Section OB 26 — Income Tax Act 2007: ICA elimination of double debit
Text of the provision Official document
OB 26 ICA elimination of double debit When this section applies (1) This section applies when an imputation debit in an ICA company’s imputation credit account under section OB 41 has the effect of cancelling an imputation credit under section OB 5 . Credit (2) The company has an imputation credit for an amount equal to the amount of the debit referred to in subsection (1), and either— (a) another debit arises under section OB 34 for a refund of the amount of the deposit on a debit date after the debit date for the debit for loss of shareholder continuity; or (b) the deposit is taken into account under section RP 19 (Transfers from tax pooling accounts) in determining the balance of the company’s tax account with the Commissioner after the debit date for the debit for loss of shareholder continuity. Table references (3) The table references are as follows: (a) the imputation debit in subsection (1) is referred to in table O2: imputation debits, row 14 (debit for loss of shareholder continuity): (b) the imputation credit in subsection (1) is referred to in table O1: imputation credits, row 3 (deposit in tax pooling account): (c) the imputation credit in subsection (2) is referred to in table O1: imputation credits, row 24 (elimination of double debit): (d) the imputation debit in subsection (2)(a) is referred to in table O2: imputation debits, row 6 (refund from tax pooling account). Credit date (4) The credit date is the day— (a) the deposit is refunded; or (b) the credit arises in the company’s tax account with the Commissioner. Defined in this Act: amount , Commissioner , ICA company , imputation credit , imputation credit account , imputation debit , shareholder , tax account with the Commissioner , Compare: 2004 No 35 s ME 4(1A), (2A)
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 →