Sharechat Logo

Queenstown Airport loses bid to keep depreciation tax deductions

Monday 4th July 2016

Text too small?

Queenstown Airport has lost a dispute with the Inland Revenue Department over whether it should be able to claim depreciation for the cost of constructing its runway end safety area (RESA).

Justice Brendan Brown, who heard the case in Wellington's High Court in March, ruled that the IRD was correct in refusing the airport's claim for tax deductions, and awarded costs for two counsel to the IRD. 

The RESA is an area beyond a runway which is there as a safety zone if a plane undershoots or overruns the runway surface. At the eastern end of Queenstown Airport's runway, there was a steep drop off where the Shotover and Kawarau Rivers merge, so Queenstown Airport built an $8.5 million embankment from the existing cliff for the RESA.

The airport argued it should be able to claim depreciation on the RESA at the eastern end of its international runway for the 2012 and 2013 tax years, and in the future. It wanted to claim between $312,000 and $419,000 per year in depreciation, dependent on whether the RESA qualified as runway or as hardstanding or road. IRD said the area was land, and therefore not depreciable. 

Justice Brown said that he couldn't accept the land improvement could qualify as depreciable as it wasn't one of the items listed in Schedule 13 of the Income Tax Amendment Act.

"If a land improvement does not actually come within one of those specified depreciable land improvements it is not open to the taxpayer to contend that, by analogy with some listed items, the land improvement falls within the general purview of Schedule 13," Justice Brown said. 

Queenstown Airport's counsel argued the RESA was part of the airport runway, or a road, or a hardstanding, all of which are recognised depreciable land improvements under Schedule 13.

Justice Brown said the RESA didn't qualify as part of the airport runway as it wasn't constructed to the standard required for an airport runway, and a plane can't land or take off from it. The RESA also isn't a hardstanding as it's designed so aircraft will sink into the surface, nor a road, he said. 

The judge also ruled that Queenstown Airport had not established that the RESA might reasonably be expected to decline in value, as it is designed to be used infrequently, in the rare event an aircraft undershot or overran the runway. 

In its 2015 annual report, the airport said it would cost about $2.7 million in deferred tax liability if it lost the case against the IRD. However, it said it had received advice the dispute "would be resolved in its favour."

BusinessDesk.co.nz



  General Finance Advertising    

Comments from our readers

No comments yet

Add your comment:
Your name:
Your email:
Not displayed to the public
Comment:
Comments to Sharechat go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved. It is allowable to use some form of non-de-plume for your name, however we recommend real email addresses are used. Comments from free email addresses such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc may not be approved.

Related News:

NZ-UAE free trade on the table
ANZ - 2024 Half Year Results Documents
FWL - Foley Wines Limited 2024 Harvest
IKE Closes Major Multi-Year Subscription Deals
AIA - 2024 Macquarie Australia Conference Overview of AIA
Devon Funds Morning Note - 06 May 2024
EROAD FY24 Results and Webinar Details
thl reduces FY24 NPAT guidance
May 6th Morning Report
Spark New Zealand appoints new director to the Spark Board