Kelt given more time to settle debt

Last updated 14:58 14/12/2012
kelt std
SAM KELT: Has until March to pay back the $336,000 Inland Revenue says he owes.

Relevant offers

Hawke's Bay

'I knew I had killed him' - officer Police shooting actions 'commendable' Board approves $275m dam plan Fatal police shooting inquest begins Girl shot by 12-year-old brother Napier death remains a mystery Company fined over construction death Flaxmere man killed in crash Horse adopted from the wild helps at-risk kids Widespread power cut in Hawke's Bay

Embattled merchant banker Sam Kelt has been given more time to settle his debt with Inland Revenue.

Mr Kelt's company faced being put into liquidation today unless he came up with a suitable payment plan for the $335,000 in unpaid tax and penalties he owed.

Inland Revenue last month filed an application with the High Court in Napier, claiming Kelt Capital had an outstanding debt of $240,960.53 in GST and penalties, $13,016 in fringe benefit tax and penalties and $300 in income tax dating back to 2008.

New information provided to IRD in the past month had seen the amount increase to $335,160.

Yesterday Kelt Capital's lawyer Nick Russell asked for a short adjournment because the parties were still discussing a possible settlement package and ''negotiations are still very much alive''.

Despite objections from IRD, associate judge David Gendall adjourned the matter giving Mr Kelt a 24-hour deadline to come to an agreement with the department.

On instructions from the IRD, Josh Lucas said the department had today reached an agreement with Mr Kelt, who made a "lump sum payment" towards his debt.

The IRD agreed to give Mr Kelt till the end of March to repay the full amount.

Judge Gendall adjourned the matter till May 2013.

Contact Tracey Chatterton
Hawke's Bay reporter
Email: tracey.chatterton@dompost.co.nz
Twitter: @trackchatt

Ad Feedback

- © Fairfax NZ News

Special offers
Opinion poll

Would you support your local council paying the 'living wage'?

Yes - it's moral and fair, no matter the costs.

Yes, but there should be a cap on the wage.

Only for the very lowest waged.

Not at all - survival of the fittest.

Don't know/Not sure.

Vote Result

Related story: Council's living wage blowout

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content