A v CIR [2026] NZTCRA 1

TCRA proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction

In a short judgment the Taxation and Charities Review Authority ("TCRA") has dismissed for want of jurisdiction proceedings brought by a taxpayer who sought to challenge the refusal by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to reopen a tax dispute.

The taxpayer failed to resppond to a notice of proposed adjustment within the applicable response period and so was deemed to have acceoted the adjustments that the Commissioner proposed. She then tried to argue that she ought to be able to respond ot of time because of exceptional circumstances and tried to issue her own NOPA, all of which was rejected by the Commissioner. The taxpayer failed to challenge the Commissioner's refusal to recognise execptional circumstances within the response period, action that would have been available to the taxpayer despite having earlier failed to respond to the proposed adjustments. The taxpayer then requested that assessments be reopened and again the Commissioner declined.  

The taxpayer then filed a notice of claim with the TCRA seeking to challenge the Commissioner's refusal to reopne the tax dispute.

The TCRA accepted the Commissioner's argument that the proceedings should be struck out saying that its tax jurisdiction was to deal with matters that came before it with the necessary procedural background of the tax disputes process. The entitlement to challenge an assessment was conditional upon compliance with the statutory disputes procedures. Where those preconditions are not met, the taxpayer has no right of challenge and the TCRA must strike out the proceeding. Section 138C governed challenges to disputable decisions that were not assessments. The TCRA's jurisdiction to deal with disputable decisions that are not assesssments extended only to decisions falling within the statutory definition and only where the prescribed gateway requirements are met.

On the question of exceptional circumstances, the TCRA held that no foundation was laid for leave to appeal under secton 138D of the TAA. Exceptional circumstances were not established. Nothing showed that there were circumstances out of the ordinary course, beyond the taxpayer’s control, that were causative of the failure to file within time. Moreover, a proceeding commenced approximately 5 years after the expiry of the statutory time limit could not be said to have been commenced as soon as reasonably practicable. 

The taxpayer in this case seems to have been woefully unaware of the implications of the time limiting response periods under the disputes process.

(c) G D Clews 2026