Section RH 3 — Income Tax Act 2007: Retirement savings schemes
Text of the provision Official document
RH 3 Retirement savings schemes Requirements for entity (1) An entity is a retirement savings scheme for a person if the entity— (a) is a portfolio investment entity; and (b) holds funds from a retirement scheme contribution for the person; and (c) has rules (the distribution rules ) governing the distribution by the entity of funds in which the person has an interest that— (i) are approved by the Commissioner as fair and reasonable; and (ii) meet the requirements of subsection (2). Requirements for rules (2) The rules must provide that— (a) the availability of a distribution to the person is restricted before the person reaches an age of retirement set out in the rules: (b) the person is not permitted to make a withdrawal before the age of retirement other than a withdrawal— (i) to repay a student loan under the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011 : (ii) to pay fees and expenses related to tertiary education: (iii) to buy a home if the person does not own one: (iv) that the person would be permitted to make if the scheme were a KiwiSaver scheme under the KiwiSaver Act 2006 : (v) in circumstances set out in the distribution rules that have been approved under subsection (1)(c)(i): (c) the entity may require the person to provide information to ensure that the requirements relating to a withdrawal are met. Defined in this Act: Commissioner , income year , portfolio investment entity , retirement savings scheme , retirement scheme contribution , retirement scheme contributor Compare: 2004 No 35 s NEB 5 Section RH 3: inserted, on 1 April 2008, by section 545 of the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Act 2007 (2007 No 109). Section RH 3(2)(b)(i): amended, on 1 April 2012, by section 223 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011 (2011 No 62).
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 →