J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 95/2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the case involved unusual factual circumstances (manual assessments) that did not raise any point of law of general or public importance or commercial significance, and the Court of Appeal's conclusion was a factual finding not involving a question of principle.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 95/2009
- Parties
- First Applicant: J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP; Second Applicant: JULIAN DOYLE HENSON; Third Applicant: CAROLYN ELLEN HENSON; Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Notice of Assessment, Validity of Tax Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Factual Findings Vs Point of Law
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP
First Applicant
JULIAN DOYLE HENSON
Second Applicant
CAROLYN ELLEN HENSON
Third Applicant
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Taxation Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether manual statements of account constituted notices of assessment
- 2 Whether the matter raised a point of law of general or public importance or commercial significance sufficient to grant leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal's factual conclusion gave rise to an issue of principle
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the case involved unusual factual circumstances (manual assessments) that did not raise any point of law of general or public importance or commercial significance, and the Court of Appeal's conclusion was a factual finding not involving a question of principle.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Applicants ordered to pay respondent costs of $3000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 95/2009 15 December 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 95/2009 [2009] NZSC 128BETWEEN J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP First Applicant AND JULIAN DOYLE HENSON Second Applicant AND CAROLYN ELLEN HENSON Third Applicant AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Court: Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ Counsel: D G Hayes for Applicants M S R Palmer for Respondent Judgment: 15 December 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicants are to pay the respondent for costs the sum of $3000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.REASONS[1] In their submissions in support of this application for leave to appeal in a taxation case, the applicants say that their essential concern is that they believe they have not been given a proper notice of assessment. In response the Commissioner states that the correctness and validity of the tax assessment issued was confirmed by the Taxation Review Authority and the High Court. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' challenge to the validity of the assessment. [2] The case is very unusual because it involves the issuing of manual instead of computer generated assessments. The facts are therefore quite special and we cannot regard them as giving rise to any point of law of general or public importance or of commercial significance. As well, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the statements of account issued on 15 October 1996 and 26 February 1997 could, in the particular circumstances, properly be regarded as notices of assessment represents a factual conclusion which gives rise to no issue of principle. [3] For these reasons the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.Solicitors: Brook Law, Hamilton for Applicants Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent