Chatfield & Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue : [2015] NZHC 2099

Resource Information

The work Chatfield & Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue : [2015] NZHC 2099 represents a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation. This resource is a combination of several types including: Work, Language Material, Continuing Resources.

Label

Chatfield & Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue : [2015] NZHC 2099

Contributor

• Baker, P

Subject

• treaty interpretation
• case law
• OECD Model
• tax treaty
• exchange of information
• procedural law

Language

eng

Summary

Judgment by the New Zealand High Court, judgment date 1 September 2015. Chatfield was the tax agent in New Zealand for a group of companies under investigation by the Republic of Korea's National Tax Service (NTS). The NTS made a request under art 25(1) of the New Zealand-Korea double taxation convention to the New Zealand Commissioner of Inland Revenue to obtain and provide information relating to the companies. The Commissioner then issued Notices to Chatfield requiring it to provide information so that it could be forwarded to the NTS. Chatfield sought copies of documents exchanged between Korea and the Commissioner, including the original request made pursuant to the Double Taxation Relief (Republic of Korea) Order 1983 (?the DTA?) and s 17 of the Tax Administration Act 1994. Chatfield argued that it was necessary to see the documents because they would evidence the reasons for the Commissioner's decision and the procedures that were followed, and that those matters were relevant to the application for review. The Commissioner refused to provide copies of the documents on the grounds that they were not relevant and related to "matters of state". The Commissioner sought a direction under s 70 of the Evidence Act 2006 that they not be disclosed. Chatfield sought judicial review of the decision to issue the Notices. The question arose whether the information could be ordered to be disclosed on an application for judicial review which was not enforcement or prosecution in relation to taxes covered by the Convention or an appeal therefrom. This is another case relating to the cross border exchange of information between revenue authorities, and raises a number of issues

Citation source

In: International tax law reports. - London. - Vol. 18 (2016), part 4; p. 392-420

Language note

English