: 17 Jul 2006
Back to top