Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorOhms, Chris
dc.contributor.authorThan, Tut
dc.date.accessioned2008-09-26T03:46:41Z
dc.date.available2008-09-26T03:46:41Z
dc.date.copyright2007-11
dc.date.issued2008-09-26T03:46:41Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/416
dc.description.abstractIn June 2007, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand disallowed the taxpayers appeal and decided that Trinity Scheme is a tax avoidance arrangement. The decision is significant not only for NZD3billion which is at stake but also for its jurisprudence on tax avoidance. This paper analyses the implication of Accent decision on the development of judicial approach on tax avoidance. Purposive approach of interpretation is codified in New Zealand since mid-19th century. Although New Zealand courts are not reluctant in using purposive approach in judicial reasoning, the final decisions rarely depart from literal meaning of the Act. The tension between general anti-avoidance provision and the specific provision within the Act has long been recognised by the court. The Court of Appeal in Accent proposed a judicial technique which would involve seeing tax avoidance cases in three different categories.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAuckland University of Technology
dc.subjectStatutory interpretation
dc.subjectTax avoidance
dc.subjectTaxation
dc.subjectJudiciary system
dc.titleThe Court of Appeal decision in Accent Management Ltd v CIR [2007] NZCA 230: statutory interpretation in New Zealand tax avoidance law
dc.typeThesis
thesis.degree.grantorAuckland University of Technology
thesis.degree.levelMasters Theses
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Business
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record