Description: The Arrangement is the resettlement of the NZX Mid Cap Index Fund (the Existing Fund) onto the NZ Mid Cap Fund (the New Fund) by redeeming units held by unitholders (Unitholders), applying the redemption proceeds to acquire units in the New Fund on behalf of Unitholders, and transferring the assets of the Existing Fund to the New Fund. However, the New Fund will not issue units to Unitholders whose address on the register of Unitholders is outside New Zealand (Offshore Unitholders). The redemption proceeds that Offshore Unitholders will receive from the Existing Fund will be cash only and the resettlement process will not result in them becoming unitholders in the New Fund

Description: The Arrangement is the resettlement of the NZX 10 Fund (the Existing Fund) onto the NZ Top 10 Fund (the New Fund) by redeeming units held by unitholders (Unitholders) in the Existing Fund, applying the redemption proceeds to acquire units in the New Fund on behalf of Unitholders, and transferring the assets of the Existing Fund to the New Fund.

Description: The Arrangement is the resettlement of the NZX Australian 20 Leaders Index Fund (the Existing Fund) onto the Australian Top 20 Fund (the New Fund) by redeeming units held by unitholders (Unitholders) in the Existing Fund, applying the redemption proceeds to acquire units in the New Fund on behalf of Unitholders, and transferring the assets of the Existing Fund to the New Fund.

Description: The Arrangement is the resettlement of the NZX 50 Portfolio Index Fund (the Existing Fund) onto the NZ Top 50 Fund (the New Fund) by redeeming units held by unitholders (Unitholders) in the Existing Fund, applying the redemption proceeds to acquire units in the New Fund on behalf of Unitholders, and transferring the assets of the Existing Fund to the New Fund.

Description: The Arrangement is the resettlement of the NZX Australian Mid Cap Index Fund (the Existing Fund) onto the Australian Mid Cap Fund (the New Fund) by redeeming units held by unitholders (Unitholders) in the Existing Fund, applying the redemption proceeds to acquire units in the New Fund on behalf of Unitholders, and transferring the assets of the Existing Fund to the New Fund.

Description: The focus of this statement is setting out how the Commissioner will treat a lump sum payment received under a settlement agreement for claims that (if successful) would have resulted in receipts of both a capital and revenue nature.

Description: Double taxation occurs when two or more countries or territories (referred to as 'states' for the purposes of this Interpretation Statement) tax the same taxpayer on the same income or gains. Many states tax residents on their worldwide income, including income sourced in a foreign state. States also tax non-residents on income sourced in that state. This can result in the same income being taxable under the tax laws of both states, based on residence and source respectively

Description: This determination relates to a funding transaction involving the issue of Notes by Bank to Parent pursuant to a Deed Poll. The Notes will contain a conversion mechanism to allow them to be recognised as Additional Tier 1 capital for the purposes of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand framework relating to the capital adequacy of banks.

Description: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue ('the Commissioner') applied to strike out an application by Chatfield & Co Ltd and Chatfield & Co's (together 'Chatfield') seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner to issues notices under s 17 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 ('TAA'). The Court struck out the first cause of action and the first two particulars of the second cause of action. The third particular of the second cause of action, alleging that the Commissioner did not take into account the terms of Article 25 of the Double Taxation Relief (Republic of Korea) Order 1983 ('the DTA'), the Court considered to be reasonably arguable and permitted to proceed to trial.

Description: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against conviction on seven counts of aiding and abetting a company to knowingly apply deemed PAYE deductions for purposes other than payment to the Inland Revenue Department ('IRD'). The sole appeal ground was whether the District Court Judge acted with apparent bias at trial, giving rise to an unfair trial. The Court found that a reasonable lay observer, watching the whole trial and reading the Judge's minutes would not reasonably apprehend the Judge had become partial or predetermined the overall question of guilt.

Description: The Taxation Review Authority ('the Authority') upheld the Commissioner of Inland Revenue's ('the Commissioner') default assessments issued on the basis that the disputant had suppressed income by failing to return amounts paid to him and on his behalf as a condition of his employment, arranging for management fees to be paid to trusts he controlled, and by arranging for his services to be remunerated by loan payments either made to himself or his family trusts. The Authority also upheld shortfall penalties imposed for evasion, abusive tax position and gross carelessness.

Description: This was an appeal by Charter Holdings Limited ('CHL') against the High Court's dismissal of CHL's application for judicial review of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue's ('the Commissioner') decision refusing to amend her assessments under s 113 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 ('TAA'). The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for further consideration.