Tax

A Tale of Two Banks – November 2009 A Tale of Two Banks[1] Mike Lennard, Barrister This year has seen two banks and the CIR engage in trench warfare in the High Court on whether “structured finance” transactions entered into in the late 1990s were tax avoidance.  In mid July Wild J had delivered his […]

Search Powers Under Scrutiny – March 2009 Nicholas Petroulias, a former Assistant Commissioner in the Australian Tax Office, fell from grace in spectacular fashion in the early years of this decade, subsequently appearing as defendant in a series of criminal prosecutions alleging various sorts of corrupt activity while in office, and being convicted in 2008

What’s Mine Is Yours – Section 157 Notices – December 2008 What’s Mine Is Yours – A New Dimension to Section 157 Most tax practitioners will know, if not love, section 157 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (“TAA”).  It enables the CIR to require someone who has an obligation to make a payment to a

In the recent High Court decision McIlraith v CIR (2007) 23 NZTC 21,456, Asher J held that the CIR could  amend the current account balance carried forward from a time-barred year into a year which was not time barred.  An issue which has not been explored in the reported decision is whether the deemed correctness of earlier years’ assessments

A Walk on the Wild Side Challenges to tax assessments usually challenge either the correctness of the assessment (carried on, almost entirely, through the Part IVA and Part VIIIA processes of the Tax Administration Act 1994) or the correctness or legitimacy of the process whereby the assessment is raised. This article travels around the wilder

Whoops, Wrong Section! – July 2008 “If the exercise of a power can be traced to a legitimate source the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of the power in question.” J.K. Steel Ltd. v Union of India AIR (1970) 1173 at page 1187-88   Introduction

Section 81 Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA 1994) provides a principle of confidentiality of taxpayer information which is, as recognised in s 6 TAA 1994, a cornerstone of the concept of integrity of the tax system. This article considers the limits of that principle when it comes to the conduct of a tax dispute, against

The “Evidence Exclusion Rule” in s 138G Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA 1994) is designed as a “key part” of the disputes resolution procedure[1],’ and aims to ensure that neither the taxpayer nor the Commissioner (CIR) will be able to raise in litigation any evidence or legal arguments not disclosed following a disclosure notice under

Section 19 Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA 1994) enables the CIR to hold an inquiry by requiring any person to attend at an Inland Revenue office and answer questions.  The use of this power has increased substantially in the past decade.  This article gives a brief background to s 19 inquiries and examines two questions about their