New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Default assessments

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2023

AOKAUTERE LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 1839

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1839
Court

High Court

The application for specific discovery was dismissed because the Commissioner had already provided affidavit evidence addressing the reasoning for the s 157 decision and whether ALHL was in the scope of the criminal investigation; ALHL failed to provide any evidence or grounds to infer existence of further relevant documents; the request lacked sufficient relevance and proportionality and was effectively a fishing expedition, so discovery was not justified.
14 Aug 2018

KRASNIQI v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2018] NZHC 2075

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2075
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Authority's decision: s 138G(2) leave was correctly refused because the appellant could with due diligence have discerned the issues before filing his statement of position and no manifest injustice arose; the statutory disclosure and de novo hearing framework meant the Commissioner was not required to undertake additional investigatory obligations to enable the taxpayer to discharge the onus; the onus rested on the taxpayer to prove on balance of probabilities that the default assessments were incorrect and he repeatedly failed to produce corroborative evidence for…
6 Dec 2013

PATTERSON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA870/2013 [2013] NZCA 619 [6 December 2013]

Citation

[2013] NZCA 619
Court

Court of Appeal

Because Patterson did not pay the ordered security for costs and the appeal lacked any realistic prospect of success — the challenge sought to re-litigate default tax assessments that were final under the Tax Administration Act 1994 and barred by s 109 — the appeal was properly struck out under r 37(1).
3 May 2013

ARAI KORP LIMITED V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC HAM CIV 2011-419-001243

Citation

openlaw-0bed6a7c_f5fe_4e65_a54a_cc3c42229582.pdf
Court

High Court

The Commissioner's refusal to exercise the s113 discretion was not manifestly unreasonable because s113 cannot be used as a backdoor to bypass the statutory disputes and challenge procedures; the applicant had failed to avail itself of the available statutory remedies, the Commissioner reasonably relied on a prior full investigation and on resource and parity considerations, and the decision fell within the proper exercise of the wide discretion vested by s113.
29 Sept 2011

NGUYEN v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC WN CIV 2010-485-1452

Citation

openlaw-49751233_4e22_46d9_b03c_96b2eb80129f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed judicial review: the Commissioner made genuine and honest assessments based on available information and statutory challenge procedures were the primary remedy; the refusal to amend under s113 did not amount to reviewable error because the taxpayer failed to provide clear, corroboratory evidence of specific errors; however the Commissioner was invited to reconsider two discrete points (the precise amount remitted by police and the attribution of the Lexus CFB651) under s113 given their potential materiality to the assessed liability.
28 Sept 2011

HARDIE V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE COA CA68/2011

Citation

openlaw-9c34c00c_1131_404b_b632_ac9a13f8e9cd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the strike out was wrong because on the limited record it was arguable the default assessments were not genuine exercises of judgment (compounding 10% monthly increases to induce filing, possible failure to allow input credits and an unexplained 20% expense allowance), so judicial review proceedings should not have been struck out and the matter must proceed to the High Court for full consideration.
23 Dec 2010

J D HARDIE V CIR AK CIV 2010-404-1453

Citation

openlaw-4ee5051c_dda3_468d_8475_2bfc3aab2302.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was struck out because the statutory objection/challenge procedure is primary and capable of addressing the asserted errors; the pleadings and prior litigation history show no exceptional circumstances of conscious maladministration and therefore the judicial review route is an abuse of process; discovery was not a sufficient basis to displace the statutory scheme.
29 Jun 2009

CIVIL AND MARINE DIESEL LIMITED V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2009-404-000968

Citation

openlaw-da0f38bb_4920_4140_8552_5bf01b1581e8.pdf
Court

High Court

The court concluded that late filing penalties are likely payable and could sustain the statutory demand, but the imposition of interest on reversed default assessments may be unreasonable and falls within the Commissioner's discretionary power to waive; the matter was therefore adjourned to allow the parties to seek resolution and potential waiver of interest before a final determination.
27 Feb 2008

CHRISTIESON V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC HAM CIV 2007-419-913

Citation

openlaw-e101f93a_cf43_40f7_8e6b_926e40c85f86.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory time limits required to invoke the dispute procedure under the Tax Administration Act 1994 and adduced no evidence of exceptional circumstances warranting extension of time; the Commissioner's unchallenged evidence disposed of the claim, making the proceeding without merit and justifying judgment for the Commissioner and an indemnity costs award.
30 Mar 2006

ALLEN V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 60/2005

Citation

ALLEN V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 60/2005
Court

Supreme Court

Furnishing a return after a default assessment does not by itself initiate the Part 4A disputes procedure; a defaulting taxpayer must both furnish a return and comply with the Part 4A requirements, including issuing a NOPA within the applicable response period under s 138B(3), before challenging an assessment in a hearing authority.