In recent times, we have seen several tax cases being lost by Taxpayers. Analysing the judgments, I believe we have seen a fundamental move when dealing with tax avoidance – a move back towards statutory interpretation. The Newton and Elmiger cases are the policy basis for our anti-avoidance rule as they focus on statutory interpretation and I believe the courts are showing a move back to this ordinary approach (as can be seen in the Banks cases).
TalkTax
A Blog for Tax and Accountancy professionals
Site Archives Legislation
RAP on RAP: marching to a different beat?
Received anonymously:
The Rewrite Advisory Panel (RAP) was established to advise rewriters of the Income Tax Act 1994. The Income Tax Act 2004 saw the RAP becoming the arbiter on possible unintended legislative changes and the Income Tax Act 2007 saw it becoming the overseer of the clarity of that Act (see: www.rewriteadvisory.govt.nz)
In 2009, a submitter raised with the RAP the definition of ‘revenue account property’ (the second RAP referred to in the title but, to avoid confusion, I do not use that acronym in this note). The submitter said:–
Loading ...
Recent comments