10 December 2015

Tax: Michael Hill v. Inland Revenue

Inland Revenue must act consistently, treating taxpayers in the same circumstances similarly, the High Court ruled in a preliminary hearing over Michael Hill Jewellers disputed $35 million tax deductions derived from its trans-Tasman restructuring.
Michael Hill Group transferred its intellectual property and franchising operations to Australia in 2008, using a wholly-owned Australian limited partnership established in Queensland.  Inland Revenue in New Zealand disputes the claimed tax effect of this restructuring which saw Michael Hill claiming tax deductions in both Australia and New Zealand and reducing assessable income in New Zealand.  Tax deductions totalling $35 million for the last six tax years are in dispute.
The High Court was told Michael Hill says it became aware of another taxpayer successfully using the same restructuring template when it applied to Inland Revenue for a binding ruling on part of its proposed restructuring.  Taxpayers can get advice in advance from Inland Revenue on the potential tax effect of a proposed  transaction.  This can provide some certainty for business.  Inland Revenue’s response to Michael Hill’s request for a ruling obliquely referred to another tax file, resulting in the inadvertent disclosure to Michael Hill of another taxpayer getting approval for a similar transaction.
One of the arguments raised by Michael Hill in its $35 million tax dispute is that Inland Revenue must act consistently: taxpayers who have used the same, or similar, tax structures must be treated the same.  In a preliminary hearing, Inland Revenue applied to have this part of Michael Hill’s claim struck out.  Justice Toogood ruled the claim to inconsistency should not be struck out.  There is a legal obligation on Inland Revenue to act consistently.
Whether Inland Revenue did act inconsistently is yet to be decided.  Inland Revenue says there are “significant differences” between the Michael Hill restructuring and the transaction inadvertently disclosed.
Michael Hill Finance v. Inland Revenue – High Court (10.12.15)

16.019