New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Double taxation agreement

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2017

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZHC 3289

Citation

[2017] 2 NZLR 835
Court

High Court

The decision to issue the 2014 s17 notices was unlawful because, on the available material, the competent authority did not satisfy the statutory and treaty gateway in art 25 that each item of information was 'necessary' for taxes covered by the DTA or that the art 25(2) exceptions did not apply; the Commissioner failed to disclose and justify the background material and provide sufficient specific evidence of lawful inquiry by the competent authority, rendering the Notices invalid and subject to quashing.
11 Apr 2017

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 48

Citation

[2017] NZSC 48
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision to deny discovery was a discretionary application of settled principles: the documents sought were not shown on the surviving pleaded cause of action to be relevant to whether the Commissioner considered art 25 of the double taxation agreement, so there was no basis to order discovery and no proper basis for an interlocutory appeal.
16 Dec 2016

CHATFIELD & CO LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 614

Citation

[2016] NZCA 614
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because discovery in judicial review is discretionary and must be tied to the issues pleaded; Chatfield's surviving pleaded cause did not particularise how the exchanged documents were relied on or were relevant to a justiciable issue (and the Commissioner had considered Article 25), so there was no basis to exercise s10(2)(i) discretion to order discovery of the documents exchanged with the NTS.
9 Jun 2016

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1234

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1234
Court

High Court

Disclosure of documents exchanged under the New Zealand–Korea DTA is governed by s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and discovery rules; ss 69 and 70 of the Evidence Act 2006 are not the appropriate basis to require non-disclosure in this context. Given Korea's claim of confidentiality, the Commissioner's assessment, the lack of a sufficiently justiciable relevance to warrant going behind the Korean assessment, and considerations of international comity, the documents need not be disclosed to the applicant.
1 Sept 2015

CHATFIELD & CO LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 2099

Citation

(2015) 27 NZTC¶22
Court

High Court

Documents that prompted the s17 Notices are prima facie relevant to the judicial review; the DTA confidentiality is not absolute — Article 25 read with the OECD Commentary permits disclosure in domestic court proceedings where domestic law allows unless the requesting State objects; the Commissioner must make specific inquiries of the Republic of Korea about consent to disclosure and, if Korea refuses, the Commissioner may then seek a direction under s69/s70 EA for nondisclosure and the Court will balance public interests; s81 TAA and court rules primarily govern disclosure in tax litigation.
22 Dec 2008

AVOWAL ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEYS LIMITED AND ORS V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007264

Citation

openlaw-71bcab91_f0b2_4b0c_ac7d_4ded9af67ff6.pdf
Court

High Court

Hard drives are "books and documents" under the Tax Administration Act 1994 and ss16/16B therefore authorise inspection, copying and removal where a reasonable preliminary relevance assessment has been made; a blanket claim to privilege may justify sealing and copying without a prior keyword preview; encryption that prevents effective preview can justify imaging/removal where, on the facts and in good faith, officers reasonably conclude the drives are likely to contain relevant information; where no relevance search occurred and no consent or privilege justified imaging/removal, copying/remov…

New Zealand Case Law

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZHC 3289

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 48

CHATFIELD & CO LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 614

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1234

CHATFIELD & CO LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 2099

AVOWAL ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEYS LIMITED AND ORS V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007264