In his 2011 comparative study, Maples 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. Fast forward seven years – what has changed for small tax dispute resolution? While no substantive changes have occurred in the New Zealand (NZ) tax dispute resolution process since Maples’ 2011 study; the three other countries: Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada, considered by Maples have all subsequently implemented changes focussed on, or potentially benefitting, small tax disputes. This present study looks at these developments and additionally considers the current small tax dispute resolution processes in the United States. The study concludes by considering what lessons NZ can learn from the four jurisdictions analysed.