[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
6 May 2025
Richard Vance
[FYI request #30618 email]
Dear Richard Vance
Thank you for your request made under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), received on 4
April 2025. Your full request is detailed in
Appendix A.
On 15 April 2025, we emailed you requesting clarification on the channel through which you
submitted and received a response to the formal complaint dated 5 March 2025, mentioned in
part 3 of your request. To date, we have yet to receive a response from you.
Background
Inland Revenue is bound by strict confidentiality provisions set out in section 18 of the Tax
Administration Act 1994 (TAA). These provisions are designed to protect the confidentiality of
taxpayers' affairs and ensure that revenue information is not disclosed inappropriately.
Section 16C(3) of the TAA, defines sensitive revenue information as information that includes
revenue information that identifies or is capable of identifying, a person or entity, whether
directly or indirectly.
Section 18(1) of the TAA mandates that revenue officers must keep all sensitive revenue
information confidential unless the disclosure is a permitted disclosure under sections 18D to
18J of the TAA. This provision aims to protect the integrity of the tax system by ensuring that
sensitive information is not disclosed inappropriately. In the absence of a permitted disclosure,
this information must remain confidential.
Part 1
The information you have requested is considered sensitive revenue information. As no
permitted disclosure applies that would permit me to release the requested information to you,
I have decided to refuse your request under section 18(c)(i) of the OIA as releasing this
information would be contrary to section 18(1) of the TAA.
Part 2
Inland Revenue monitors and prioritises the GST compliance of public sector organisations,
including local authorities, in the same manner as any other customer.
Page 1 of 6
[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
Item 2.2
To provide the requested information, it would be necessary to manually review over 500 public
organisation accounts to determine whether the organisation has been the subject of an
investigation relating to GST compliance as the information is not readily available or searchable
through automated systems. Inland Revenue has limited resources and staff available to conduct
such manual reviews. Diverting these resources to fulfil this request would impact our ability to
perform other critical functions and services.
As such, the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation.
Therefore, I am refusing this part of your request under section 18(f) of the OIA.
In making my decision, I have considered whether reducing the scope of your request would
enable me to provide the information requested. However, as Inland Revenue does not have an
indicator attached to accounts that would help determine whether the organisation has been
subject to any investigation, reducing the scope of your request might result in incomplete or
partial information being provided, which could lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Items 2.3. and 2.4
Inland Revenue’s criteria and guidelines to determine whether to conduct an investigation, are
considered Revenue Information. As per section 16C(2) of the TAA, Revenue Information is all
the information Inland Revenue acquires and holds in relation to its role in administering
Revenue Law and Social Policy.
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue is not required to disclose any item of revenue information
if the release of the information would adversely affect the integrity of the tax system or would
prejudice the maintenance of the law. Your request for this information is therefore refused
under section 18(c)(i) of the OIA, as making the requested information available would be
contrary to the provisions of section 18(3) of the TAA.
Part 3
The withholding of information about entities falls under the TAA and the OIA. The Privacy Act
2020 does not apply to information about an entity’s affairs.
Any information held by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in connection with the Goods and
Services Tax Act 1985 is revenue information (see definition of “revenue information” (section
16C(2)(a), section 16C(1)(a) and the definition of “Inland Revenue Acts” at section 3(1)).
Revenue information that identifies an entity, such as a Council, is considered sensitive revenue
information. Therefore, any information that may identify such an entity must remain
confidential unless a permitted disclosure, as per sections 18D to 18J of the TAA, applies. In this
case, no such permitted disclosure does apply.
Page 2 of 6
[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
Inland Revenue’s internal
Guide to Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests,
Managing
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) guideline, and
Privacy guideline are publicly available
on Inland Revenue’s website
(ird.govt.nz) by searching for
Responses to OIA requests –
Inland
Revenue’s internal policies, guidelines, and rules about the Official Information and Privacy
Acts. These apply to all entities. I have therefore decided to refuse this part of your request
under section 18(d) of the OIA, as the information requested is publicly available.
Right of review
If you disagree with my decision on your OIA request, under section 28(3) of the OIA, you have
the right to ask the Ombudsman to investigate and review my decision. You can contact the
office of the Ombudsman by email at:
[email address].
Thank you again for your request.
Yours sincerely
Josh Green
Domain Lead, Governance and Ministerial Services
Page 3 of 6
[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
Appendix A – Full Official Information Act Request
Dear Inland Revenue Department,
Please note the correction to dates in my original request Official Information Act Request –
IRD’s Enforcement of GST Compliance and Handling of Complaint Regarding Christchurch City
Council.
- I initially raised this matter with IRD in October 2023 (this should read 2024),
bringing to attention that Christchurch City Council was not issuing GST-compliant
receipts as required under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985.
- Following this, I formally lodged a complaint on 5 March 2024 (this should read 2025).
- As of 4 April 2024 (this should read 2025), I have yet to receive substantive
information regarding IRD’s handling of this matter.
Official Information Act Request to Inland Revenue Department
Chief Executive
Inland Revenue Department (IRD) in New Zealand PO Box 39010 Wellington Mail Centre Lower
Hutt 5045 New Zealand
Subject: Official Information Act Request – IRD’s Enforcement of GST Compliance and
Handling of Complaint Regarding Christchurch City Council
Dear Chief Executive,
I make this request pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) to obtain information
regarding the Inland Revenue Department’s (IRD) enforcement of Goods and Services Tax
(GST) compliance by public sector entities, specifically in relation to my complaint about
Christchurch City Council’s alleged failure to issue GST-compliant receipts for payments
exceeding $50.
This request is made in the public interest, particularly regarding the enforcement of the Goods
and Services Tax Act 1985 and IRD’s obligations under the Tax Administration Act 1994.
Background and Context of Request
I initially raised this matter with IRD in October 2023, bringing to attention that Christchurch
City Council was not issuing GST-compliant receipts as required under the Goods and Services
Tax Act 1985. Following this, I formally lodged a complaint on 5 March 2024.
As of 4 April 2024, I have yet to receive substantive information regarding IRD’s handling of
this matter. IRD has refused to provide information on the outcome of my complaint, citing
section 18 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 and provisions of the Privacy Act 2020, despite
the fact that this matter involves the compliance of a public entity rather than an individual
taxpayer.
Page 4 of 6
[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
Scope of Request
1. Investigation Into Christchurch City Council’s GST Compliance 1.1. Has IRD investigated or
is IRD currently investigating Christchurch City Council for failing to issue GST-compliant
receipts where required under sections 24(5) and 24(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act
1985?
1.2. What specific compliance or enforcement actions, if any, has IRD taken against
Christchurch City Council to ensure compliance with its statutory obligations?
1.3. Has IRD issued any warnings, notices, penalty assessments, or other compliance
directives to Christchurch City Council in relation to this matter?
1.4. 1.4. Has IRD identified any breaches of the GST Act 1985 by Christchurch City Council?
If so, please provide any official reports, assessments, or compliance determinations.
1.5. 1.5. If IRD has decided not to investigate or take enforcement action, please provide
the legal basis for this decision, including any internal policies, guidelines, or
interpretations of the GST Act that inform such a decision.
2. IRD’s General Approach to GST Compliance Enforcement 2.1. What is IRD’s enforcement
policy regarding public sector entities that fail to issue GST-compliant tax invoices where
legally required under section 24 of the GST Act 1985?
2.2. How many public sector organizations (including local councils) have been:
• Investigated for failing to issue GST-compliant receipts or invoices in the past five
years?
• Subjected to any penalties, assessments, or compliance enforcement actions as a
result?
2.3. What criteria does IRD use to determine whether to investigate or take enforcement
action against a public entity for non-compliance with the GST Act?
2.4. Are there any internal guidelines, policy statements, or legal interpretations IRD relies
upon when deciding whether to investigate government entities for breaches of tax law? If
so, please provide copies of such documents.
3. IRD’s Legal Basis for Withholding Information Under Section 18 of the Tax Administration
Act 1994 and the Privacy Act 2020 3.1. IRD previously cited section 18 of the Tax
Administration Act 1994 as grounds for refusing to disclose information regarding this
matter.
• Please provide a legal explanation of how section 18 applies to this case, given that
the complaint concerns a public entity’s compliance with statutory tax obligations
rather than a private taxpayer’s confidential information.
• If IRD is asserting that Christchurch City Council is entitled to the same secrecy
protections as an individual taxpayer, please provide any legal precedent, internal
policy, or statutory interpretation that supports this position.
Page 5 of 6
[IN CONFIDENCE RELEASE EXTERNAL]
25OIA2122
3.2. IRD also referenced the Privacy Act 2020 as a justification for withholding information.
• Please identify the specific provision(s) of the Privacy Act 2020 relied upon and
explain how they apply to a local government entity’s statutory tax compliance
obligations.
• Given that the Privacy Act 2020 applies primarily to personal information, what legal
basis does IRD have to withhold information about a public entity’s regulatory
compliance under this Act?
3.3. If IRD maintains that section 18 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the Privacy Act
2020 prohibits disclosure, please provide:
• The precise statutory interpretation or legal precedent relied upon.
• Any internal memoranda, policy documents, or legal opinions that support IRD’s
position on the applicability of these provisions in cases involving public sector tax
compliance.
• Legal Basis for This Request and Public Interest Considerations Under the Official
Information Act 1982, the requested information should be disclosed unless there is a
valid ground for refusal under sections 6, 9, or 18 of the Act.
• Public Interest in Compliance with Tax Law: The enforcement of section 24 of the GST
Act 1985 is of national interest, particularly where a local government entity is alleged
to be in breach of its statutory obligations. Transparency in tax compliance
investigations enhances public confidence in IRD’s regulatory oversight.
• Application of the Official Information Act: Section 4(a) of the OIA states that
information shall be made available unless there is good reason to withhold it. If IRD
refuses this request, it must clearly identify the statutory basis for doing so and
explain why the public interest does not outweigh the reasons for refusal.
• Limited Application of Privacy Act Protections to Public Entities: The Privacy Act
primarily protects personal information. It does not extend absolute confidentiality to
public entities in matters of regulatory compliance.
If any part of this request is denied, please provide:
• The specific statutory ground under which the information is withheld.
• An explanation of how that provision applies to the requested information.
• Whether any part of the requested information can be released in redacted form
under section 17 of the Official Information Act 1982.
Preferred Format and Timeframe for Response
I request that this information be provided electronically in a searchable, accessible format.
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I expect a response within 20 working days from the
date of this request. If an extension is necessary, please provide the reasons and the expected
timeframe.
If this request is refused in whole or in part, I reserve the right to escalate the matter to the
Office of the Ombudsman for review.
Page 6 of 6
