New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)

  • 11 Aug 2020

    PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUG VESEY TRUST v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZSC 81

    Citation
    [2020] NZSC 81
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal is refused because the Court of Appeal correctly held that s 89AC applies, is procedural, and that time for the Commissioner to issue a NOR runs from the date the NOPA is treated as in time (so the NOR was in time); no error of law or sufficient public importance was shown to justify leave, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the TRA.

    • Goods and services tax (gst)
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Deemed acceptance
    • Time limits
    • Tax administration act 1994
    • Section 89ac

  • 23 Apr 2020

    PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUG VESEY TRUST v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZCA 112

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 112
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Section 89AC is procedural and applies to a NOPA revived by the Taxation Review Authority so the response period is measured from the TRA decision (or related favorable notice), therefore the Commissioner was not deemed to have accepted the NOPA and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Tax administration act 1994
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Retrospectivity
    • Procedural vs substantive rights
    • Deemed acceptance under s 89h(2)
    • Taxation review authority

  • 9 Dec 2016

    C D OWENS AND D S VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF HAGFISH NZ LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v WAKA MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED, BJ FISHING LIMITED, NZ MARINE SEAFOODS LIMITED AND [2016] NZHC 2968

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2968
    Court
    High Court

    On the material before the Court there were genuine and substantial disputes about the existence and quantum of debts said to be owing to Hagfish, the liquidators had not proved the debts nor that the companies were cash-flow insolvent, and the matters should be litigated in ordinary proceedings after discovery rather than resolved by winding up; accordingly the liquidation applications were dismissed.

    • Winding up
    • Statutory demand
    • Solvency (cash flow test)
    • Presumption of insolvency
    • Cross-examination under high court rules
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)

  • 10 Oct 2013

    FALOON v INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 2643

    Citation
    [2013] NZHC 2643
    Court
    High Court

    Because s89M(11) authorises an application for more time to reply only in the context where the Commissioner initiated the dispute and a statutory right of reply to the Commissioner's SOP exists, and because the taxpayer initiated this dispute so no such right of reply exists, the applicant cannot obtain relief under s89M(11) and leave to bring the Originating Application must be refused.

    • Tax administration act 1994 s89m(11)
    • Dispute resolution procedure
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Statement of position (sop)
    • Originating application
    • Leave to extend time

  • 19 Jul 2012

    CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-002550

    Citation
    openlaw-1be750d2_9ec6_430b_8c98_92e29b918caf.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiffs' challenge to the validity and consequences of their NOPA was not clearly untenable; the Court of Appeal had not finally determined the validity or outcome of the NOPA or the statutory challenge issues and those matters required substantive hearing under the TAA and adjudication of contested facts, so dismissal at strike out stage was inappropriate.

    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Tax administration act 1994
    • Judicial review
    • Abuse of process
    • Res judicata
    • Issue estoppel

  • 8 Nov 2011

    CLARENCE JOHN FALOON V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV 2010-470-000922

    Citation
    openlaw-ba971461_11a1_4976_b5cd_90f4644d85be.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The 16 August 2010 letter was not a disputable decision under the Act but a statement reflecting the earlier judgment; the substance of the NOPA and its rejection had been finally determined by the High Court, so the present proceedings are re-litigation and an abuse of Court process and therefore must be struck out under r15.1(1)(d).

    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Disputable decision
    • Disclosure notice s89m
    • Strike out for abuse of process
    • Res judicata

  • 21 Oct 2009

    CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2004-409-001596

    Citation
    openlaw-59c815c4_ed61_44d0_abed_72cb4cdad352.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The application was dismissed because r 7.49 is intended to permit re-examination of truly interlocutory orders, not to allow a judge who is functus officio after delivering final judgment to reopen matters now before the Court of Appeal; accordingly the High Court will not vary or rescind the stay and questions such as the validity of the NOPA should be resolved in the appellate process.

    • Stay of proceedings
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Functus officio
    • Res judicata
    • High court rules r 7.49

  • 28 Sept 2006

    ANDERSON V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2005-404-5589

    Citation
    openlaw-4593a270_bc91_48c9_bbeb_7511b73d7511.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The court exercised its discretion to sever the causes of action: the judicial review claim against the Commissioner will proceed separately because the issues and evidence differ materially from the negligence claim against the second defendant; paragraphs 63-66 (the second cause) were struck out to lie in court until 1 November 2006 to enable the plaintiff to bring a separate proceeding against Mr Rogers, and specific case management directions and timetable were imposed for the remaining judicial review proceeding.

    • Judicial review
    • Abuse of statutory power
    • Negligence
    • Joinder and severance
    • Case management
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)

  • 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.

    • Tax assessments
    • Default assessments
    • Disputes procedure under part 4a
    • Notice of proposed adjustment (nopa)
    • Time limits for challenges
    • Jurisdiction of taxation review authority