RNH TAMIHERE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 1959

RNH TAMIHERE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 1959 [6 August 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV 2013-404-001056[2013] NZHC 1959UNDER High Court Rules 7.19(4); 12.4(4); 25.5IN THE MATTER OF an interlocutory application for stayBETWEEN ROBIN NOEMA HUGHES TAMIHEREApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentHearing: 6 August 2013Appearances: Mr Tamihere in person the ApplicantC K Wood for the RespondentJudgment: 6 August 2013ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN[1] On 2 August 2013 Mr Tamihere was adjudicated bankrupt by Associate JudgeSargisson upon the Commissioner's application for adjudication.[2] Her Honour noted that steps taken by Mr Tamihere to appeal the District Court judgment in favour of the Commissioner for tax arrears failed when his application for an extension of time to file an appeal was dismissed.[3] Mr Tamihere continues to claim that he wants the opportunity to challenge the assessments of the Commissioner. However, he has had that opportunity previously. Those assessments are now, as Associate Judge Sargisson noted, deemed correct.[4] The matter has been called today upon Mr Tamihere's application for a stay. Mr Tamihere says he has now engaged a tax agent who has attempted to access his IRD records, but he says that access has been declined. He claims his Human Rights Act rights have been breached. He says his previous tax accountant did a very poor job.[5] Mr Tamihere handed up an affidavit for my consideration.[6] Mr Tamihere claims that he is a member of the diplomatic staff of a Mr Monga a diplomat of Atooi of the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi. He says that as he is a staff member therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction in this matter.[7] The affidavit recounts again Mr Tamihere's reasons for disputing thejudgment that has led to the order for bankruptcy made against him four days ago. A quick perusal of the rest of the affidavit indicates it concerns matters that he has already raised in argument before various judges.[8] It is not appropriate for this Court to be engaged with a request to reconsider material which has already been the subject of consideration and decision of the High Court.[9] Upon an application for stay Mr Tamihere bears a responsibility of showing a substantial miscarriage of justice would likely result if the order for bankruptcy was not stayed.[10] Effectively he wants a stay to enable him to pursue an appeal of the order for bankruptcy.[11] It is clear he wants to revisit the Commissioner's assessment of his taxliability – in particular with respect to the component comprising penalties and interest added to the core debt. He believes also that there are tax credits due to him which will also impact on the calculation of what he says is the correct sum owing by him.[12] Upon the stay applications the Court needs to address the conflicting interests of both sides.[13] It is the Court's view that in the balance of things no substantial miscarriage will occur by refusing the stay application.[14] Mr Tamihere has already had access to those same review processes he now claims he is being denied.[15] Mr Tamihere is clearly insolvent.[16] Also, the order for bankruptcy will not prevent him pursuing an appeal if that is what he wants to do.[17] The application for stay is dismissed.Associate Judge Christiansen