GARRY ALBERT MUIR v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZSC 90
Leave to appeal was granted only on whether issue estoppel and/or abuse of process prevent the appellant from pursuing the sub-pt EH argument for the 1999 and subsequent tax years and on the indemnity costs point; claims for 1997 and 1998 are precluded by this Court's decisions in Ben Nevis and Redcliffe.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZSC 90
- Parties
- Applicant: Garry Albert Muir; Respondent: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 July 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal (leave to Appeal to Supreme Court) / Leave Granted; Substantive Appeal Limited to Specified Issues and Scheduled for Hearing
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted in part limited to the 1999 and subsequent tax years and to the question of indemnity costs; leave otherwise refused for 1997 and 1998 years
- Legal Topics
- Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Accrual Rules (sub Pt Eh), Indemnity Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Garry Albert Muir
Applicant
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (leave to Appeal to Supreme Court) / Leave Granted; Substantive Appeal Limited to Specified Issues and Scheduled for Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether issue estoppel and/or abuse of process prevent the appellant from pursuing sub-pt EH deductions for the 1999 and subsequent tax years
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted only on whether issue estoppel and/or abuse of process prevent the appellant from pursuing the sub-pt EH argument for the 1999 and subsequent tax years and on the indemnity costs point; claims for 1997 and 1998 are precluded by this Court's decisions in Ben Nevis and Redcliffe.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted in part limited to the 1999 and subsequent tax years and to the question of indemnity costs; leave otherwise refused for 1997 and 1998 years
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted limited to: (i) whether issue estoppel and/or abuse of process prevent pursuit of sub-pt EH arguments for the 1999 and subsequent tax years; and (ii) whether indemnity costs should be awarded
- Approved questions are limited to the two points identified above
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GARRY ALBERT MUIR v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZSC 90 [20 July 2016]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 6/2016[2016] NZSC 90BETWEEN GARRY ALBERT MUIRApplicantAND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: William Young, Arnold and OʼRegan JJCounsel: Applicant in personT G H Smith and S J Leslie for RespondentJudgment: 20 July 2016JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] In relation to the 1997 and 1998 tax years, we agree with the Court of Appeal1 that the decisions of this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue2 and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe1 Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591 (Harrison, Dobson and Gilbert JJ).2 Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2008] NZSC 115, [2009] 2 NZLR 289.Forestry Venture Ltd3 prevent the applicant, Dr Muir, from claiming deductions under the accrual rules in sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994, for the reasons the Court gave. The grant of leave accordingly applies only to the 1999 and subsequent tax years and to the indemnity costs point.[2] On the first point, the grant of leave is in respect of the question whether the doctrines of issue estoppel and/or abuse of process operate to prevent Dr Muir from pursuing the sub-pt EH argument for the 1999 and subsequent tax years. In respect of issue estoppel, we ask that the parties address the general application of the doctrine in the tax context as well as its application in this particular case (assuming its general application).[3] We will hear the appeal on a date convenient to counsel in the week beginning 22 August 2016. One day should be sufficient. To facilitate a hearing in that week, Dr Muir is to file and serve his submissions by 5 pm on Thursday 4 August 2016 and the respondent is to file and serve her submissions by 5pm on Thursday 18 August 2016.[4] Dr Muir's application for leave to appeal and submissions in support are not as clear as they might be. For the avoidance of doubt, the leave granted does not extend to any issues other than those we have identified.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent3 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 94, [2013] 1 NZLR 804