New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Income tax assessment

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2023

HOEBERECHTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 1

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1
Court

High Court

The Court held the appellant required leave because she did not serve a notice of appeal by the statutory deadline and rule 1.18 did not affect the service deadline; electronic filing options meant registry 'closure' did not prevent filing; the application for leave to appeal was declined because there was no arguable error of law or fact — established case law requires non-traders be taxed on a cash basis so the backdated ACC payment was correctly taxed in the year of receipt and the Commissioner has no discretion to alter statutory tax liability.
31 Aug 2022

HOEBERECHTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2022] NZHC 2200

Citation

(2022) 30 NZTC 25
Court

High Court

Leave to extend time was refused because, although the delay was short and COVID-19 contributed, the proposed appeal was clearly hopeless on unchallenged facts: established case law requires non-traders to recognise income on a cash basis so backdated ACC payments are derived in the year of receipt, and the Commissioner has no general discretion to alter statutory tax liabilities; accordingly extension of time was not in the interests of justice.
24 Oct 2019

DOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2019] NZHC 2729

Citation

(2019) 29 NZTC 24
Court

High Court

The TRA's primary factual finding that the appellant continued to carry on the Safeguard business was open on the evidence (licences, bank accounts, invoices, staff understanding, sale documents); accordingly appellant was liable for the assessed PAYE, income tax and GST. The Commissioner was not time-barred under s108 and s108A TAA because the returns omitted assessable income and were fraudulent or wilfully misleading and the appellant knowingly failed to disclose material facts, permitting amendment of assessments beyond four years.
25 Aug 2016

FUGLE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1997

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1997
Court

High Court

Crediting the appellant's current account in 2005 was a retrospective accounting recognition and did not constitute a payment because no sum was placed unreservedly at the appellant's disposal and there was no company action (or shareholder assent) effecting a payment; accordingly the financial arrangement had not matured in 2005 and no base price adjustment was triggered; the Authority erred in excluding the accountant's historical accounting records which supported that position.
5 Oct 2011

JUNIOR FARMS LTD V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2009-404-2870

Citation

openlaw-84d821f7_5cc2_4aef_a4bc_4092c5ec86e0.pdf
Court

High Court

The court recalled the earlier judgment because the confidential Calderbank offer was a relevant factor for determining costs; however, a successful Calderbank offer does not automatically entitle the offeror to increased or indemnity costs and the court retains a discretion under r 14.11 and r 14.6. A very small offer bearing little relation to the quantum claimed does not engage the policy basis for uplift; on the facts the defendant's rejection was not unreasonable and the 2B scale costs award is confirmed.
2 Mar 2009

DONALD HAMISH MCILRAITH V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA CA371/2007

Citation

openlaw-9d5c1820_d054_4567_a0b2_fde7448be5ae.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Commissioner and the High Court properly assessed Mr McIlraith's additional income and tax liability; it was lawful to determine assessable income on any of the alternative statutory characterisations because the total income and tax consequence were clear and unaffected by the precise label, and judicial review was barred by the statutory objection/dispute procedure absent exceptional circumstances; staggered annual assessments were not unlawful or unfair and there was no reviewable refusal to remit GST interest under the relevant pre‑2001 provisions.
13 Aug 2008

MAX BECKHAM V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA CA438/2007

Citation

openlaw-4bc4e292_18c8_41be_a180_25c8d1c17afc.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Authority had jurisdiction to substitute an assessment under s CD 1(2)(e) after setting aside the para (f) assessment because hearing authorities have the statutory powers of the Commissioner and may make any assessment the Commissioner could have made; on the evidence the Authority was entitled to find para (e) applied and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

HOEBERECHTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZHC 1

HOEBERECHTS v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2022] NZHC 2200

DOWDEN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2019] NZHC 2729

FUGLE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1997

JUNIOR FARMS LTD V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2009-404-2870

DONALD HAMISH MCILRAITH V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA CA371/2007

MAX BECKHAM V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA CA438/2007