New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Instalment arrangements

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2015

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA215/2015 [2015] NZCA 351

Citation

[2015] BCL 364
Court

Court of Appeal

Asher J correctly interpreted ss 6 and 6A(3) as imposing an overarching duty to protect the integrity of the tax system and collect the highest net revenue practicable; applying those provisions the Commissioner lawfully declined the appellant's instalment and lump sum offers because they would not maximise long‑term recovery, could require prohibited write‑offs under s 177C(3) given shortfall penalties for abusive positions, and were undermined by lack of disclosure and the appellant's serious non‑compliance and role in avoidance schemes; the amended judicial review claim was properly struck…
8 May 2015

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA215/2015 [2015] NZCA 155

Citation

[2015] NZCA 155
Court

Court of Appeal

Interim relief was denied because there was no necessity to preserve the appellant's position: the High Court can manage or halt bankruptcy proceedings and verify the appellant's means, the appeal had weak prospects, and the application should have been made in the High Court first.
17 Apr 2015

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 754

Citation

[2015] NZHC 754
Court

High Court

The strike out application succeeds: the statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action because the Commissioner's refusals fell within the broad statutory discretion under the TAA (notably s 6A(3) and s 177B), reasons given were adequate when read with the internal memorandum, and the proceedings are an abuse of process due to delay and an attempt to frustrate bankruptcy; accordingly the claim is struck out.
26 Aug 2014

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZHC 2034

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2034
Court

High Court

An interim stay preventing commencement of bankruptcy proceedings was necessary to preserve the applicant's non-bankrupt status and was granted in the exercise of the Court's discretion because the applicant's judicial review was not so hopeless as to foreclose preservation of that status, but given the public interest and delay the stay is limited in duration to the determination of the Commissioner's strike-out application.

New Zealand Case Law

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA215/2015 [2015] NZCA 351

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA215/2015 [2015] NZCA 155

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 754

RUSSELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZHC 2034