Tax Information Bulletin - May 2026

The Arrangement is a mortgage offset banking product that the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Limited offers to customers (individuals) who take out a home loan.

The Product involves “offsetting” (for interest calculation purposes) a home loan account balance (“offset portion”) against a credit balance in a Specified Account. This reduces the interest payable by a customer on their home loan balance.

This interpretation statement applies to entities that provide payment processing or facilitation services, including payment technology, to merchants. These entities include payment service providers (PSPs), buy now, pay later (BNPL) providers and other suppliers of payment technology or infrastructure.

The statement provides a framework to determine whether services provided to merchants are financial services. When the supply to merchants includes settlement services, there will be a supply of financial services, and these supplies will be GST exempt (or zero-rated if applicable). The statement also explains whether there is a single supply or multiple supplies of services that may have different GST treatments.

This interpretation statement explains the “tax position” and “tax shortfall” requirements common to the shortfall penalties in ss 141A to 141E of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA).

There is separate guidance on each shortfall penalty, and reductions and other relevant matters.

This interpretation statement explains the meaning of “reasonable care” in relation to the shortfall penalty for not taking reasonable care in s 141A of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

This interpretation statement explains the meaning of “unacceptable tax position” in relation to the shortfall penalty for taking an unacceptable tax position in s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

This interpretation statement explains the meaning of gross carelessness in s 141C of the Tax Administration Act 1994.  It discusses the circumstances that could be relevant in determining whether someone has been grossly careless and how to distinguish gross carelessness from lower levels of negligence.  It also discusses relevant case law and provides several practical examples for clarity.

This interpretation statement (IS) explains the meaning of “abusive tax position” in relation to the abusive tax position shortfall penalty.  The IS also discusses relevant case law and provides several practical examples for clarity.

There is separate guidance on the shortfall penalties provided in s 141A, 141B, 141C and s 141E of the Tax Administration Act 1994, the threshold requirements for a shortfall penalty (that there be a “tax position” and a “tax shortfall”) and reductions and other matters that may be relevant when a  shortfall penalty is imposed (Related Publications).

This interpretation statement (IS) explains the shortfall penalty for evasion or a similar act in s 141E of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA).  The IS explains what is required to satisfy the knowledge requirement, and other requirements, for evasion or a similar act.  The IS also discusses relevant case law and provides several practical examples for clarity.

It updates and replaces IS0062 for subsequent case law.

There is separate guidance on the shortfall penalties provided in s 141A, 141B, 141C and s 141D of the TAA, the threshold requirements for a shortfall penalty (that there be a “tax position” and a “tax shortfall”) and reductions and other matters that may be relevant when a shortfall penalty is imposed (Related Publications).

This interpretation statement is relevant where the Commissioner imposes a shortfall penalty for not taking reasonable care (s 141A), an unacceptable tax position (s 141B), gross carelessness (s 141C), an abusive tax position (s 141D), or evasion or similar act (s 141E). 

It discusses when a shortfall penalty is reduced (or increased), what happens when a taxpayer could be liable for more than one penalty and the assessment, payment and disputing of shortfall penalties.

There is separate guidance on the threshold requirements for a shortfall penalty (that there be a “tax position” and a “tax shortfall”) and the shortfall penalties provided in s 141A, 141B, 141C, 141D and s 141E of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

This interpretation statement considers the income tax implications for a business that provides sponsorship to an organisation, event, person or cause, where the taxpayer (the sponsor) intends that the sponsorship will promote or advertise the business.  The sponsorship may be provided in the form of money or by providing products or services.

This question we’ve been asked considers whether a member of an unincorporated body who is registered for GST can claim input tax deductions for expenditure incurred by the unincorporated body if the unincorporated body is not itself registered for GST. It also considers whether members can claim input tax deductions for contributions they make to the unincorporated body.

The disputant filed a challenge proceeding against tax assessments where the disputant had failed to issue a Notice of Response (NOR) within the response period and, later, had failed to challenge the Commissioner’s refusal to treat a late NOR as having been issued within time. The disputant’s claim was struck out as the TCRA had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the statutory preconditions for commencing a challenge were not met.

Six appellants (four brothers and two brothers-in-law) appealed a Taxation and Charities Review Authority (Authority) decision upholding the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s (Commissioner) assessments and imposition of evasion shortfall penalties. The appellants abandoned their appeal against the underlying income tax and Working for Families Tax Credits (WfFTC) reassessments, leaving only an appeal on whether the Commissioner had proved evasion for the purposes of s 141E.

The High Court held that the Commissioner had the onus of proving that in taking their respective tax positions, each appellant intentionally avoided the payment of income tax in circumstances where he knew he was or may be under an obligation to pay. The Judge upheld the Authority’s findings that the absence of records and implausible explanations given, meant that the evasion shortfall penalties were correctly imposed, and the appeal was dismissed.