Section MD 14 — Income Tax Act 2007: Person receiving protected family tax credit
Text of the provision Official document
MD 14 Person receiving protected family tax credit Requirements (1) For the purposes of section MD 13(3)(b) , a person who receives protected family tax credit for a calendar month in an entitlement period, is a person who, in the calendar month,— (a) has no spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner, receives an income-tested benefit, and derives family scheme income that is less than the amount set out in section MD 13(3)(a)(i) : (b) has a spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner, receives an income-tested benefit, and derives family scheme income that together with the family scheme income of their spouse is less in total than the amount set out in section MD 13(3)(a)(ii) . Annualised equivalent (2) Section MB 2 (Adjustment for period that is less or more than 1 year) applies to adjust the amount of family scheme income to provide an annualised equivalent. Defined in this Act: amount , civil union partner , de facto partner , entitlement period , family scheme income , income-tested benefit , protected family tax credit , spouse , Compare: 2004 No 35 s KD 2(6B) Section MD 14 heading: amended, on 1 April 2008, by section 477(1) of the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Act 2007 (2007 No 109). Section MD 14(1): amended, on 1 April 2008, by section 477(2) of the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Act 2007 (2007 No 109). Section MD 14 list of defined terms protected family support : repealed, on 1 April 2008, by section 477(3)(b) of the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Act 2007 (2007 No 109). Section MD 14 list of defined terms protected family tax credit : inserted, on 1 April 2008, by section 477(3)(a) of the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Act 2007 (2007 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 →