KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent. Randerson, Winkelmann and Keane JJ
|
|
- Leonard Richards
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60 BETWEEN AND KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 February 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson, Winkelmann and Keane JJ S R G Judd for Appellant M Deligiannis and K I S Naik-Leong for Respondent 11 March 2015 at 10:00am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the respondent s costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Winkelmann J) [1] The appellant, Kensington, commenced challenge proceedings in the Taxation Review Authority (TRA) in August In April 2013 the Commissioner applied to transfer the proceeding to the High Court. Kensington appeals the KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60 [11 March 2015]
2 decision of Allan J granting that transfer. 1 It says that the Judge applied the wrong test and that he was otherwise wrong to order transfer when Kensington had elected to proceed in the TRA, a transfer would be prejudicial to Kensington, and there were no factors weighing significantly in favour of the transfer. Background [2] Kensington has been in receivership since July Mr John Russell is the receiver. Kensington has filed annual tax returns claiming interest deductions increasing from $302,398 in the 1997 income tax year to $2,191,870 in the 2008 income tax year. This is interest in respect of a purported loan from the Bank of New Zealand (BNZ). Kensington has also claimed deductions for interest expenditure in respect of a debenture held by Downsview Finance Ltd (Downsview), in each of the tax years from 1997 to 2009 inclusive. Mr Russell and his wife are the beneficial owners of the shares in Downsview. [3] Although Kensington has accrued a liability to make these interest payments, it has not paid any interest to either the BNZ or Downsview. [4] As well as the above transactions, Kensington has acquired debentures over 14 companies. Mr Russell is the receiver of each of those companies. Many of these 14 companies have also claimed interest expenditure deductions on a yearly basis in respect of interest they owe under the debentures, although Kensington has not received any interest payments from them. [5] The consequence of these transactions to which Kensington is a party is that it, and other companies controlled by Mr Russell have accumulated substantial losses through the deduction of interest expenses. [6] Mr Russell commenced the proceedings on behalf of Kensington before the TRA on 12 August A taxpayer has the right to commence challenge proceedings before either the TRA or High Court. 2 It is relevant background that 1 2 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Kensington Developments Ltd [2013] NZHC 3537, (2013) 26 NZTC Tax Administration Act 1994, ss 3 (definition of hearing authority ), 138B and 138C.
3 Mr Russell has also been involved in litigation with the Commissioner over a period of 32 years, as a taxpayer, tax agent or director or receiver of taxpayer companies. [7] The proceeding the subject of the application for transfer concerns only the losses claimed by Kensington. These total $15,756, The Commissioner s position is that the interest expenses have not been suffered by Kensington and that the deductions claimed should be denied as part of a tax avoidance arrangement under s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act Kensington challenges the Commissioner s rejection of its returns and her application of shortfall penalties. [8] The Commissioner s application for transfer of the proceeding to the High Court was filed some 20 months after the commencement of the challenge. It was brought under the provisions of s 138N(2) of the Tax Administration Act 1994: 138N Proceedings may be transferred to different hearing authorities (2) If a disputant commences a challenge in a Taxation Review Authority, the Commissioner may apply to the High Court to have the challenge transferred to the High Court. High Court decision [9] The High Court Judge applied the principles identified by this Court in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Erris Promotions, 4 adopting the following summary of those principles appearing in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v McIlraith: 5 [a] Although there are no statutory criteria set out for transfer applications to the High Court under s 138N(2)(a)(ii), there is no legislative intent to change the role of the TRA and the High Court in taxation matters. [b] The criteria set out in s 136(4) or s 138O may still be considered if relevant in the circumstances of the case. [c] The taxpayer has the initial choice of forum and the onus is on the Commissioner in seeking a transfer to provide reasons why that should occur Or the corresponding provisions in the Income Tax Act 1994 and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Erris Promotions [2003] 1 NZLR 506 (CA). Commissioner of Inland Revenue v McIlraith (2003) 21 NZTC 18,112 (HC) at [18].
4 [d] The Court is required to consider the factors relied upon by the Commissioner and the reasons for the taxpayer's choice of forum against the background of the scheme of the legislation and the role of the TRA and the High Court in taxation disputes. [e] The TRA was designed to provide a more informal and less complex forum as evidenced by the anonymity provisions, and the fact that costs cannot be awarded in favour of any party. Although it is a specialist in taxation disputes, there is no presumption in the legislation that taxation disputes should normally be dealt with in the TRA at first instance. [f] The High Court is the Court of first instance jurisdiction for major litigation and, in particular, where matters are complex and involve matters of major legal significance. That is also the case for taxation litigation. [g] The amount of money involved does not necessarily equate with complexity but it does bear upon the issue of significance, both for the Commissioner and the taxpayers involved. [10] The Judge acknowledged that there were advantages to Kensington in having the proceeding before the TRA. Mr Russell would be able to represent Kensington as of right, whereas in the High Court, a corporate party must be represented by counsel. 6 Moreover, party and party costs are not generally awarded before the TRA as they are in the High Court, so an order for transfer would expose Kensington to an increased risk of an adverse costs award. [11] The Judge said the Commissioner s delay in bringing the application was a neutral factor. He said that having regard to the subject matter of the challenge, and the very long history of the case, it was difficult to see how any significant disadvantage could have been suffered. He noted that Kensington did not claim to have been prejudiced by the delay in the application. [12] The Judge considered that the cumulative weight of four particular factors outweighed the advantages inherent in a hearing before the TRA. The first was complexity. He characterised the case as moderately complex, noting that Kensington s claimed losses exceeded $15 million, a moderately high figure. [13] The second factor he identified was the precedential effect of any judgment. The Judge said it was common ground that a number of companies, all 6 Re G J Mannix Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (CA).
5 associated with Mr Russell, had accumulated losses on much the same basis as Kensington. Any judgment in the present case would be likely to serve as a precedent for a number of the other cases also. [14] The third factor identified was the high likelihood of an appeal. [15] The final factor, was that Kensington s challenge included an allegation that the Commissioner was pursuing a vendetta against Mr Russell, was abusing her power, and that her actions amounted to a fraud on the taxpayer. The Judge considered that where such allegations were made, the proper forum was the High Court rather than the TRA. Approach on appeal [16] It is common ground that this is a general appeal and that the approach described by the Supreme Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar applies. 7 The Court of Appeal may take a different view from the High Court. However the appellant bears the onus of satisfying the appeal court that it should differ from the decision under appeal. It is only if the appellate court considers that the appealed decision is wrong that it is justified in interfering with it. First ground of challenge: the Judge applied the wrong test [17] Kensington argues that when considering an application to transfer a challenge before the TRA to the High Court, the Court is obliged to apply a presumption that the taxpayer s choice of hearing authority should prevail, particularly when that choice is the TRA. Acknowledging that the principles identified in Erris are against it on this point, Kensington says that the discussion in Erris was obiter and asks us to clarify the law. [18] Kensington argues that the existence of such a presumption emerges from the legislative history, and the existing scheme of the legislation. The starting point for its argument is that the scheme of the legislation establishes the TRA as the usual forum for taxpayer challenges. Under the objections regime, which preceded the 7 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141 at [4].
6 present challenge regime, the usual course was for the Commissioner to state a case before the TRA. Both the Income Tax Act 1976 and the Tax Administration Act provided for an objection to be referred directly to the High Court on a question of law only, or by the agreement of the parties, or as provided in s 136(4) of the Tax Administration Act: 8 with the leave of [the High Court] granted on the application of the objector or the Commissioner, [as the case may be], upon the ground that in the opinion of the Court, by reason of the amount of the tax in dispute between the parties or of the general or public importance of the matter or of its extraordinary difficulty or for any other reason, it is desirable that the objection be heard and determined by [the High Court] instead of by a Taxation Review Authority. [19] Kensington argues that the use of this language, particularly the words general or public importance and extraordinary difficulty convey the Parliamentary intent that the TRA is the usual first instance hearing authority, with the High Court reserved for truly important or extraordinary cases. [20] Kensington acknowledges that these provisions relate to the objection regime. They are now superseded by the disputes procedures set out in Pt 4A of the Tax Administration Act and the challenge regime in Pt 8A that applies to this proceeding. However Kensington says that the statutory change from the position under the objection regime to that under the challenge regime is simply to add a presumption in favour of taxpayer choice, because the taxpayer may choose to commence a challenge in either the TRA or High Court. Since the statutory scheme is to make the TRA the usual body for disputes, and the High Court the place where only disputes that are of general or public importance, or are extraordinarily difficult are determined, where a taxpayer chooses the TRA that presumption particularly applies. [21] We are satisfied that the Judge applied the correct test and that the Erris principles gave proper effect to the statutory provisions. While the factors set out in s 136(4) may be relevant to a transfer decision in a particular case, 9 those factors do 8 9 Income Tax Act 1976, s 33; Tax Administration Act 1994, s 136(4). Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Erris Promotions, above n 4, at [21].
7 not create a presumption that the hearing should be in the TRA. 10 There is also clear indication that the court s discretion in respect of applications under s 138N was not intended to be constrained by the considerations listed in s 136(4), given the absence of a similar provision in Pt 8A. [22] We do not therefore see any merit in Kensington s argument that a presumption in favour of taxpayer choice applies. As this Court acknowledged in Erris because the taxpayer has the initial choice of forum, the onus is on the Commissioner when seeking a transfer to provide reasons why that should occur. 11 Requiring the Commissioner to show reason for the transfer gives effect to the statutory scheme that it is the taxpayer s choice as to the forum in which the proceedings are commenced. No more recognition is required to give effect to the scheme of the Act or to the particular provisions. The second ground of challenge: no grounds made out for transfer [23] The appellant argues that whether or not the presumption it argues for applies, there are no proper grounds made out for the transfer. Having heard argument, we consider that the Judge was correct to order transfer. [24] The determinative consideration in reaching this view is the precedent the decision in this proceeding will establish. The Commissioner is currently involved in two other disputes and has active investigations in progress which raise identical issues to the challenge that is the subject of this application. 12 These disputes and investigations all involve an insolvent taxpayer company in receivership (with Mr Russell as receiver). The company has continued to claim deductions for interest owing under a debenture held by a company of which Mr Russell is a director and/or receiver. The taxpayer company has been in receivership for a period exceeding 10 years and has during that time accrued millions of dollars worth of purported losses. In each of these cases, the Commissioner is alleging that the taxpayer Commission of Inland Revenue v Erris Promotions, above n 4, at [23]. At [23]. Including Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bell Road Developments Ltd [2014] NZHC 1841, (2014) 26 NZTC , currently under appeal.
8 company entered into a tax avoidance arrangement void against her pursuant to s BG 1 of the Income Tax Act [25] Kensington argues that the precedent the decision will establish carries little weight since Mr Russell does not accept that the finding will dispose of the other disputes and investigations. He claims there are other factual issues raised by those disputes. That however does not answer the point that a decision by the High Court in this challenge proceeding will be binding on the TRA in future disputes that involve identical issues. It will be binding on other similarly positioned taxpayers and will be a significant precedent even if Mr Russell chooses to argue otherwise. [26] We agree with the Judge that an additional reason for transfer is the complexity of the proceeding. Kensington argues that the Judge erred in characterising the proceedings as involving issues of moderate complexity. Since most of the facts are agreed (as evidenced by the agreed statement of facts), the only significant factual dispute is whether or not the BNZ loan existed. The facts are not themselves complex. Although the Commissioner points to the 14 debentures Kensington holds over other companies, those companies and their debentures are irrelevant to the issues before the TRA. Kensington argues that the law relating to tax avoidance is now well-settled following the decision in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue. 14 [27] We agree with the Judge s assessment that this is a case of moderate complexity. Although the law in the area may be relatively settled, it does not follow that its application to new fact situations will be straightforward. As to the relevance of the 14 debentures and the associated companies, the hearing authority will need to consider whether the overall structure served any commercial purpose, or was set in place for the purposes of tax avoidance. The arrangements concerning the 14 debentures are similar to those in connection with the Downsview debenture the subject of the challenge. They also bear upon the issue of Kensington s solvency. These transactions and arrangements could very well be relevant to the determination of the challenge before the hearing authority Or the corresponding provisions in the Income Tax Act 1994 and Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2008] NZSC 115, [2009] 2 NZLR 289.
9 [28] The Commissioner also contends that it is significant that the court hearing the challenge will have to consider the duties of a receiver and best practice of a receiver under the Receivership Act 1993 because this bears upon the commerciality of the arrangements. She argues that such issues are better dealt with in the High Court. We attach no weight to this point. Although the law in connection with the duties and obligations of receivers is traditionally administered in the High Court, we expect that the TRA would have no difficulty in interpreting the statutory framework and the body of case law that has emerged in the 20 plus years since the Receivership Act came into force. [29] For these reasons we agree with the Judge that the moderate complexity weighed in favour of transfer to the High Court but could not on its own be decisive. [30] The Judge also considered that the administrative law challenges mounted by Kensington weighed in favour of transfer to the High Court relying on Dandelion Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v McIlraith. 15 Counsel for Kensington says it would abandon those challenges if it meant the difference to a transfer decision. Although allegations such as those we have referred to at [15] above may weigh in favour of transfer to the High Court in some cases, in this case it is not the determinative factor. We therefore do not consider the issue further, particularly in light of Kensington s indication. [31] Kensington argues the Judge was wrong to view delay in applying for a transfer as a neutral factor. However, Kensington accepts no particular prejudice arises from this delay, pointing only to the fact that until the application Kensington had been preparing on the basis that the hearing would be in the TRA. That does not amount to prejudice. In the absence of prejudice attributable to delay, we too regard the delay as irrelevant to this issue of transfer. We note too that the Commissioner has given an explanation for the delay which we consider helps to moderate the significance of this issue. 15 Dandelion Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2003] 1 NZLR 600 (CA) and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v McIlraith, above n 5.
10 [32] Finally, we agree with Allan J that the likelihood of appeal is relevant to consideration of the application. As this Court said in Erris, even if the TRA can provide an earlier hearing date (and it is not clear that it can in this case) this will not necessarily mean less delay in final resolution where appeal is likely, as starting in the TRA adds a further layer of appeal. 16 Appeal is very likely in this proceeding. The matters at issue in this proceeding are significant for the parties, particularly given the extent of similar disputes involving the Commissioner and companies controlled by Mr Russell. [33] It is relevant that Kensington has chosen the TRA as the forum for its dispute and there clearly are advantages for it in that choice. Mr Russell would be able to appear for Kensington and there is a reduced exposure to adverse costs orders. However the Judge was correct that the Commissioner has shown good cause for the transfer of the proceeding to the High Court notwithstanding these considerations. We have taken a slightly different approach to the Judge in our analysis of the relevant factors but the outcome remains the same. Although the complexity of the issues weighs in favour of transfer, in our view the important precedent value of this proceeding alone is determinative in favour of granting the application for transfer. Outcome [34] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. [35] The appellant must pay the respondent s costs on a standard band A basis and usual disbursements. Solicitors: Ladbrook Law Limited, Auckland for Appellant Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent 16 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Erris Promotions, above n 4, at [25].
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC 2318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2015-485-000062 [2015] NZHC 2318 BETWEEN AND AAA DEVELOPMENTS (ORMISTON) LIMITED Appellant THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing:
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
NOTE: THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 28 MAY 2012 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTIES' NAMES AND ANY PARTICULARS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE RESPONDENT (INCLUDING HER NAME, OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
More informationAll legislative references are to the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA 1994) unless otherwise stated.
QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 12/12 Abusive tax position penalty and the anti-avoidance provision All legislative references are to the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA 1994) unless otherwise stated. This
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107. DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107 BETWEEN DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant DAVID BROWNE CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND DAVID BROWNE MECHANICAL LIMITED Second Applicants AND DAVID
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More informationSHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant. LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent. D J Goddard QC for Applicant C M Meechan QC for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA616/2015 [2016] NZCA 21 BETWEEN AND SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 15 February 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481. POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481 BETWEEN AND AND POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant LINDA STREET Second Appellant NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED Respondent
More informationWORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent. Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November A C Sorrell and S L Robertson for Appellant M J Fisher for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA834/2011 [2016] NZCA 282 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND VENUE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant WORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November
More informationPROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN
Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 BETWEEN AND JEFFREY GEORGE LOPAS AND LORRAINE ELIZABETH MCHERRON Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2005 Court:
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2013-404-003305 [2016] NZHC 2712 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an application under sections 295 and 298 BETWEEN AND MARK HECTOR NORRIE
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-002473 [2016] NZHC 2407 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for an order that a company, PRI Flight
More informationIAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant. Harrison, White and Venning JJ. D G Hayes for Appellants C W Grenfell and B J Norling for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA27/2013 [2014] NZCA 91 BETWEEN IAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant INDEPENDENT LIVESTOCK 2010 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Second Appellant AND DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN
More informationERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEALOF NEW ZEALAND CA578/2014 [2015] NZCA 141 BETWEEN AND ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Appellant TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS, SAMUEL JOHN MAGILL, JOHN MICHAEL FEENEY, CRAIG EDGEWORTH HORROCKS,
More informationAppellant. YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA58/2017 [2017] NZCA 280 BETWEEN AND Y&P NZ LIMITED Appellant YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents Hearing: 11 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240. OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240 BETWEEN AND OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 24 May 2018
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61. STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant. William Young P, O Regan and Robertson JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61 BETWEEN AND STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant AUSTIN, NICHOLS & CO. INC. Respondent Hearing: 30 November 2006 Court: Counsel: William Young P, O
More informationACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant. ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent. 18, 19 and 20 March 2014 (further submissions received 15 April 2014)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA541/2013 [2014] NZCA 351 BETWEEN AND ACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Second Respondent Hearing:
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239 BETWEEN AND QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Appellant ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CIV CLAIRE AVON RAE HOLLIS Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CIV 2009-441-000074 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Income Tax Act 1994 CLAIRE AVON RAE HOLLIS Appellant THE COMMISSIONER
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant. PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent. Harrison, Cooper and Asher JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA308/2017 [2018] NZCA 38 BETWEEN AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent Hearing: 7 February 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison,
More informationBRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA211/2016 [2016] NZCA 636 BETWEEN AND BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Asher, Heath
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479. Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ. Judgment: 1 November 2007 at 11.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479 BETWEEN AND ROCHIS LIMITED Appellant ZACHERY ANDREW CHAMBERS, JULIAN DAVID CHAMBERS, JOCELYN ZELPHA CHAMBERS AND KIMBERLY FAITH CHAMBERS Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016. AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016 proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff NEW ZEALAND
More informationIN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A
IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A20100012737 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Akura Lands
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-428 [2016] NZHC 3204 IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Bankruptcy of Anthony Harry De Vries
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 387. JONATHON VAN KLEEF Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2012-485-2135 [2013] NZHC 387 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY AT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 21/2007 [2007] NZSC 103. STICHTING LODESTAR Respondent. Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 21/2007 [2007] NZSC 103 BETWEEN AND AUSTIN, NICHOLS & CO INC Appellant STICHTING LODESTAR Respondent Hearing: 17 October 2007 Court: Counsel: Elias CJ, Blanchard,
More informationGLOVER NO 2 LIMITED Appellant. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent. R C Knight and T M Kelly for Appellant F B Barton and A M Cunninghame for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA59/2016 [2016] NZCA 182 BETWEEN AND GLOVER NO 2 LIMITED Appellant BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Respondent Hearing: 13 April 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Kós, Clifford and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69. SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69 BETWEEN AND AND SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE APPLICATION (THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA575/07 [2007] NZCA 512
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA575/07 [2007] NZCA 512 BETWEEN AND AND AND ANTONS TRAWLING LIMITED First Appellant ESPERANCE FISHING CO LIMITED AND ORNEAGAN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Second Appellant
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11. AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs. Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN
More informationWinkelmann, Courtney and Clifford JJ. N H Malarao and K M Wakelin for Appellants No appearance for Respondents JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2015 [2016] NZCA 103 BETWEEN VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF PETRANZ LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) First Appellant PETRANZ LIMITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA108/05. GRAEME MORRIS TODD Second Respondent. Robertson, Baragwanath and Doogue JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA108/05 BETWEEN AND AND AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED Appellant MACALISTER TODD PHILLIPS BODKINS First Respondent GRAEME MORRIS TODD Second Respondent Hearing: 21
More informationSUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA499/2014 [2014] NZCA 550 BETWEEN AND SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD Respondent Hearing: 23 October 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More informationInterpretation Statement Tax avoidance and the interpretation of sections BG 1 and GA 1 of the Income Tax Act June 2013
Interpretation Statement Tax avoidance and the interpretation of sections BG 1 and GA 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 13 June 2013 Public Rulings Unit Office of the Chief Tax Counsel Issued by Public Rulings
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 79/2015 [2016] NZSC 101. BARRIE JAMES SKINNER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. DAVID INGRAM ROWLEY Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 79/2015 [2016] NZSC 101 BETWEEN AND BARRIE JAMES SKINNER Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent SC 126/2015 BETWEEN AND DAVID INGRAM ROWLEY Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Bazzo v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 71 File number: NSD 1828 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 10 February 2017 Catchwords: TAXATION construction of Deed of
More informationTHE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZLCDT 11 LCDT 034/14 BETWEEN JANET MASON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall (retired) MEMBERS
More informationAll legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007 unless otherwise stated.
QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 15/11 INCOME TAX SCENARIOS ON TAX AVOIDANCE 2015 All legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007 unless otherwise stated. This Question We ve Been Asked is about
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Zappia v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCAFC 185 Appeal from: Zappia v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 390 File number: NSD 709 of 2017 Judges: ROBERTSON, PAGONE AND BROMWICH
More informationLAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and French JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA731/2013 [2014] NZCA 209 BETWEEN AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 12 May 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, Randerson
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV Applicant. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2009-485-1957 BETWEEN AND LUXTA LIMITED Applicant CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 8 February 2010 Appearances: P. Withnall - Counsel
More informationJUDGMENT. Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant)
Michaelmas Term [2013] UKSC 69 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 81 JUDGMENT Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Sumption
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014. WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED TRADING AS "GO WELLINGTON" Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 367. IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV-2016-425-000117 [2017] NZHC 367 IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the bankruptcy of ABRAHAM NICOLAAS VAN
More informationSHORTFALL PENALTY UNACCEPTABLE INTERPRETATION AND UNACCEPTABLE TAX POSITION
SHORTFALL PENALTY UNACCEPTABLE INTERPRETATION AND UNACCEPTABLE TAX POSITION 1. SUMMARY 1.1 All legislative references in this statement are to the Tax Administration Act 1994 unless otherwise noted. 1.2
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2014 [2015] NZSC 59. NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2014 [2015] NZSC 59 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED First Respondent VERO INSURANCE
More informationCONTENTS. Vol 23 No 3 April In summary
Vol 23 No 3 April 2011 CONTENTS 1 In summary 2 Legislation and determinations 2011 International tax disclosure exemption ITR21 Determination CFC 2011/01: Non-attributing active insurance CFC status (TOWER
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA654/2017 [2018] NZCA 487. GERARDUS PETER VAN UDEN Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA654/2017 [2018] NZCA 487 BETWEEN AND GERARDUS PETER VAN UDEN Appellant COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 18 and 19 July
More informationINCOME TAX MEANING OF EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION AND EXCESSIVE PROFITS OR LOSSES PAID OR ALLOCATED TO RELATIVES, PARTNERS, SHAREHOLDERS OR DIRECTORS
QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 14/09 INCOME TAX MEANING OF EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION AND EXCESSIVE PROFITS OR LOSSES PAID OR ALLOCATED TO RELATIVES, PARTNERS, SHAREHOLDERS OR DIRECTORS All legislative references
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors [2017] QCA 28 PARTIES: SONYA JOANNE WOODS (applicant) v AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE ABN 51 824 753 556 (first respondent) ROBERT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA526/2010 [2010] NZCA 626. O'Regan P, Arnold and Harrison JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA526/2010 [2010] NZCA 626 BETWEEN AND TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LIMITED Appellant EDEN HOLDINGS 2010 LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 14 October 2010 Court: Counsel: O'Regan
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 958. ARAI KORP LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV 2011-419-001243 [2013] NZHC 958 UNDER The Judicature Amendment Act 1972 IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review of a decision made pursuant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2009-404-002026 BETWEEN AND GREYS AVENUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED Plaintiff HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 9 June 2009 Appearances: R
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationCONTENTS. Vol 27 No 7 August In summary
Vol 27 No 7 August 2015 CONTENTS 1 In summary 3 Binding rulings BR Pub 15/10: Goods and services tax Directors fees 15 New legislation Order in Council Income Tax (Maximum Pooling Value) Order 2015 KiwiSaver
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 October 2017 On 25 October 2017 Before Deputy
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 001 Reference No. SSA 075AA/11 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More information[2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011. the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011 UNDER the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 IN THE MATTER
More informationAppellant. KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LIMITED First Respondent. 5 February 2015 (further submissions received 26 February 2015)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA201/2014 [2015] NZCA 149 BETWEEN AND KENNETH ANGUS HOLMES Appellant KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LIMITED First Respondent KENNETH ANGUS HOLMES AND DAVID BRIAN RUSSELL AS
More informationPUBLIC RULING BR PUB 18/07: INCOME TAX AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX WRITING OFF DEBTS AS BAD
BINDING RULINGS PUBLIC RULING BR : INCOME TAX AND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX WRITING OFF DEBTS AS BAD This is an update and reissue of BR Pub 05/01. For more information about earlier publications of this
More informationCONTENTS. Vol 30 No 9 October In summary
Vol 30 No 9 October 2018 CONTENTS 1 In summary 3 Binding rulings BR Pub 18/07: Income tax and goods and services tax writing off debts as bad Notice of withdrawal of a public ruling 19 Interpretation statements
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/50518/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS MISS ADAKU UZOAMAKA
More informationTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. - and
[2017] UKUT 177 (TCC) Appeal number: UT/2016/0011 VAT input tax absence of purchase invoices discretion to accept alternative evidence whether national rule rendered exercise of rights under European law
More informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 02 ACA 10/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DC/00018/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination & Reasons Promulgated On 21 September 2015
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A APPEAL 2012/12
2013 Maori Appellate Court MB 159 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120003005 APPEAL 2012/12 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Waihou Hutoia
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2018] NZERA Wellington
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2018] NZERA Wellington 67 3021161 BETWEEN DAVID JAMES PRATER Applicant AND HOKOTEHI MORIORI TRUST Respondent Member of Authority: Representatives: Trish
More informationCircuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C-02-000895 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1100 September Term, 2017 ALLAN M. PICKETT, et al. v. FREDERICK CITY MARYLAND, et
More informationALFRED HAROLD KEATING Appellant. THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. G J Newell for the Appellant B D Tantrum and S T Teppett for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KOTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE BETWEEN AND ALFRED HAROLD KEATING Appellant THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent CRI-2018-404-116 [2018]
More informationCONTENTS. Vol 26 No 11 December In summary
Vol 26 No 11 December 2014 CONTENTS 1 In summary 3 Questions we ve been asked QB 14/11: Income tax Scenarios on tax avoidance QB 14/12: Income tax Foreign tax credits for amounts withheld from United Kingdom
More informationArbitration CAS 2014/A/3642 Erik Salkic v. Football Union of Russia (FUR) & Professional Football Club Arsenal, order of 5 August 2014
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3642 Erik Salkic v. Football Union of Russia (FUR) & Professional Football Club Arsenal, Football Request for a stay of
More informationDisputing an assessment
IR776 June 2018 Disputing an assessment What to do if you dispute an assessment 2 DISPUTING AN ASSESSMENT Introduction While we make every effort to apply the tax laws fairly and correctly, there may be
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/40597/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/40597/2013 number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House, London Determination Promulgated On 4 November 2014 On 6 November 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationNELSON DANCE: THE HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT 100% BPR MAY APPLY WHERE THE VALUE TRANSFERRED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRANSFERS OF ASSETS USED IN A BUSINESS
NELSON DANCE: THE HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT 100% BPR MAY APPLY WHERE THE VALUE TRANSFERRED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRANSFERS OF ASSETS USED IN A BUSINESS by Marika Lemos Business property relief ( BPR ) has
More informationTHERESE ANNE SISSON Appellant. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE First Respondent. Appellant in person P J Shamy and S Kinsler for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA633/2015 [2017] NZCA 326 BETWEEN AND THERESE ANNE SISSON Appellant THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE First Respondent CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQ)
More informationInterpretation Statement
Interpretation Statement Draft for Comment and Discussion Tax Avoidance and the Interpretation of Sections BG 1 and GA 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 16 December 2011 Public Rulings Unit Office of the Chief
More informationQUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED
Date of issue EXPOSURE DRAFT - FOR COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ONLY Deadline for comment: 15 February 2019. Quote reference: PUB00325. QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 18/XX GST administration or management services
More informationStandard practice statement SPS 16/06
Standard practice statement SPS 16/06 Disputes resolution process commenced by a taxpayer INTRODUCTION Standard Practice Statements describe how the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner) will
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION FOREIGN LAWYERS FORUM NEW ZEALAND REPORT FOR THE YEAR TO DECEMBER 31, 2010
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION FOREIGN LAWYERS FORUM TAX SECTION NEW ZEALAND REPORT FOR THE YEAR TO DECEMBER 31, 2010 By Geoffrey Clews Barrister Auckland, New Zealand OLD SOUTH BRITISH CHAMBERS LEVEL 3, 3-13
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationMICHAEL WILLIAM DIAMOND Respondent. Randerson, Stevens and French JJ. M Deligiannis and D K Lemmon for Appellant J H Coleman for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA505/2014 [2015] NZCA 613 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant MICHAEL WILLIAM DIAMOND Respondent Hearing: 15 October 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationBanksia Securities Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Special Purpose Receivers Appointed) (Banksia) ACN
31 March 2017 To Debenture holders, Banksia Securities Limited (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Special Purpose Receivers Appointed) (Banksia) ACN 004 736 458 Dear Sir/Madam Peter McCluskey
More information- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016
[2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) TC05499 Appeal number: TC/2012/08116 PROCEDURE Appeal against discovery assessment - Case management directions for progress of appeal Whether appellant or respondents should open
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS. Between. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) OA034192015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st July 2017 On 03 rd August 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Court Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd July 2017 On 5 th July 2017 Before
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationAppellant. FAMILY COURT First Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA604/2012 [2015] NZCA 470 BETWEEN AND M HAYES Appellant FAMILY COURT First Respondent JUDITH GUERIN Second Respondent Hearing: 10 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More information