MALCOLM HUNT LTD (STRUCK OFF) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2006-404-178

MALCOLM HUNT LTD (STRUCK OFF) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2006- 404-178 13 July 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2006-404-178IN THE MATTER OF the Income Tax Act 1976 BETWEEN MALCOLM HUNT LIMITED (STRUCK OFF) Appellant AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2006 Appearances: R J Warburton for the appellant M J Ruffin and A Wortman for the respondent Judgment: 13 July 2006JUDGMENT OF ELLEN FRANCE JDelivery time in accordance with Rule 540(4): 3:15 pm Thursday 13 July 2006[1] In a decision now reported as Case X3 (2005) 22 NZTC 12,063, the Taxation Review Authority ("TRA") struck out a case stated on appeal in relation to Malcolm Hunt Limited, the appellant. The TRA stuck out the case stated because the appellant company had been struck off the register of companies and so had no legal capacity to pursue the case. The company appeals against that decision to this Court by way of case stated under s 26 of the Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994. [2] In a separate judgment delivered at the same time in Downsview Nominees Limited v Registrar of Companies HC AK CIV 2005-404-401 I have ordered thatMalcolm Hunt Limited be restored to the register. That makes this appeal moot. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Costs are to lie where they fall. ________________________ Ellen France J Appendix attachedSolicitors/Counsel:R J Warburton, PO Box 127, Auckland M J Ruffin, PO Box 2213, AucklandAPPENDIX Questions on appeal by way of case stated: Question 1 Was it correct for the Authority to take the view in this case that because he had determined in Case W13 that such a deed of assignment was ineffectual that such should be found in this case and that the factual differences between the cases made no difference to the substantive findings. Question 2 Was it correct for the Authority to strike out these cases stated in view of s 6 Tax Administration Act 1994 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Question 3 Was it correct for the Authority to find in these cases that the issue of the effect of s 99(4) did not arise on the facts before him. Question 4 Was it correct for the Authority to strike out the cases on appeal because the objector no longer had the necessary status or legal capacity to pursue it. Question 5 Was the decision of the Authority correct to strike out the cases stated in view of the circumstances of this case and should the decision of the Authority be quashed and the following order made: The proceedings before the Authority be stayed until a determination of the appeal in Case W13 or the name of the objector be restored to the register.