Section OK 13 — Income Tax Act 2007: MACA payment of other taxes
Text of the provision Official document
OK 13 MACA payment of other taxes Debit (1) A Maori authority has a Maori authority debit for an amount of overpaid income tax applied to pay an amount due under the Inland Revenue Acts. Subsection (2) overrides this subsection. No debit (2) The amount of a debit under subsection (1) does not include an amount of overpaid income tax— (a) applied to satisfy a liability for income tax or provisional tax; or (b) paid for a tax year before the 2004–05 tax year; or (c) that relates to income tax paid before a Maori authority debit arises under section OK 15 when the amount is no more than the amount of the debit for loss of shareholder continuity. Table references (3) The Maori authority debit in subsection (1) is referred to in table O18: Maori authority debits, row 5 (payment of other taxes). The Maori authority debit in subsection (2)(c) is referred to in table O18: Maori authority debits, row 7 (debit for loss of shareholder continuity). Debit date (4) The debit date is the day the amount is applied. Relationship with section OK 14B (5) This section does not apply to an amount that gives rise to a debit under section OK 14B . Defined in this Act: amount , income tax , income tax liability , income year , Inland Revenue Acts , Maori authority , Maori authority debit , pay , provisional tax , shareholder , tax year , Compare: 2004 No 35 s MK 5(1)(j), (2)(i) Section OK 13(5) heading: added (with effect on 1 April 2008), on 6 October 2009, by section 442(1) of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Act 2009 (2009 No 34). Section OK 13(5): added (with effect on 1 April 2008), on 6 October 2009, by section 442(1) of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Act 2009 (2009 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 →