Skip to main content
CSUM 26/10
Issued
28 Jul 2026
Decision
25 Jun 2026
Court
NZTCRA
Appeal Status
Pending

The Taxation & Charities Review Authority confirms the Commissioner’s denial of deductions was correct

L (the taxpayer) sought deductions for education expenses, motor vehicle expenses, and home office expenses. The taxpayer also challenged the Commissioner’s imposition of a shortfall penalty for not taking reasonable care.

The Authority denied the deductions sought on the basis that the deductions were not incurred as part of the taxpayer’s business, the taxpayer had failed to keep adequate records or otherwise show the deductions had been incurred, or the deductions had been incurred prior to the taxpayer’s registration for GST. The Authority agreed that the taxpayer had failed to take reasonable care in taking the tax positions.

Case
L v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZTCRA 04

Income Tax Act 2007, ss BD2, DA1, DA 2, DB18AA, YA1, subpart DE
Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, ss 6, 20, 21A, 21B, 21G
Tax Administration Act 1994, 141A, 141FB, 149A

Grieve v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1984] 1 NZLR 101 (CA)
Case Q18 (1993) 15 NZTC 5,100 (TRA)
Ricketts v Colquhoun [1926] AC 1 (HL)
Newsom v Robertson [1952] 2 All ER 728
Case W4 (2003) 21 NZTC 11,034 (TRA)
Hong v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2018] NZHC 2539