1 Dec 2017
Section DB 55 requires expenditure to be factually and causally incurred in deriving the foreign dividend; Head Office expenditures that were primarily incurred to improve subsidiary value and profitability are a step removed from that required nexus and are not deductible under s DB 55, so the Commissioner's assessments are correct.
27 Jul 2016
Expenditure incurred obtaining resource consents that materially advanced specific capital projects constituted capital expenditure and was not deductible under s DA2 even though the projects were not yet committed to construction; s DA1 (nexus) was satisfied but the capital limitation applied.
23 Sept 2015
The High Court upheld the TRA: AAA's sole business was the specified property development and it ceased on 24 July 2008 when AAA accepted the vendor's repudiation; expenses incurred after that date lacked the required nexus to any continuing income earning process and were not deductible; the settlement payment did not constitute income from disposal of revenue account property and did not render related expenses deductible; the taxpayer's position was objectively unlikely and a shortfall penalty was properly imposed.
19 Jun 2015
Expenditure was capital in nature because it was incurred to extend Trustpower's profit‑making structure by advancing potential generation projects in its development pipeline and to secure valuable resource consents (enduring capital options); therefore the deductions under s DA 1 were disallowed and the Commissioner's reassessments confirmed; the classification of particular post-commitment items is remitted to the High Court.
10 Jun 2014
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the questions raised were primarily applications of established principles to the facts (including factual findings that the arrangements were properly treated under the accruals regime and that the commissions were not income), and there was no sufficient legal point of general or public importance or miscarriage of justice to justify a further appeal; the accruals regime governs the treatment of the financial arrangements at issue.
29 May 2014
Fraud by promoters who failed to deliver a compliant employee fund does not prevent the existence of a tax avoidance arrangement where real transactions, documents and steps altered tax incidence; on the facts the appellant was a party to an arrangement with the dominant purpose and effect of avoiding tax and thus took an abusive tax position under s141D(7)(b)(i); appeal dismissed.