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.

This item summarises a private ruling about a sale and subdivision of land, a “lowest price” clause in the sale and purchase agreement, and whether there was any financial arrangement income or loss.

This determination sets out which interests in foreign companies and foreign investment funds for the year ended 31 March 2026 the Commissioner of Inland Revenue does not require a person to disclose for the administration of the international tax rules.

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 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 (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 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 fact sheet accompanies interpretation statement IS 26/05: Shortfall penalty for taking an unacceptable tax position, which explains meaning of “unacceptable tax position” for the shortfall penalty for taking an unacceptable tax position in s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994.