Section OE 1 — Income Tax Act 2007: General rules for persons with branch equivalent tax accounts
Text of the provision Official document
OE 1 General rules for persons with branch equivalent tax accounts BETA company (1) [Repealed] BETA person (2) A person resident in New Zealand who is not a company may choose to be a BETA person with a branch equivalent tax account. General rules: BETA company (3) [Repealed] General rules: BETA person (4) Sections OA 2 and OA 3 (which relate to the treatment of memorandum accounts) apply to a BETA person and their branch equivalent tax account as if references in those sections to a tax year were references to an income year. Defined in this Act: BETA person , branch equivalent tax account , company , income year , memorandum account , resident in New Zealand , tax year , Compare: 2004 No 35 ss MF 1(1) , MF 11(1) Section OE 1 heading: amended, on 1 July 2012 (applying for income years beginning on or after that date), by section 100(1) of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012 (2012 No 34). Section OE 1(1): repealed, on 1 July 2012 (applying for income years beginning on or after that date), by section 100(2) of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012 (2012 No 34). Section OE 1(3): repealed, on 1 July 2012 (applying for income years beginning on or after that date), by section 100(2) of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012 (2012 No 34). Section OE 1(4): amended, on 1 July 2012 (applying for income years beginning on or after that date), by section 100(3) of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012 (2012 No 34). Section OE 1 list of defined terms BETA company : repealed, on 1 July 2012, by section 100(4) of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012 (2012 No 34).
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 →