High Court dismisses application for interim stay and grants application to strike-out paragraphs of the statement of defence on basis of s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the Commissioner) sought orders striking out certain paragraphs of the first defendant’s statement of defence on the basis that the identified paragraphs disclose no reasonably arguable defence.
The Commissioner argued that s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA) barred the first defendant, Xiaoquan Jia, from challenging the correctness of income tax assessments in these civil debt proceedings.
One week before the hearing, the first defendant applied for an interim stay. He argued that he was applying for the Commissioner to amend the assessments under s 113 of the TAA (s 113 application) and that the proceedings should be stayed pending its determination.
The Court dismissed the stay application and granted the Commissioner’s strike-out application.
Tax Administration Act 1994, ss 3 definition of “disputable decision”,109, 113, Part 8A (138A-138S)
High Court Rules 2016, r 15.1
Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27
X v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZTRA 4
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2014] NZHC 1681
Kidd v Registrar-General of Land [2021] NZHC 1747
Brown v Perpetual Trust Limited [2022] NZHC 1726
Tannadyce Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, [2011] NZSC 158, [2012] 2 NZLR 153
Charter Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 499
Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration [1980] 2 NZLR 130 (CA)
Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA)
Lendlease Capital Services Pty Ltd v Arena Living Holdings Ltd [2021] NZCA 386
Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45, [2008] 3 NZLR 725