1 SMALL TAX DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN NEW ZEALAND – MAKING TAXPAYERS ‘WINNERS’ NOT ‘LOSERS’ MELINDA JONE 1 and ANDREW MAPLES 2 Abstract In his 2011 comparative study, Maples 3 observes that, despite the then recent positive administrative changes implemented by Inland Revenue (including facilitated conferences and the ability to opt-out of the dispute process after the conference phase), “these changes do not alter the fact that the [New Zealand] dispute process essentially provides ‘a one size fits all’ procedure for tax disputes, irrespective of their complexity and the amount in dispute.” Moreover, as noted by various commentators both prior to and following Maples’ study, taxpayers with small tax disputes are either ‘burnt off’ through the dispute process or may not even challenge Inland Revenue’s position. Maples’ study was undertaken against the backdrop of the abolition of the small claims jurisdiction of the Taxation Review Authority. Fast forward six years – what has changed for small tax dispute resolution? While no substantive changes have occurred in the New Zealand (NZ) dispute resolution process since the 2011 study; the three other countries considered by Maples have all subsequently implemented changes focussed on, or potentially benefitting, small tax disputes. Similar to NZ, Australia abolished the Small Taxation Claims Tribunal of the Taxation Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2015. However, with effect from 1 April 2014 the Australian Taxation Office instituted in-house facilitation for small businesses and individuals with less complex disputes at the audit and objection stages. In addition, while not specifically aimed at small tax disputes, the early assessment and resolution process for all cases lodged with the AAT (effective July 2013) and more recently, the fast intensive triage process (effective from March 2017), have the potential to lead to more efficient dispute resolution generally. In the United Kingdom, in addition to the First-tier Tribunal, which since 2009 has divided cases into four categories including ‘Basic’ cases (encompassing small tax disputes subject to an informal hearing), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) implemented alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in 2013. This is available at any stage of the process for taxpayers across all HMRC business lines (including non-large business taxpayers). Turning to Canada, two developments are noted by the authors. First, in 2013, the monetary limits for access to the informal appeal procedure in the Tax Court of Canada were increased from the C$12,000 and C$24,000 thresholds for federal tax (and penalties) in dispute and dispute loss amounts, respectively, to C$25,000 and C$50,000, respectively. Second, a triage- type process for objections to the Canada Revenue Agency, based on level of complexity, was introduced. This present study has been extended to consider current small tax dispute processes in the United States. The authors find that a range of options exist for taxpayers in this category, including the Small Tax Case procedure in the Tax Court and Small Business/Self-Employed Fast Track Settlement offered by the Internal Revenue Service’s Appeals Office. The authors 1 Dr Melinda Jone is a Research Assistant at the University of Canterbury. 2 Andrew Maples is an Associate Professor of Taxation at the University of Canterbury. 3 Andrew Maples ‘Resolving Small Tax Disputes in New Zealand – Is there a better way’ (2011) 6(1) Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association 96, 132.