Statement released by New Zealand’s Inland Revenue on determining whether an Arrangement is Tax Avoidance

Category: Other Documents, Transfer Pricing Library, Transfer Pricing News | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

On 13 June 2013, a Statement was released by New Zealand’s Inland Revenue Service on the interpretation of Tax Avoidance provisions.

This statement outlines the Commissioner’s view of the law on tax avoidance in New Zealand and sets out the approach the Commissioner will take to application of the general anti-avoidance provision, based on the three-stage test for assessing whether an arrangement is tax avoidance as provided by the Supreme Court Judgment in the Ben Nevis case.

In Ben Nevis case the Supreme Court indicated it intended to settle the approach regarding the relationship between s BG 1 and the rest of the Income Tax Act. This has been acknowledged in all relevant judicial decisions released since Ben Nevis. Accordingly, the Commissioner considers that the statement is based upon and reflects the view of the court in Ben Nevis.

 

Tax Avoidance Test NZ is1301





Related Guidelines

  1. IRS – APA Study Guide issued in early 2000sIn the early 2000s the IRS issued a “APA study guide” where guidance is provided in relation to various practical issues in the area of transfer pricing. The study guide is part of a large collection of IRS practices and statistics from working...
  2. New Zealand introduces Group Rating Approach for certain Cross-Border relatet party Borrowing and Debt ArrangementsThe OECD’s final report on interest limitation rules notes that thin capitalisation rules are vulnerable to loans with excessive interest rates and many transfer pricing practitioners finds that transfer pricing may not the most effective way to prevent profit-shifting using high-priced related party...

Related Case Law

  1. Poland vs “BO zoo”, April 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Cases No II FSK 240/21The shareholder of “BO zoo” is a German company. The German parent held 100% of the shares of “BO zoo” continuously for more than 2 years. The German parent’s ownership of the shares was based on title. “BO zoo” asked the Tax Chamber...
  2. Canada vs McKesson Canada Corporation, December 2013, Tax Court of Canada, Case No. 2013 TCC 404McKesson is a multinational group engaged in the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. Its Canadian subsidiary, McKesson Canada, entered into a factoring agreement in 2002 with its ultimate parent, McKesson International Holdings III Sarl in Luxembourg. Under the terms of the agreement, McKesson International...
  3. New Zealand vs Honk Land Trustee Limited, 10 March 2017, Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal upheld decisions of the High Court confirming the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s disallowance of a $1,116,000 management fee for income tax purposes. The Court of Appeal dismissed Honk Land Trustees Limited’s (“HLT”) appeal on the following alternative grounds: (1)...
  4. Norway vs. IKEA Handel og Ejendom, October 2016, HRD 2016-722In 2007, IKEA reorganised its property portfolio in Norway so that the properties were demerged from the Norwegian parent company and placed in new, separate companies. The shares in these companies were placed in a newly established property company, and the shares in...