New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remission of penalties

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2021

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZSC 83

Citation

[2021] NZSC 83
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's interpretation and application of the 2010 judgment to the tax calculation and 15% remission was correct, the evidence established CPL's indebtedness (approx $1,088,461.15) and balance-sheet insolvency despite relief for later periods, the misfeasance claim was contingent and stayed so liquidation was not premature, the vesting orders were properly made and costs and bankruptcy outcomes followed; no appearance of a civil miscarriage of justice justified further appeal.
28 Jul 2017

SISSON v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 326

Citation

[2017] NZCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the liquidation order conditional on payment into court of the undisputed core tax of $109,675.22 because the High Court's insolvency finding rested on an unspecified 'undisputed core debt' and insufficient scrutiny of the Commissioner's varying calculations and CPL's assets; the Court confirmed that the prior Court of Appeal direction approving a 15% pragmatic reduction in penalties is binding in measure but left precise calculations open to challenge on rehearing; limited fresh evidence (NZI email and property appraisal) was admitted.
24 Mar 2017

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v EVALUATION CONSULT (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 552

Citation

[2017] NZHC 552
Court

High Court

No binding repayment agreement existed because the Commissioner's 22 December 2016 acceptance was expressly 'in principle' and conditional on formal documentation; Evaluation repeatedly defaulted on PAYE obligations, there was no genuine dispute as to debt, no abuse of process by the Commissioner, and substantial unpaid penalties rendered the company insolvent such that stay/adjournment was refused and a liquidation order was appropriate.
12 Jun 2012

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE & OTHERS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000995

Citation

openlaw-c01d7c3a_3481_45a8_be61_f79db35e2d33.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because at interlocutory stage the court could not conclude as a matter of law that misfeasance could not include sustained failures to act or systemic institutional conduct allegedly pursued for improper purposes; vicarious liability of the Commissioner is arguable and personal liability of an adviser who participates in decisions about exercising statutory powers could not be dismissed without trial; the pleadings, after amendment, were adequate to proceed to trial on the pleaded issues.
31 Aug 2010

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS CA607/2008

Citation

openlaw-711be257_bcec_4603_9ee5_08555748e8f5.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the Commissioner was bound by aspects of the unappealed first High Court judgment; parts of the Budhia reconsideration were set aside for failing to give effect to those directions (notably remediation of penalties and respecting in‑substance arrangements), but the re-registration of Anolbe as decided by the Commissioner was reinstated; Anolbe sham issues should be pursued by statutory challenge rather than judicial review; the Commissioner must reconsider remission and set‑off consistent with the High Court directions and may use ss6 and 6A where ss182/183A do not su…
25 Aug 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS CA CA607/2008

Citation

openlaw-abe0645b_7fa1_428b_81ec_e316afe74f1b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted a stay because, on balance, absent a stay the judicial review appeal would be rendered nugatory by irreversible steps required to give effect to the High Court orders; the respondents face probable insolvency if the Commissioner's determinations are upheld, undermining recovery of costs; undertakings and uncertainty over encumbered assets did not provide adequate security to outweigh that risk; therefore the balance of convenience favoured a stay pending determination of the consolidated appeals.
1 May 2009

CHESTERFIELD PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV 2008-409-000722

Citation

openlaw-601b348f_670a_4f1b_aac7_abc4d7316766.pdf
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were refused because there was no finding of deliberate disobedience by Crown officers and the cumulative errors did not meet the high threshold for indemnity; increased costs were awarded as uplifted scale recoveries because IRD conduct caused unnecessary work — 75% uplift for the second review (total $85,960 plus $2,858.78 disbursements = $88,818.78) and 50% uplift for the first proceedings (net $97,920 plus disbursements to be fixed); the Commissioner's application for a stay of execution of the second judgment was refused because the appeal was, in large part, a belated at…
25 Nov 2008

CHESTERFIELD PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000722

Citation

openlaw-3ac059df_324a_4a89_a6bf_7cd828990ba6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court set aside Mr Budhia's decision because he erred in law by failing to apply the sham test properly, by not giving sufficient regard to the December judgment's reasons (in particular paragraph [155] and direction [159]), by misinterpreting the scope of remissions under s 182 and s 183A and by failing to consider ss 6/6A in light of the Court's directions; the Commissioner is ordered to reconsider in accordance with the December judgment and this judgment, stay of debt collection remains, sham issues to be litigated in High Court if not settled within one month, and Aronsen notes are a…
15 Dec 2006

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

Citation

openlaw-54c96cce_3cbb_4b1d_9b4b_5658c17d15af.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found no reviewable error in the delegate's refusal under s183A but concluded the Commissioner had to accept responsibility for departmental delays and audit inaction that caused disproportionate penalties; the December 2004 decision concerning Anolbe was set aside and the Commissioner was directed to treat the 27 March 2000 correspondence as a substantive application for re-registration, to reconsider Anolbe's registration and all related GST returns without time-bar, to apply any upheld refunds to best fiscal advantage, and to consider remission under preserved s182 for pre-23 Sep…