New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taxation review authority

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2022

FAQIRYAR v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2022] NZHC 552

Citation

[2022] NZHC 552
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus to persuade the Court to exercise its s 138N(1)(b) own motion jurisdiction because the amount in dispute, disputed facts, logistical complexity (overseas witnesses and translation), and the estimated trial length favoured retention in the High Court; the plaintiff's financial hardship and potential cost savings in the TRA provided only weak support for transfer, so the Court declined to transfer.
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.
4 Jun 2015

KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 77

Citation

[2015] NZSC 77
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the transfer under s138N was within the discretion of the lower courts, those courts had considered the applicant's prejudice arguments (representation and costs) and found them insufficient, and the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of public importance nor an appearance of miscarriage of justice.
13 Jul 2006

MALCOLM HUNT LTD (STRUCK OFF) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2006-404-178

Citation

openlaw-97b6caa5_a012_425c_9436_47f91b3aa045.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the appellant company was restored to the register in a separate High Court order, thereby removing the company’s lack of legal capacity to pursue the proceedings and obviating the need to quash the Authority's strike-out decision.
8 Nov 2005

CH'ELLE PROPERTIES (NZ) LTD V CIR HC AK CIV 2004-404-3000

Citation

openlaw-47b01d6e_f612_4e83_b333_2a7afdbce01d.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court struck out the action because the pleaded causes were either untenable, an abuse of process as an impermissible collateral attack on assessments resolved by the statutory objection process and by earlier decisions, or futile; no sustainable private law duty of care or statutory duty of the kind alleged arose against the Commissioner, and BORA s 27 does not give rise to a private law damages cause here.

New Zealand Case Law

FAQIRYAR v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2022] NZHC 552

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

KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZSC 77

MALCOLM HUNT LTD (STRUCK OFF) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2006-404-178

CH'ELLE PROPERTIES (NZ) LTD V CIR HC AK CIV 2004-404-3000