18 Dec 2020
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal so it can determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and whether shortfall penalties apply.
3 Sept 2020
The Court of Appeal held the funding arrangement was a tax avoidance arrangement under s BG 1 because it was an artificial and contrived mechanism to convert a parent equity subscription effectively into deductible interest by packaging it with a $55.4m bank-funded amortising component and a forward purchase; as a matter of commercial and economic reality $55.4m was the effective loan and the balance of the $66.51m claimed deductions represented repayment of principal rather than genuine interest. The Commissioner was entitled under s GB 1 to reconstruct deductions to allow interest only on t…
16 Jun 2020
The application for non-legal representation was declined because the Mannix rule applies, there were no exceptional circumstances to displace it, and the proposed representative lacked the independence, objectivity and ability to assist the Court; accordingly the appellant must instruct legal counsel and the appeal was adjourned.
19 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed appeal raised no question of public or general importance and no appearance of miscarriage of justice; the concurrent factual findings of the TRA, High Court and Court of Appeal that the applicant had a permanent place of abode in New Zealand were supported by Diamond factors; employer contributions were made on the applicant's behalf for FIF accrual purposes; the delegate validly exercised delegated powers to lift the time bar; and shortfall penalties were properly imposed.
19 Oct 2018
Appeal dismissed: appellant failed to discharge the onus to prove the Commissioner's reconstruction and quantify any error; interest deductions require proof that the specific underlying debt was used to derive the appellant's assessable income and that nexus was established; expenses for Upland Road belonged to the trust and were not deductible by the appellant absent an agreement allocating trust income to him; overstating carried forward losses by failing to file returns can constitute a 'tax shortfall' and support imposition of shortfall penalties under the Act even where no tax was payab…
19 Oct 2017
Court held that 27 Evelyn Road was the appellant's habitual home when in New Zealand and therefore his permanent place of abode for the years in dispute making him a New Zealand tax resident; employer contributions to the Provident Fund are expenditure 'by or on behalf of' the appellant so FIF rules applied and Unit Trust income aggregated; the Commissioner validly formed an opinion under s 108(2) TAA (via Mr Young) so time-barred assessments were lawfully reopened; and the appellant's position did not meet the objective 'about as likely as not' threshold so shortfall penalties were upheld.
31 Jul 2017
On de novo review the Court found the appellant's returns were wilfully misleading within s 108(2)(a) of the Tax Administration Act 1994, removing the four-year limitation and authorising the Commissioner's reassessments; the appellate standard is de novo review of the Commissioner's opinion and s 330 is restorative but unnecessary to decide the appeal.
30 Jun 2017
The proceeding is struck out because the plaintiff failed to file a statement of position within the statutory response period and cannot establish that she was prevented by exceptional circumstances beyond her control; s HK 11 does not apply to her personal liability; no full voluntary disclosure was made to avoid penalties; the non‑receipt of correspondence was due to arrangements she controlled and s 89K therefore does not assist, rendering the causes of action clearly untenable.
17 Jun 2016
There was no evidence HLL provided the alleged management services to the Trust; the $1,116,000 fee was an ex post facto contrivance to eliminate the Trust's taxable income and transfer it to a loss company; consequently the deduction was disallowed and the TRA and Commissioner were upheld; the conduct demonstrated an unacceptable and abusive tax position with a dominant purpose of avoiding tax; appeal dismissed.
21 Oct 2015
Legal voting interests are determined by legal ownership as recorded (registered holder/nominee) and therefore the same group legally held the requisite voting interests in both companies making them associated under s 2A(1)(a)(i); s 2A(1)(a)(iii) does not extend to the type of factual control alleged; alternatively if not associated the arrangement constituted tax avoidance under s 76 and supported imposition of shortfall penalties under the TAA.