New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of proposed adjustment

Legal area

Court

2 May 2013

HUSTON V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV-2012-404-7069

Citation

openlaw-9dfcd097_06db_4662_a97d_7b27ecae2d6c.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge correctly exercised discretion under s57 to refuse non‑lawyer representation absent special circumstances; the NOPA did not create a disputable decision that could be litigated in District Court recovery proceedings; s109 bars enquiry into assessments in this forum; therefore the Commissioner was entitled to judgment for the unpaid assessed tax and the appeal must be dismissed.
29 Feb 2012

FALOON V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV 2010-470-922

Citation

openlaw-fca386a8_5961_4651_afec_af9b0f9d042e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's strike out was upheld because the amended pleading disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process: it sought to relitigate issues already finally determined in earlier judgments which established that only Trade Lines (now wound up) had standing and the applicant had no interest in the land, therefore the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious and properly struck out.
22 Feb 2012

JACOBS V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE COA CA771/2011

Citation

COA CA771/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the proceedings before the TRA were not a challenge under Part VIIIA of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and therefore the appellant had no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal; the TRA is an inferior court and any appeal in these circumstances requires leave of the High Court under s 67 of the Judicature Act 1908.
25 Oct 2011

JACOBS-MAXWELL V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC HAM CIV 2011-419-559

Citation

openlaw-395ddcb3_3cf3_4af7_be69_a022a6149622.pdf
Court

High Court

A NOPA must be validly issued within the applicable statutory response period to trigger the Part 4A dispute process and for s89H(2) deemed acceptance to operate; the Commissioner may accept a late NOPA only pursuant to s89K upon proof of exceptional circumstances, and the Commissioner's s89K discretion is not challengeable under Part 8A — therefore the late NOPA in this case was ineffective and no deemed acceptance arose.
26 Jun 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V ZAHIRUL ALAM AND PARUL BEGUM CA CA408/2008

Citation

openlaw-4f3f796f_080d_46cc_83e9_9328c7c1482b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that taxpayers must challenge disputed assessments through the statutory TAA dispute resolution and challenge procedures rather than by collateral judicial review; while the Commissioner may regard a NOR as non‑compliant and issue assessments, the validity of a NOR can only be determined in proceedings under the TAA or by a hearing authority or High Court in the procedurally correct manner, and the High Court should have refused relief for improper use of judicial review.
13 Oct 2008

TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 759

Citation

openlaw-67454a54_6778_4c7d_957b_47a80bb10bc2.pdf
Court

High Court

TIL failed to demonstrate a clearly arguable substantial dispute or exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review or setting aside the statutory demand; the default assessments were not validly disputed within the statutory regime and became final under s109 Tax Administration Act 1994; therefore the statutory demand was not set aside and the application was dismissed.
29 Feb 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V F B DUVALL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-2708

Citation

openlaw-61b82d08_f4c1_4585_b1c1_77deb828a2cd.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for stay and restraint of advertising dismissed because (1) there is a prima facie debt owing on the GST assessments; (2) the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie right to set-off input tax credits because no determination exists obliging the Commissioner to refund those credits and the NOPA was out of time and not backed by exceptional circumstances; (3) r146 and s109 prevent the applicant from relying on set-off/counterclaim or disputing the assessments in these proceedings; (4) the Commissioner's 28 October 2004 letter did not constitute an open-ended bar to enfor…
8 Jun 2007

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V THOMPSON HC WN CIV 2005-485-799

Citation

openlaw-7dd39985_a9f6_448b_b604_5082cb9db2c2.pdf
Court

High Court

s14 is facilitative not mandatory; because the NOPA expressly designated a different agent the Commissioner could not rely on service to Mr Rae under s14's agency deeming and thus had to prove actual receipt within the response period; evidence that Mr Rae delivered and tabled the NOR at a meeting with Mr Thompson and his solicitor was not protected by legal advice privilege and was admissible to prove receipt; on the substantive GST issue the Commissioner's appeal is allowed following Lopas v CIR.