Finally some sane analysis on the BNZ case

Not from a journalist, there are precious few of those left in NZ anyway, nor from a repeater, most of them can’t even read.

No it has come from a blogger….you know, one of those disdained ones that NBR owner Barry Colman despises. Well this blogger has provided an analysis that far exceeds any mumblings of an NBR columnist or repeater when it comes to understanding the appalling judgement in the BNZ case.

Of course the blogger in question is Cactus Kate. This is one of her more lengthy posts, so it probably took her about 10 miuntes to bang out but it worthy of so much more than all the other 1000’s of words miscontrued by others about this case.

Her summary is thus;

I have discussed this previously and taxation is an area of the law where the strict letter of the law MUST be applied. If not then the taxpayer will ALWAYS lose in cases against the IRD. This has been the norm as of late in the higher courts. Especially the Supreme Court since the abolishing of appeals to the Privy Council. Public policy is of course to always collect more tax than less. Bernard and Adolf have proven the “I pay so why can’t those bastards” line of thought. It is personified by one of the most arrogant bastards ever to work at the IRD, now drop-out law lecturer Mark Keating.

Auckland University senior law lecturer Mark Keating, who has previously advised the IRD on the banks’ structured finance transactions, said virtually all tax avoidance cases involved taxpayers who were technically compliant with the law. “Technical compliance with the law is never enough.”

Why not? Imagine if this rationale was applied to criminal convictions. Where innocent people were convicted because while they complied with the law, “it wasn’t enough” and a Judge simply convicted them because he or she didn’t like them. Civil liberty groups would be outraged. Forget the rule of law and find every corporate wheeled by the IRD in front of the High Court immediately guilty of tax avoidance!

Name me one situation now when it comes to a taxpayer vs the IRD where the taxpayer can now possibly win if section BG1 is now applied in an all encompassing fashion in our leftist activist Supreme Court?

This new approach to judicial activism in New Zealand will spread through the leftist Supreme Court. We saw it last week with Rose v Rose. It has wide ramifications and makes the task of litigating a near impossibility as cases will now be decided on the mood of the nation through what the Courts think everyone wants, rather than firm legal principles and the rule of law.

Very hard to disagree with that and the new found judicial activism being practised upon us by the Clark instigated Supreme Court. Mark my words, this Supreme Court experiment will be one of the more profound disasters visited upon this nation by Helen Elizabeth Clark.