New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Runway end safety area (resa)

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2017

QUEENSTOWN AIRPORT CORPORATION LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 20

Citation

[2017] NZCA 20
Court

Court of Appeal

The eastern RESA and its engineered embankment do not fall within schedule 13 as an 'airport runway' or as 'hardstanding' because they are grassed safety areas distinct from the paved runway (not intended for take-off/landing other than emergencies), have minimal ordinary wear and a very long design life (not reasonably expected to decline in value in normal circumstances), and therefore constitute land excluded from depreciation under s EE 7 and are not depreciable property under s EE 6(1).
15 Jun 2016

QUEENSTOWN AIRPORT CORPORATION LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1299

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1299
Court

High Court

The embankment is permanently annexed to the underlying land and the East RESA atop it is not an 'airport runway' as intended in Schedule 13 (the term denotes runways constructed and surfaced to take-off/landing standards subject to wear); the East RESA is grassed topsoil and not 'hardstanding' or a road except for any separate identifiable service access which was not specifically claimed. Consequently the embankment and East RESA are 'land' excluded from depreciable property by s EE7(a) and QAC is not entitled to the claimed depreciation deductions.