Section CZ 18 — Income Tax Act 2007: Benefit provider approved within 6 months of 25 November 2003
Text of the provision Official document
CZ 18 Benefit provider approved within 6 months of 25 November 2003 When this section applies (1) This section applies when a person (the provider )— (a) is— (i) an incorporated body; or (ii) a trustee; and (b) provides accident insurance, health insurance, life insurance, or other health and welfare benefits to natural persons (the recipients ); and (c) either— (i) was approved as a sickness, accident, or death benefit fund by the Commissioner on or before 24 November 2003; or (ii) administers a fund that was approved as a sickness, accident, or death benefit fund by the Commissioner on or before 24 November 2003; and (d) has been approved by the Commissioner as an organisation that the Commissioner considers operates on the principles of mutuality for recipients— (i) within the 6 months starting on 25 November 2003; or (ii) in a further period allowed by the Commissioner, if the provider satisfies the Commissioner that the provider was not aware of the requirement for the Commissioner’s approval in sufficient time to obtain the approval under subparagraph (i). Exempt income (2) An amount derived by a provider is exempt income if— (a) the amount is not derived from a business carried on by the provider beyond the circle of the recipients; and (b) each of the recipients is— (i) a beneficiary of the trust for which the provider is the trustee: (ii) a member of the provider: (iii) a member of an organisation that directly or indirectly controls the provider: (iv) a relative of a person described in any of subparagraphs (i) to (iii). Defined in this Act: amount , business , Commissioner , exempt income , life insurance , relative , sickness, accident, or death benefit fund , trustee , Compare: 2004 No 35 s CZ 18
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →