Section HZ 5 — Income Tax Act 2007: Transitional provisions for PIE rules
Text of the provision Official document
HZ 5 Transitional provisions for PIE rules Intention of new law (1) The PIE rules are the provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007 relating to portfolio investment entities in rewritten form, and are intended to have the same effect as the relevant corresponding provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007. Subsection (3) overrides this subsection. Using old law as interpretation guide (2) Unless subsection (3) applies, in circumstances where the meaning of a PIE rule (the new law ) is unclear or gives rise to absurdity— (a) the wording of the provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007 relating to portfolio investment entities that correspond to and are replaced by the PIE rules (the old law ) must be used to determine the correct meaning of the new law; and (b) it can be assumed that a corresponding old law provision exists for each new law provision. Limits to subsections (1) and (2) (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in the case of— (a) a PIE rule that repeals an old law and replaces it with a new law: (b) a PIE rule that is amended after the commencement of section 292(2) of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Act 2009, with effect from the date on which the amendment comes into force. Defined in this Act: PIE rules , portfolio investment entity Section HZ 5: inserted, on 1 April 2010 (applying for the 2010–11 and later income years), by section 295(1) of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Act 2009 (2009 No 34). Section HZ 5(3)(b): amended (with effect on 1 April 2010), on 7 September 2010 (applying for the 2010–11 and later income years), by section 80(1) of the Taxation (Annual Rates, Trans-Tasman Savings Portability, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Act 2010 (2010 No 109).
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 →