Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Licence needed for work use Learn More

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Judgment: Brent John Gilchrist v The Queen

Supreme Court of New Zealand

15 December 2006

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

Brent John GILCHRIST v The Queen

(SC 69/2006) [2006] NZSC 109

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment.

The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction under s 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994, which relates to tax evasion and similar offences. The appellant, Mr Gilchrist, ran a tax consultancy business called E-Tax Trust which he controlled as sole director of the trustee company for the business.

Between June 2001 and August 2003 GST was not paid in respect of the business. In an attempt to recover tax the Commissioner, on two occasions, used a provision under s 157 of the TAA requiring debtors of the business to pay their debts to the Inland Revenue Department rather than E-Tax Trust.

In July 2003 IRD issued a written notice under s 17 of the TAA requiring the provision of financial information relating to the business. Upon receipt of the notice Mr Gilchrist assigned the debts of the business to a company and then knowingly did not provide the requested information. This was to preempt any further s 157 notice in relation to business debtors. Mr Gilchrist was prosecuted under s 143B(1)(b) of the TAA for knowingly not providing the requested information intending to evade the payment of tax. The Supreme Court rejected Mr Gilchrist’s argument that in the light of the history of the tax laws his conduct did not amount to an offence under the section. The Supreme Court also rejected his argument that the section could only apply in cases where there had been a wilful evasion of assessment and not where a proper assessment had been made but only payment had been evaded.

ENDS

See... Judgment: Brent John Gilchrist v The Queen

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.