Description: This statement sets out certain practices that the Commissioner will exercise in applying the discretion to allow registered persons to remain or become six-monthly return filers for goods and services tax purposes.

Description: This determination applies in respect of prepayments received by LP from customers under customer contracts, and of prepayments made by LP to Subsidiaries under supporting contracts on back-to-back terms. Specifically, it relates to the value of the consideration for one of the customer contracts and its supporting contract, and the spreading of any interest income or expenditure for two of the customer contracts and their supporting contracts under the financial arrangements rules.

Description: Mr Cullen filed GST returns in the name of Tamaki Rugby League Incorporated ('the Society'). However, the Society did not exist during the periods of the GST return. Later the Society was eventually restored to the register, but as it was in liquidation, the Official Assignee was liquidator. Therefore, Mr Cullen did not have the standing to act for the Society and file proceedings. In the High Court, Fitzgerald J found in favour of Mr Cullen. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal and was successful in striking out the High Court proceedings.

Description: The High Court found that the appellant did have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand in the relevant years, applying the Diamond test (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Diamond [2015] NZCA 613). The Court also concluded that time bar could be opened under s 108(2) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and that a shortfall penalty for taking an unacceptable tax position was appropriately imposed.

Description: This case is an appeal of the Court of Appeal decision in Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600. It concerned a transfer of a property which attracted adverse tax consequences. The collective respondents sought damages from the collective appellants on the basis they were given negligent advice. The Court had to consider whether a cause of action accrued (because a tax liability arose) once the sale and purchase agreement became unconditional, or later, when it was settled. The Court held that, the loss (and therefore the cause of action) arose when the income from the transaction was derived. This occurred, in accordance with general principles of derivation, when the transfer was effected (at settlement date) on 2 May 2008. The Attorney-General was invited as intervener in these proceedings.