Jia v CIR [2026] NZHC 1739

Judicial Review Declined

In a reminder that judicial review is aailable in only a very few instances in tax disputes, the High Court has declined the taxpayer’s application to judicially review the Commissioner’s decision declining to consider the taxpayer’s application under s 113 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 to amend his tax assessments for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 tax years. The application for review was brought after the Taxation Review Authority (TRA) found the assessments to be correct in unsuccessful challenge proceedings brought by the taxpayer.

In January 2018, following an investigation into the taxpayer’s tax affairs, the Commissioner assessed the taxpayer for income tax in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 based on profits from the sale of properties acquired by the taxpayer as attorney for Chinese nationals. The Commissioner also assessed the taxpayer with an evasion shortfall penalty under s 141E of the Tax Administration Act.

The taxpayer brought challenge proceedings in the TRA which upheld the Commissioner’s assessments without alteration (reported as Case 3/2021 (2021) 30 NZTC ¶6-002). The taxpayer filed an appeal in the High Court but later abandoned the appeal. The Commissioner then sought to recover the debtand the taxpayer sought to dispute the correctness of the assessments.

The Commissioner applied to strike out the paragraphs of the taxpayer’s statement of defence that disputed the correctness of the assessments underlying his tax debt on the basis that s 109 of the Tax Administration Act prevented the correctness of the assessments being disputed and the High Court struck out the impugned paragraphs. 

During the strike-out application, counsel for the taxpayer handed up a letter from the taxpayer’s solicitors requesting that the Commissioner amend the assessments under s 113 of the Tax Administration Act. The Commissioner declined to consider the taxpayer’s application to amend the assessments under s 113 because they had been considered and upheld by the TRA. 

The taxpayer advanced 4 judicial review grounds in relation to the Commissioner’s decision, namely, error of law, unreasonableness, predetermination, and breach of legitimate expectation. The taxpayer relied on Inland Revenue’s standard practice statement SPS 20/3: “Request to amend assessments” issued on 2 June 2020. He also relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Charter Holdings Ltd v C of IR (2016) 27 NZTC ¶22-075.

The High Court dismissed the taxpayer’s application for judicial review saying that issue estoppel applied.

The TRA’s decision was a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction as to the correctness of the Commissioner’s assessments. The TRA had determined that the assessments were correct. It was therefore not open to the taxpayer to argue in this (or any other) proceeding with the Commissioner that the assessments were not correct. This was fatal to the taxpayer’s judicial review application. Section 113 gave the Commissioner the power to amend assessments to “ensure their correctness”. But their correctness had been determined, so the Commissioner was justified in treating the assessments as correct and therefore declining to consider the s 113 application.