Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Singh v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Case [2017] NZCA 497 1 November 2017

Appeal

Costs

Taxation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA36/2017
[2017] NZCA 497

BETWEEN

VEENA SINGH
First Appellant

YAGASHWAR SINGH
Second Appellant

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent

Hearing:	1 November 2017
Court:	Kós P, Miller and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:	S M Kilian and F J Hawkins for Appellant J K Gorman and L A Herbert for Respondent
Judgment:	1 November 2017 at 11.20 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.

BThe appellants must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Kilian & Associates, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Singh v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 497
Case: [2017] NZCA 497
Decision Date: 1 November 2017 at 11.20 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veena and Yagashaw Singh appealed against the decision of the High Court, which had found them liable for tax evasion and ordered them to pay significant penalties. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue cross-appealed, arguing that the penalties imposed were insufficient. The Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court was correct in its findings of fact and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The appellants argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of certain tax laws and that the penalties were excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in its interpretation of the tax laws and that there was no error in the findings of fact. The Court also held that the penalties imposed were appropriate and not excessive. The Court found that the appellants had intentionally evaded tax by underreporting their income and overstating their expenses. The Court held that the penalties imposed were sufficient to deter future tax evasion and to punish the appellants for their wrongdoing.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The Court held that the penalties imposed were appropriate and that there was no merit in the cross-appeal. The Court also held that the appellants' conduct warranted a penalty, and the penalties imposed were within the range of what was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court found that the appellants had deliberately set out to evade tax and had taken steps to conceal their true income.

Orders