The “Robin’s Society” Tax Dispute- Tamihere V IRD

Robin Tamihere has been a figure in sovereignist litigation in Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly in disputes with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). His pseudolegal arguments were put into action when he rejected both the government’s and court’s authority in a tax dispute. Declaring himself a “Freeman on the Land”, Tamihere asserted that he was not a member of “the NZ Government controlled society” but instead belonged to his self-created “Robin’s Society”, governed by his own “Robin’s Laws”. He insisted that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Administration Act 1994, arguing that obligations such as tax payments could not be imposed without his consent.

“As a Freeman on the Land here in NZ I am not a member of the NZ Government controlled society. I am a member of my own society called “Robin’s Society”. I am the only member of my “Robin’s Society” and set the rules (Oh you like to call them laws). I call these rules Robin’s Laws. Robin’s Society lives under and adheres to the common law. Both the defence and the counterclaim are based on such matters, (inaudible) the law, pursuant to s.109 of the Tax Administration Act 1944 (“TAA”). The District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a tax dispute in relation to the assessments, penalties and interest that have been imposed. “

The presiding judge noted that while Tamihere appeared sincere, his claims were untenable. In direct response to these freeman arguments, the Court emphasised that assertions of exemption from citizenship or taxation, whether based on the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Waitangi, the Bible, or any other source, had been consistently rejected in New Zealand jurisprudence. 

Between 2012–2013, Tamihere continued to challenge IRD through multiple proceedings. In one affidavit he claimed to be “diplomatic staff” of “Mr Monga” of the self-proclaimed Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi, arguing this nullified the jurisdiction of the New Zealand High Court. His interlocutory application for a stay was dismissed, with the Court making clear that freeman-style arguments did not void citizen or taxpayer obligations.

In 2014, Tamihere was convicted in a judge-alone trial on 55 tax-related charges concerning businesses he operated between 2004 and 2011. The original tax shortfall was assessed at $169,958.40, later reduced to $65,656.75.

In 2017, Tamihere filed further proceedings against IRD, demanding disclosure of the “contract” between Crown Counsel and the Commissioner and proof of jurisdiction. Styling himself under various titles: “Tamihere: Robin Noema Hughes,” “Marshal Robin,” “the Living Man,” and “Diplomatic Federal Marshall to the independent Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi”, he sought damages of $15,000 and accused judges, counsel, and registrars of fraud, bias, and treason. The Commissioner dismissed these claims as “unsupportable,” “ridiculous,” and an “abuse of process.” Justice Palmer ultimately struck out the case as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court’s processes.

He self-represented in his 2018 appeal, maintaining that as an indigenous sovereign he was exempt from tax obligations. His submissions included “voluminous” pseudolegal filings, with repeated claims that the judiciary and witnesses had committed treason and perjury. The appellate court, however, found that Tamihere had a clear grasp of legal procedure and was capable of representing himself, rejecting his argument that his beliefs excused his liabilities. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating there was no public interest in ventilating such claims “yet another time.”

Tamihere’s case history illustrates the persistence of orthodox sovereign/freeman arguments and localised pseudolaw tactics within New Zealand’s courts, despite their consistent rejection. His reliance on self-declared sovereignty, claims of diplomatic immunity through pseudo-states, and contractual consent arguments reflect the transnational pseudolaw repertoire. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that such claims are not only without merit but may constitute vexatious litigation and abuse of judicial processes. 

(also see UN Federal Marshall Office Takeover” for more of Tamihere’s Sovereign activities) 

D. Carson, “The ‘Robin’s Society’ Tax Dispute: Tamihere v IRD,” The Sovereign Files, Unmasking Extremism, 2025, https://www.unmaskingextremism.com/sovereign-files/tamihere-ird.