What makes a good tax system and where does New Zealand presently sit?
The current broad-base, low rate approach is under strain. How do we address that? What can we do to keep/ preserve that as far as possible? And more.
Terry Baucher: It is my very great privilege this week to be joined by three of the titans of tax in New Zealand, Rob McLeod, Robin Oliver and Geof Nightingale.
Rob, or more correctly Sir Robert McLeod, KNZM is one of THE gurus of New Zealand tax, has been involved in tax policy at the highest levels since the 1980s. A former chair of EY, he was chair of the 2001 McLeod Tax Review and was also a member of the 2010 Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group. He’s currently a consultant, although still very much involved in the tax policy world. He was knighted in 2019 for services to business and Māori. Kia Ora, thank you for joining us.
Robin Oliver, another of the gurus of New Zealand tax, until he retired from Inland Revenue, was Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue and head of Tax Policy where he advised the 2001 and 2010 tax working groups. He is now a partner in tax consultancy Oliver Shaw and was a member of the last Tax Working Group. Robin was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009.
Geof Nightingale recently retired from PwC, and when he’s not cycling the length of the South Island, is an independent tax consultant. He was a member of both the 2010 and 2019 tax working groups. Thank you again to all of you for joining us.
What makes a good tax system and where does New Zealand presently sit?
We’ll begin with what was asked at this year’s International Fiscal Association Conference. The three of you spoke on the topic of what makes a good tax system. What does make a good tax system and where does New Zealand presently sit? Rob, would you like to lead off?
Rob Mcleod (RM) Thanks, Terry. Well, I think at its core tax is mainly about raising revenue to finance government programmes. It’s true that tax has peripheral tasks as well, like you know, correcting for market failure. If we think about carbon taxes, the primary purpose of that kind of tax is really to moderate adverse behaviour in the economy, which is not is not really a revenue raising objective. Some would also argue that taxes are there to achieve redistribution goals, transfer income to those that are in need. That too is not so much a revenue raising goal.
“At its core tax is mainly about raising revenue to finance government programmes”
But if you go to the real reason why income tax exists in countries, it’s actually to raise revenue for governments. If governments didn’t need revenue, you wouldn’t have taxes. And chances are you wouldn’t have such a major regime doing these other two things, like corrective taxation, like carbon taxes, or trying to redistribute income without the agenda of raising revenue. I would argue that we wouldn’t have tax systems on the scale that we have them doing those other things. So, I believe that raising revenue is the primary goal of a good tax system and doing it at least cost would be my formulation.
Robin Oliver (RO) I agree with Rob, even more so, that a good tax system is one that works. It raises money for the government. That may seem obvious to people, but you can’t have taxes which fail to raise money. Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax failed to raise money. It was a failure.
“You’ve got to really focus on raising money at least cost”
So it has to raise money at least cost to society and that’s admin costs, compliance costs, but overall economic costs. The cost of disincentivising people from work and savings and so forth. People think that’s “blah blah blah blah” but the estimates in New Zealand and Australia, and used by the Australian Treasury, is that twenty cents in every dollar of tax is lost in economic costs. In other words, not quite, but basically lost output, lost wealth for the country. So, you’ve got to really focus on raising money at least cost.
Rob mentioned redistribution. I think redistribution’s got nothing to do with a good tax system. Government raises money to do good things – health, education, welfare. We’ve lost focus on what tax is about. We’ve got diverted into all sorts of ideas that it could be used for. No, it’s about raising money, at least cost. Every tax proposal should be looked at “Is this the way we could raise some money, effectively, at least the cost to society.”
TB Thanks, Robin. Geof, I think you have a slightly different take on the redistribution issue and I note that the IMF was talking about redistribution in one of its papers recently
Geof Nightingale (GN) Well, Terry, I’d largely, and violently agree with Rob and Robin that the primary function of a good tax system is to raise the revenue that government needs. But it’s how it goes about that where I might differ.
There’s a couple of backgrounds, opening points I’d like to make, and the first is I think it seems, really uncontroversial that our modern democratic states with tax systems and, you know, rule of law-based things. They’ve done more than anything that’s ever been tried to lift living standards. So, broadly, I think they are a good thing that the tax status policy people might call it is a good thing.
“You can only tax by consent”
The second point is, that in those democracies, it’s really important for tax policy people to acknowledge that you can only tax by consent. I mean we impose taxation through the rule of law and through enforcement. But in the end people vote on taxes and people vote governments in and out and tax is often a key election thing. So you can really only tax by consent.
So, whatever the theory may tell you, you have to – I’ve learned over many years now – bring the public with you. That’s the job of the politicians, not the policy people. The policy people have to accept. That general consent point is really important when you start talking about the future of tax in New Zealand.
And then the third thing is there’s no such thing as a perfect tax system and as Robin pointed out, we navigate it, every tax policy choice is a bunch of trade-offs, and we navigate those trade-offs with some well-established principles. You know, equity efficiency, administration etcetera. And those principles can never be applied scientifically. In the end, they come down to, in my view anyway, value judgments at the margin, and that’s where the politics comes into the tax system as it as it should be.
So what is a good tax system? Well as Rob and Robin said, primarily one that raises revenue with the least cost to society. And there are secondary objectives, and those are the distributional impacts. I think those are important for policymakers to take into account. And I think they feedback around into the consent of citizens to be taxed and and the fundamental democratic process actually. and. Most OECD countries, in fact all I think, have progressive tax systems by and large and general voting patterns suggest that that’s the majority view of life across OECD democracies.
The problem with behavioural taxes
Other secondary objectives that Rob and Robin mentioned with behavioural changes, carbon taxes and things and those are very specific instruments of public policy, and they might raise some short term revenues. But they shouldn’t be relied on for long term revenues and it’s almost a different category of taxation to the general tax system because if they work – those behavioural taxes – the revenues will often dry up, will be reallocated into the areas that they’re trying to change.
TB That’s something we’re actually seeing with the tobacco excise duty. It worked and now revenues are falling and now that’s sort of a hole in the finances.
RO But if that works, yeah, it’s the same as environmental taxes. You know you have taxes on degradation of the environment. And if you don’t degrade the environment, you get no money. And it’s perfectly fine. They work, but back to Geof’s point. I totally disagree that redistributions got anything about it. You clearly have to have a democracy; in a democracy you have to have consent. I agree with that. You have to have consent to make the tax system work because of voluntary compliance and all that.
Poll taxes – efficient but unworkable?
But the purpose of tax is to raise the money in the most cost-effective way. And I give the example of that is the poll tax, Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax. I mean poll taxes are loved by economists because it’s thought of as being efficient. But it doesn’t work. I mean if you want to raise New Zealand’s government revenue by poll tax you’ve got to raise about $30,000 per individual. You’re not going to go out to people in South Auckland, a family household, and demand $100,000 from them please. I mean, they don’t have it. And there’s no point in demanding money, which people just don’t have.
And that’s why even an efficient tax system, inevitably given the level of government expenditure we have, will need to be progressive. Because you know the lower income earners just don’t have money to pay the tax that the government needs. But again, the point is, you’re really trying to raise money to spend on health, education and welfare and you want to do it at least cost. And forget about trying to have a secondary objective of redistributing income, that just leads you into bad taxes. And that’s led us from having a good tax system to one which is now pretty awful or going that way.
TB It’s a hell of a topic that. I mean, there is always a redistributive effect of tax, and the recent Treasury paper on the fiscal incidence of taxation was quite interesting in that regard.
RO Yes, good paper.
What about ring-fencing taxes for certain objectives?
TB The Treasury paper showed health and education benefits going to different deciles. They’re essentially redistributed within the system. So just a quick thought about these behavioural taxes Do you actually see much of a role for ring fencing? Tax takes such as, for example, environmental taxation that we raise these, we’re trying to encourage better behaviour, but the funds don’t go into the general pool but are used to mitigate the impact of climate change. Is there a role for that Rob?
RM Yes, I think I think there is. We call this hypothecation and we’ve had hypothecation in the area of fuel taxes for example, which are put on road users and then reinvested back on to roads at various times. But over time, you know, I think that money was ultimately then sent to the consolidated fund.
RO I mean, money is fungible. And therefore, putting it in one pot versus many pots, you can have an argument about whether that’s effective. I think ultimately if governments ensure there is a correlation between how they apply the funds and the taxes they raise, and hypothecation is a solid principle to get that correlation. But I think that the more recent view of governments has been that they can be relied on to effectively finance it all out of a consolidated pot. So yes, hypothecation is certainly there, and we’ve got examples of it.
Economists hate hypothecated taxes, because it ends up government spending money wastefully and low priority areas, because that’s where the money is. But it does serve a purpose, it provides the right incentives. There’s a case for it you know road user charges, Rob said was a good case in point. And you can make other cases like how do we control the level of health expenditure? Well, you could hypothecate GST to health and if people want to spend more on health, GST goes up and everybody has to pay it, so you can end up with arguments for hypothecated taxes. But the economists really hate them.
GN At the risk bringing distributional effects back onto the table, hypothecated taxes can also be highly regressive, so yes, I’ll just leave that there.
TB Yes, a common hypothecated tax around the world, which we don’t now have but once did, was Social Security. You see that many other jurisdictions had that and we’d had that until the late 60s. I think it was Rob Muldoon who decided stuff this we’ll just get rid of it because it was, as Rob described, was just going into the consolidated fund. But looking way back, it was a quite significant part of tax revenues if you look track the history of tax.
The problem with social security taxes
RO And very important in Europe in particular, and the United States of America. And we are very lucky not to have them. Australia and New Zealand, one of the few OECD type countries not to have Social Security payroll taxes, which are linked with the benefits. The reason for that is it results in peoples’ old age pensions, or whatever you call them – New Zealand super being linked with past earnings.
And that means that the poor are really poor, when they are elderly. And that’s the case in the UK. Everybody gets the same in New Zealand which in my view is absolutely a much better system than using your tax system to provide benefits linked with wages. Which means particularly women who are not always in the workforce, but child rearing, skills get really done over. I think we’ve got a much more equitable system of expenditure on welfare because we don’t have that.
The incidence of tax – who is actually bearing the tax burden?
RM Terry, can I just perhaps take us back to redistribution, I think there’s one important point about redistribution which unfortunately is a bit of a technical point. But it’s one that is overlooked not only by lay persons, you know, people not familiar with technical stuff, but also the tax profession itself. Which is the issue of incidence.
So if you just start with the GST as an example, most New Zealanders wouldn’t accept, and rightly, that the GST is not imposed on them. And yet, if you have a look at who pays the GST, they don’t pay it. The consumers do not send cheques to Inland Revenue. The tax is actually imposed on businesses. As a matter of imposition. When we talk about redistribution, we’re inclined to assume that the tax impact is where the law imposes it, but the key principle that’s demonstrated by the GST example is the market actually takes that tax and spreads it around, arguably like margarine, to all of the stakeholders and sometimes non stakeholders, and the and the contract to be affected.
These are such things as gross ups, if you go and slap a tax on somebody and they’ve got market power, they’ll put the price up of what they’re supplying to others. And in so doing, they’ll pass that tax burden on to others. And this is completely ignored in my view, when people are talking about redistribution, because there’s the assumption that the taxes that are actually imposed by the government, is actually borne by the people who send cheques to Inland Revenue Department, is utterly false. And if you try and unravel that mathematically and work out who actually is bearing the tax, the best you can get to on most of it is estimates including the dead weight loss of the 20% that Robin is talking about, it’s there’s a lot of estimation going on to get to those numbers.
There’s no argument that that economic effect is real, and for me that’s a big undercut of why I don’t buy all the redistribution argument, because it tends to proceed on the assumption that the way the government’s levying the tax will ultimately shape and determine the burden of it.
RO We don’t know a lot about the incidence of tax. But what we do know, it’s almost never born entirely by the person paying it. So, you end up with these studies, like the awful IRD study on high wealth, totally ignoring this fact, just totally ignoring it.
And the classic example of economics in the United States is that you have local body bonds, the interest rate is tax free. It’s a subsidy to like City Councils or what, and the federal government doesn’t tax them.
The high wealth individual – the person on the very high rates – ends up owning all these municipal bonds. They don’t pay any tax. But they’re getting a lower interest rate because they’re bidding up the price of these bonds, which is what’s intended and the local City Council get cheap money. And then along comes a bunch of officials measuring their tax burden and finding it zero. Disastrous. Horrible. Well, in fact, they’re paying it through the lower interest rates on it.
And this happens all the time, all through the tax system. You put taxes up on foreigners, that’s a good idea. Foreigners we don’t like, they’re not voting, and we put big tax on foreigners. They just simply demand a higher rate of return or don’t invest here. We end up with lower productivity, lower wages and the economics is absolutely clear. Put your tax on your non-resident investor, it ends up coming out in lower wages. And that’s exactly Rob’s point. The incidence is always shifting and yet we totally ignore this. The political debate just assumes the world is not what it is.
TB Robin, I think we’re going to see more and more of that. Sorry, Geof, you were about to say something.
GN I totally agree with Robin and Rob on incidence, it’s critical. But it comes back to my opening point that you can only tax through consent, eventually. If incidence is not well understood, policymakers – and it’s very hard and very slippery getting your hands on the concept – but policymakers need to think about it. But if you can’t convey that to voters, then it becomes kind of irrelevant.
I remember Sir Rob’s MacLeod committee and the $1,000,000 tax cap for individuals. I thought was a was a great idea because of that sort of argument that we’d be better off with $1,000,000 than not. But that policy is too easy to attack politically from an equity and a sort of a fairness sense. And that’s what happens in the real world as we all know and that’s why we end up in political arguments around the secondary purposes of the tax system, as opposed to really discussing the primary purpose of the tax system Which is least cost revenue raising for government policy. So, I agree with their incidence comments, but it works both ways, I think.
RM Can I just jump in on that one and just observe that in the McLeod Review where we did recommend that to be honest, I think it’s politicians that say that say no to those sorts of things than not, as opposed to public sentiment. Muldoon made the famous quote that Joe Blog, the average person on the street, wouldn’t know fiscal deficit if he tripped over one. And I think that’s a long way back and things weren’t as sophisticated then as perhaps they are now.
But if you think about the complexities of tax and you think about the extent to which the public is actually engaged with that complexity, I think that you are apt to over egg that interaction. Because ultimately politicians and officials and people like ourselves, there is a leadership role we play and the public follows that leadership.
I think you can observe that in history. The differences between countries and the qualities of their tax system often reflect the differential qualities of officials, politicians, et cetera, that’s going on in those countries. So, while I agree that in the concept of democracy, there’s a public underbelly in debate and voting terms, there’s one hell of a space for leadership and tax policy. Otherwise, we might as well pack our bags and go home. And I think that that is very influential and that’s why these debates and these principles of incidence and so on are important and need to be approached in the way we’re doing it.
RO We can see that with GST. We’ve got a flat rate, a good GST system, world class.
I remember back in the 80s Sir Robert Muldoon, the proposals was put to him about that. And he said, “You mean we’re going to tax water?” And he chuckled, “No way.” We put GST on doctor’s bills. People overseas think that’s just totally astonishing. Yet there’s broad support for what we have in GST, a non-progressive tax. Bizarrely we legislated to make it regressive, but it does meet those economic principles and it’s got widespread support. I mean, politicians keep on arguing for GST on no food, but those proposals get put up and get rejected every time.
Rob McLeod’s suggested alternative to a capital gains tax
TB Rob in your review, you raised the possibility of the risk-free rate of return method (RFRM) as an alternative to a capital gains tax. And we’ve seen that in the Foreign Investment Fund regime. Are you still keen on the idea?
RM The RFRM, the McLeod Review, came largely out of the debate around taxing housing. And this was in a discussion document, by the way. It wasn’t the final recommendation; it was abandoned because of what Robin said. Michael Cullen’s switchboard was blown up by the complaints of from telephone callers and we knew that was a pretty strong signal that no government was ever going to support it.
So, we pulled the plug. But basically, the problem with taxing assets that produce, that give sort of imputed income like your motor car or your house or your washing machine, there’s no cash flow to really measure the income. It’s economic income, but it’s hard to measure. And so, the beauty of the RFRM is that you calculate it effectively as a wealth tax, which is applying a percentage, I think we had 4%, against the market value of the of the equity in the asset. It’s quite important. That’s one feature of the RFRM is you’ve got to work out what you’re going to do with debt, debt funding of the asset. And we came to the conclusion we’re best to deal with that by narrowing the tax onto the equity, which is the total value of the asset minus debt associated with it. Which brings in problems because people then start to plan with where they load their debt, right?
But it was simplicity. If we could have made the income tax work on that kind of asset that’s a superior way of going, if you can make it work. I think the only reason you go to RFRM in substitution is there’s easier compliance and administration for taxpayers and the Inland Revenue. The F|IF regime I think Terry came out of the international regime As the child of the CV, the mark-to-market option.
I think you’re thinking of the FDR [fair dividend rate] in today’s terms is probably the most relevant analogy. Fixed dividend rate which I think did come from a an RFRM logic, although it’s a bit screwy because FDR, the RFRM tax principle is you should apply it at the riskless rate of return, and not at the risky rate of return, which is the way FDR works. And also, no deductions which FDR doesn’t abide by in its various option formats. So the concept is much the same but quite different in detail.
What’s surprising in the tax world now?
TB Is there anything in the tax world that surprises you right now?
RO I would say the wealth tax coming on the table, totally unworkable. According to the papers the last government almost legislated for a wealth tax in the last budget, ??? funding and massive reductions in income tax rates. And that wealth tax was completely unworkable and would never get off the ground. It was a total nuclear bomb on our tax system. The fact that people are seriously talking about totally impractical things is a serious concern.
We’ve got to be adults here. There is no fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Grow up. Taxes have to be pragmatic and have to be workable, and trying to measure everybody’s wealth on a comprehensive basis every year is not.
GN I remain surprised by the continued acceptance by middle New Zealand of what I consider to be really high effective tax rates on labour income through the combination of GST and [tax] rates. And I remain surprised when you look at their voting patterns, their general resistance to extending taxation into capital income to address that, so not raising taxes as a percentage of GDP, but recycling revenue, shifting the instance of where slightly where that tax is paid, and it continues to surprise me. I think that message came through the high net worth survey that came out last year, but it was obfuscated by the complexity and some of the methodology problems and the way that survey was done. That’s what I’m still surprised at.
TB I think there’s a general lack of awareness of what effective marginal tax rates are and how they interact and how high they are at relatively low incomes. The 30% rate, $48,000 is a real problem threshold.
RM I suppose I am a bit surprised that the fundamental features of what’s been great for the New Zealand tax system, reappear as controversies, in the political realm particularly. Like the high tax rate. The problem is that Europe’s got high tax rates and Australia’s got high tax rates. New Zealand trying to wave the flag in favour of the low tax rate component of the BBLR has been a challenge. And I think it’s actually been because our neighbour has high marginal rates. And Europe has been very influential on people like Robertson and so on in my opinion in the sense that they buy into the idea that we can have government spending and taxes at 50% plus of the GDP. I should say that I’m therefore not surprised by it. But I think that’s been the big disappointment, that our rates structure has been allowed to sort of get up, and in a sense it’s part of narrow base, high rate [NBHR] thinking. They don’t realise that with those high rates comes the NBHR concept.
The other thing I just touched on is I kind of worry about the international – the OECD and the EU – devices through which large countries bully other countries. And the treaty networks and the BEPS regime and all that sort of stuff is typically a mask for powerful big countries grabbing money off other countries. And the more that happens, that’s a source of corruption and cancer for me and can ripple down and reach these national tax systems. And we’ve had more of that in the last five years than we’ve ever had before.
RO The OECD stuff is probably more two big elephants fighting, the US versus Europe and we get squashed in the middle.
TB I think that’s why the Global South is pushing back and trying to get the UN involved led by Nigeria and Pakistan which are small economies globally, but giant populations, you’re talking over 400 million people between them. They’re not buying into Pillar two. There seems to be pressure building in that area.
What one proposal from your respective tax working groups would you like to see implemented?
RM That’s a that’s a good question. Sorry to be boring, but I think I came back to the broad-based low rate. For Geof and Robin who know me well, I am a bit of a bore-a-thon drum beater on base principles, and the thing that I’ve seen is the base principle lose a bit of its grip in New Zealand in the last decade. We’ve taken our personal and our trust rate to 39%, which I do not like.
It’s the fiscal stuff that’s that this government is arguing that I don’t accept that it’s necessary for that, but that’s another big debate point about understanding how balance sheet management in government needs to be separated from profit and loss account management. I don’t think that those two aspects of the debate are properly worked through. We should take the longer road and the longer term to fix our debt issues, obviously try and avoid them from happening in the first place. But debt is not necessarily needed to be paid immediately. And not to be factored immediately into tax rate design in my opinion, which is a mistake that we’re currently going through.
GN I’ll be boringly repetitive, but I think the extension of income tax to more realised capital gains on a realisation basis and then using that revenue to recycle, I think that’s got equity efficiency benefits. And I also think it helps in some ways to resolve those high effective marginal tax rates around our productive sector of our economy, labour productivity. So that’s still what I would do if we were able to do one thing.
RO Oh, I still like Rob’s RFRM on residential rental and get rid of all these bright lines, interest deductions and ring-fencing rules. The other one Geof raised was seriously considered by the Labour government under Michael Cullen, was that you pay a million bucks worth of tax and you’ve done your bit and go away. An anathema now, times have changed. That was acceptable then it seems, but not now.
It was seriously considered by the caucus at the time. The idea is you get someone come and live in New Zealand and pay a million bucks and fund a Children’s Hospital. Doesn’t seem to me to be a bad idea.
RM Like a hypothecated tax, Robin?
RO I wouldn’t mind if it was hypothecated for good healthcare for children. I think that would be good.
TB Well, I think we’ll leave it there. I want to thank my guests this week, Sir Robert McLeod, Robin Oliver and Geof Nightingale. It’s been fantastic talking with you all. Thank you so much for being part of this.
[This is an edited part of the full podcast which readers are encouraged to download and listen to at the link at the top of this page.]
On that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, kia pai to rā. Have a great day.
Canada loses patience and imposes a Digital Services Tax effective 1 January 2024
Inland Revenue appears to be gearing up for a fringe benefit tax initiative.
Late last week, in response to some questions about a review the charitable exemption that religious organisations enjoy, the Prime Minister responded he was “quite open” to the idea, adding “I’ve actually been thinking through the broader dimension of our charitable taxation regimes…We will certainly be looking at things like that this term.”
The hint that a review of the exemption religious organisations and churches enjoy provoked a testy response from Brian Tamaki, among others which was in turn rebuffed by the Finance Minister, Nicola Willis.
But this is a topic which keeps popping up and obviously people have some concerns about how the exemption operates. It was also reviewed in some depth by the last Tax Working Group.
So what’s the exemption worth?
Putting some numbers around the value of the charitable exemption is a little difficult. Every Budget Treasury prepares a paper on the value what are called “Tax Expenditures” that is specific tax exemptions granted under the Income Tax Act. According to the Tax Expenditure statement prepared by Treasury for Budget 2023,
the forecast value for the year ended 31 March 2023 of charitable and other public benefit gifts given by companies was $32 million. In relation to the donations tax credit for charitable or other public benefits (including to religious organisations), value for the same period was estimated to be $315 million. (Which grossed up at 33% is ~$945 million.)
The annual report of Charities Services include a snapshot of the finances for 27,000 charities registered with it. According to the report for the year ended 30th June 2023 the income of the religious activities sector was $2.39 or just under 10% of the total income across all charities.
It’s interesting to consider charities income by source for the same period. $5.29 billion represented donations, koha and fundraising activities. Based on Treasury’s Tax Expenditures statement it appears donations tax credit or charitable donations by companies has been claimed for maybe only a billion dollars of this sum. Interestingly, about half of the total income charitable sector earns during the year comes from services and trading.
Overall Charities Services estimated that the total expenditure by charities was about $22.7 billion. In other words about $2.1 billion of the funds raised were not spent or distributed for whatever reason.
Charities Services also provides a quarterly snapshot of new registrations. The latest available is for the period to 30 June 2023 when it received 388 applications (of which 78 were subsequently withdrawn). Religious activities seem to represent a fairly substantial portion of the new registrations.
What did the Tax Working Group recommend?
The last Tax Working Group took a look at this issue and the best place to consider its views is in Chapter 16 of its interim report which sets out the issues involved.
In its final report the Tax Working Group noted it had “received many submissions regarding the treatment of business income for charities and whether the tax exemption for charitable business income confers an unfair advantage on the trading operations of charities.”
The Tax Working Group responded as follows:
“[39] It considers that the underlying issue is more about the extent to which charities are distributing or applying the surpluses from their activities for the benefit of the charitable purpose. If a charitable business regularly distributes its funds to its head charity or provides services connected with its charitable purposes, it will not accumulate capital faster than a tax paying business.
[40] The question then, is whether the broader policy tax settings for charities are encouraging appropriate levels of distribution. The Group recommends the Government periodically review the charitable sector’s use of what would otherwise be tax revenue to verify that the intended social outcomes are actually being achieved.
I think if the Government is going to review the charitable sector, and religious organisations in particular, the Tax Working Group’s recommendations will be starting point. In April 2019 when the last Government responded to the Tax Working Group’s eight recommendations on charities it noted that Inland Revenue’s Policy Division was already working on five of the recommendations. Two of the remaining three were under consideration for inclusion in Inland Revenue’s policy work programme. The other, in relation to whether New Zealand should apply a distinction between privately controlled foundations and other charitable organisations, would be undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs, which oversees Charities Services. It’s likely the COVID pandemic disrupted this proposed work programme.
We may get a clue as to the Government’s thinking in next month’s budget, but I think the Government’s focus will be on getting its tax relief package out of the way first so Inland Revenue’s resources will be applied there. The Government and Inland Revenue may then look at this exemption, but I imagine given the fuss and general controversy around such a move, it’s probably relatively low priority. Maybe we’ll see something in the Budget.
Canada loses patience and introduces a digital services tax
There was an interesting development in the Canadian budget, which was released earlier this week. The Canadian Government has decided to push ahead with the introduction of a digital services tax (DST) on large tech companies. Over a five-year period, this was expected to raise ~C$5.9 billion (about NZ$7.3 billion).
Canada had held off for two years to allow for the conclusion of the international negotiations on Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 to conclude, but they’ve dragged on with no clear conclusion in sight. The Canadians have therefore decided to push the button on a DST commenting:
“In view of consecutive delays internationally in implementing the multilateral treaty, Canada cannot afford to wait before taking action….The government is moving ahead with its longstanding plan to enact a Digital Services Tax.”
The tax would begin to apply for the 2024 calendar year, with the first year covering taxable revenues earned since January 1st, 2022. Understandably, this has provoked a pretty vigorous reaction from the United States, where the headquarters of all these tech companies are situated.
What does that mean for us down here? Well, again, we may find out more in the Budget. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill which was enacted just before 31st March included legislation for our digital services tax. The Government is therefore in a position that it can watch to see if other countries follow Canada’s lead and then decide whether it should follow suit.
The whole purpose of the digital services tax legislation is to act as a backstop in the event the Two-Pillar solution does not reach a satisfactory conclusion. At the moment negotiations are stalled thanks to vigorous push back by the the companies most affected, such as Alphabet, the owner of Google, Amazon and Meta, owner of Facebook. It’s interesting to see this Canadian move and I wonder if other countries will push ahead with their own DSTs. There are quite a number lot of digital services taxes around the world, with many on hold pending the outcome on the Two-Pillar negotiations.
Taxing Google to help New Zealand media?
Just as an aside, as is well known the media in New Zealand is in desperate financial straits and a question that keeps coming popping up is taxing the digital giants more effectively. That’s because a substantial portion of the advertising revenue that in the past went to New Zealand media companies is now going overseas in the form of (little taxed) various licence payments and fees for services to the the likes of Alphabet and Meta. Watch this space I think things are about to get very interesting.
Inland Revenue gearing up for fringe benefit tax initiatives?
This week, Inland Revenue consolidated the various advice and commentary on fringe benefit tax advice it’s published over the years under a single link. This seems to me to be further signs that Inland Revenue is gearing up to launch a fringe benefit tax initiative. It follows comments by the Minister of Revenue Simon Watts, in several speeches in which he referred to Inland Revenue’s regulatory stewardship review of FBT released in 2022. I got the clear impression that he, and therefore Inland Revenue were keen to look further at this matter and investigate what revenue raising opportunities may arise through a more through stricter enforcement of the FBT rules.
As a very good article by Robyn Walker of Deloitte noted FBT is nearly 40 years old. It’s a very strong behavioural tax. It exists to stop people converting taxable salaries into non-taxable benefits. So, it never really should be an extensive tax raise revenue raiser.
That said, I think there have been issues particularly in relation to the status of twin cab utes and the work-related vehicle exemption as to whether there is sufficient enforcement going on. My expectation therefore is Inland Revenue is gearing up to launch a number of fringe benefit tax reviews and this small step consolidating its previous commentary and advice into a single space is another sign.
Got an idea to improve our tax system? Enter the Tax Policy Charitable Trust scholarship competition
Finally, this week, the Tax Policy Charitable Trust has announced its 2024 scholarship competition. This is designed to support the continuation of leading tax policy research and thinking and to inspire future tax policy leaders. Regular listeners to the podcast will know we’ve had past winners Nigel Jemson and Vivien Lei as guests, and I’m looking forward to meeting the next batch of scholarship recipients.
Entrants may submit proposals for propose significant reform of the New Zealand tax system, analyse the potential unintended consequences from existing laws and changes, and suggest changes to address them. It’s open to young tax professionals aged 35 and under on 1st January 2024 working in New Zealand with an interest in tax policy. The winning entry this year will receive a $10,000 cash prize. The runner up will receive $4000 and two other finalists will each receive $1000 each.
I look forward to seeing what comes out of this and hopefully we will have the winners on our podcast sometime in the future. In the meantime good luck to all those who enter.
On that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, kia pai to rā. Have a great day.
Inland Revenue releases three special reports regarding the changes to the platform economy rules, the 39% trustee tax rate and the new 12% offshore gambling duty
Under the banner “Cut your excuses and sort your tax” Inland Revenue last Monday issued what it called a “last chance warning to the construction sector” to do the right thing and get on top of their tax obligations. The release advises that if people do the right thing, then Inland Revenue will help them. If they don’t, Inland Revenue will find them and start follow up action.
Richard Philp, a spokesperson for Inland Revenue, commented;
“Most people and businesses in New Zealand pay tax in full and on time but there is a core group who don’t. … we also know that while some are struggling just to keep up with the everyday grind, others are actively avoiding their tax obligations.”
Tax evading tradies?
Apparently, tax debt is high in the construction sector and there’s also a fair amount of cash jobs apparently happening in the sector. The Inland Revenue release commented that across all sectors, it gets about nearly 7,000 anonymous tip offs about cash jobs and the like each year noting “Construction is the industry most anonymously reported to Inland Revenue”.
The media release is silent about the extent of the debt within the sector, but we do know from the latest statistics as of 31st December 2023, that tax debt over two years old has increased to from $2.5 billion in December 2022 to $2.8 billion in December 2023.
ADVERTISING
Understandably, with the Government’s books under pressure, Inland Revenue is keen to collect as much of this overdue debt as quickly as possible. This is probably the first of many such campaigns where we will see Inland Revenue taking additional action. And remember, under the Coalition agreement, additional resources have been promised to Inland Revenue for investigation work.
In this particular campaign, Inland Revenue is saying it’s going to issue emails and letters to 40,000 taxpayers in the construction industry who have either outstanding tax debt or tax returns, or both. It then specifies that 2,500 of those will be contacted by text message, asking if they would like to support to get their outstanding tax sorted. There will be a follow up call if the taxpayers they respond that they do want help. Inland Revenue will also be carrying out site visits to key locations across the country.
As I said, this is likely to be the first of several initiatives we’re going to see from Inland Revenue. I would be interested in seeing some specific stats around the proportion of debt and the composition of debt and get an understanding of what sort of businesses are struggling here. It will also be interesting to see how successful this campaign turns out to be.
More on the new GST rules for online marketplaces
Last week I discussed the confusion that seems to have arisen following the introduction of new GST rules from 1st April. These rules affect people who are not GST registered but provide services through such apps as Airbnb, Bookabach and Uber.
This week, Inland Revenue released three special reports relating to the new legislation and one of these is on accommodation and transportation services supplied through online marketplaces. In fact, this is an updated version of a report previously issued in June last year. The report has been updated to include the changes that took effect as of the start of this month and in particular how the flat-rate credit scheme operates.
Changes to online marketplace operators
Under the new rules, so-called online marketplace operators such as Airbnb, Uber and Bookabach will charge GST on all bookings made through them. However, the person who actually provides the ride or the accommodation may not be GST registered. This is where the flat-rate credit scheme comes into effect as the following example illustrates:
The full report is 68 pages so there’s plenty more to dive into.
Special report on 39% trustee rate
One of the other reports that was issued is on the application of the trustee rate of 39%. Basically, trustee income is the net income of the trust, which has not been distributed to beneficiaries. The 30-page report explains the basic provisions about “beneficiary income” and “trustee income” together with a couple of useful flow charts.
Trustee income flowchart
Beneficiary income flowchart
The report references the minor beneficiary rule which applies where the beneficiary is a natural person under the age of 16. In such a case only $1,000 of income per year can be distributed to that person as beneficiary income and be taxed at that person’s marginal tax rate, presumably below 39%. Under the new rules, any beneficiary income in excess of $1,000 paid to a minor would be taxed at 39%.
Overall, this is useful guidance. Just remember the $10,000 threshold is all or nothing: if trustee income is $10,000 or less, the trustee tax rate that applies is 33%, but if it’s $10,001 then it’s 39% on everything.
The third report is on the proposed offshore gambling duty, which takes effect from 1st of July and will apply to online gambling provided by offshore operators to New Zealand residents.
The bright-line test and tax evasion – a couple of useful real-life case studies
Finally, this week a couple of interesting Technical Decision Summaries from Inland Revenue. Technical Decision Summaries are anonymised summaries of some interesting cases that Inland Revenue’s Tax Counsel Office has encountered either through tax disputes and investigations or applications for binding rulings.
The first one, TDS 24/06, is an application for a ruling regarding whether the bright-line test or section CB 14 of the Income Tax Act would apply. The facts are complicated but involve three sections of land currently owned by the ruling applicant.
The applicant had initially acquired one section outright before his spouse and another co-owner acquired interests as tenants in common. Over time, the applicants proportion of the ownership changed until at the time his spouse died the property was held 50% as tenants in common with his late spouse. The second section was owned 50% each as tenants in common with his late spouse. After her death her 50% interest had passed to him under her will. The third section was owned by the applicant and his late spouse as joint tenants. Following her death, her interest was automatically transmitted to him.
The ruling applicant was concerned about the treatment of future sales. Would the bright-line test apply or failing that, would section CB 14? This section is a little used provision and applies where there’s been a disposal within 10 years of acquisition and during that time there’s been a 20% more increase in value of the land thanks to a change in zoning, or removal of restrictions.
The Tax Counsel Office concluded neither the bright-line test nor section CB 14 would apply. This is obviously a good result for the taxpayer but it’s actually also a good example, of how you can apply for a ruling to get Inland Revenue’s interpretation on a tax issue. You don’t necessarily have to follow it, but if you don’t, you better have good reasons for not doing so.
Fiddling the books and getting found out
On the other hand, TDS 24/07 involved suppressed cash sales, GST and income tax evasion and shortfall penalties. The taxpayer carried on a restaurant business which was registered for income tax and GST. Inland Revenue’s Customer Compliance Services (CCS) investigated the company and formed the view that there was fraudulent activity going on. There was suppression of cash sales, and the taxpayer was under returning GST and income tax.
CCS reassessed the taxpayer’s GST and income tax returns for the relevant periods and they increased the taxable revenue for suppressed cash sales based on analysis of point of sale data, the taxpayer’s bank statements and industry benchmarking.
Industry benchmarking – an underused tool?
Just on industry benchmarking, I think Inland Revenue ought to be much more public about its data here and warn taxpayers there are benchmarks against which it will measure your business. It has done so in the past, but I think the combination of Business Transformation and then the pandemic interrupted progress in this space.
What people should remember is, Inland Revenue has some of the best data available anywhere about measuring industry benchmarking. I believe it should be making this much more public so that it can serve as an early warning shot for businesses that think they can suppress income. Everyone loses when this happens. Gresham’s law about bad money driving out the good is very applicable here, because businesses which are not tax compliant are undercutting those businesses which are following the rules. This is not a healthy situation as it leads to considerable frustration and anger and if not dealt with, will just simply encourage more of the same behaviour.
Tax evasion? Have a 150% shortfall penalty
In this particular case, the taxpayer’s fraud was identified, and GST and income tax reassessments followed. In addition, Inland Revenue also imposed tax evasion shortfall penalties, which are 150% of the tax involved. These evasion shortfall penalties were reduced by 50% for previous good behaviour, but that’s still represents a penalty of 75% of the tax and GST evaded.
Unsurprisingly, the taxpayer counter-filed a Notice of Proposed Adjustment under the formal dispute process, and the dispute ended up with the Adjudication Unit, which is run by the Tax Counsel Office as part of the formal dispute process. The Adjudication Unit did not accept the taxpayer’s counter arguments, including an attempt to claim an income tax and GST input tax deduction for the cost of fresh produce purchased with cash. The problem was there was no supporting evidence for this claim, so the Adjudication Unit probably found it easy to reject it. The Adjudication Unit ruled not only was the tax due, but the penalties were also correctly imposed.
Get ready for more Inland Revenue action
Circling back to our first story, this TDS illustrates what lies ahead for those in the construction industry who have been suppressing income. As I said, I do think Inland Revenue should make everyone more aware of its benchmarking data which would be a warning for would be tax evaders. It’s pretty clear from the announcement about the construction industry that Inland Revenue is gearing up for many campaigns targeting debt arrears and clamping down on tax evasion in particular industries. As always, we will keep you updated as to developments in those areas as they happen.
On that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, kia pai to rā. Have a great day.
Treasury Analytical Note examines the effects of taxes and benefits for the 2018-19 tax year
The Australian Tax Office gets heavy with the Exclusive Brethren – will Inland Revenue follow suit?
Understandably the start of the new tax year on 1st April and the increase in interest deductibility for residential investment property to 80% was generally greeted by residential property investors with enthusiasm. Users of apps such as Airbnb and Uber, on the other hand, were less enthusiastic because the provisions relating to GST on listed services also took effect on 1st April. It has become clear that this change has caused some confusion and led indirectly to price rises.
Now GST on listed services refers to online marketplace operators who “facilitate the sale of listed service”. This is the so-called “Apps Tax”, which National promised to repeal when it was campaigning in last year’s election but then decided to keep it because it needed the money to make up for the loss of its overseas buyers tax.
These rules apply to the likes of Airbnb, Uber, Ola, and Bookabach which facilitate the sale of related the services. They now have to collect and return GST when the relevant service is performed, provided or received in New Zealand. It doesn’t matter whether or not the seller, the actual person doing the providing of the Uber or Airbnb, is GST registered. (For those already GST registered the change will have little effect).
Confusion and an unnecessary price increase?
However, a significant number of those providing the Uber or Airbnb, are not GST registered because the total services they provide annually are below the GST registration threshold of $60,000. But the introduction of the apps tax has prompted some of these non-registered persons to effectively increase their prices 15% to take account of the GST charge. However, this overlooks that though as part of the changes those non-GST registered persons can expect a 8.5% rebate under the flat-rate credit regime scheme.
What happens here is the offshore marketplace (Uber or Airbnb) will collect 15% GST on the booking but then pass 8.5% of that to the persons actually providing the Uber or Airbnb. But as an article in The Press notes, it appears many people now think they are GST registered and have effectively increased their prices by 15%. As Robyn Walker of Deloitte said, there definitely appears to be some confusion around hosts about this law change, and probably many don’t fully appreciate that they’re getting this 8.5% rebate.
As GST specialist Allan Bullot of Deloitte, noted there is a lot of confusion with Airbnb. It’s a complicated area, and something Airbnb providers are very careful about is registering for GST because of the fear they might have to pay GST if they sell the property to someone who’s not GST registered. In which case they effectively had to pay GST on the capital gain.
It appears what we’re seeing here is that those who have been brought into the new flat rate credit scheme haven’t yet quite worked out how the new rules will work for them. I would expect things to settle down in time and maybe Inland Revenue might put out more guidance. But it would appear that some providers are getting an accidental windfall at this point, although the increase is taxable for income tax purposes. Anyway, watch this space to see how this plays out and whether there’s some tweaking to the rules as this scheme beds in.
Treasury analyses the effects of tax and income
Moving on, just before the end of the tax year, Treasury produced an interesting Analytical Note on the effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes in tax year 2018 – 2019. This is interesting in a number of ways because frequently when people are talking about the effective tax burden, they look at the impact of direct taxation on a person’s pre-tax income.
Some have pointed out this is not really a true measure of a person’s net tax burden. They’re referring to the effect of transfers that people might receive from government in the form of Working for Families or New Zealand Super, but also the indirect transfers such as education and healthcare.
This paper tries to examine that for the 2018-19 tax year and what it does is calculate a household’s “final income” which represents net income after direct and indirect taxes and then adds an estimate of the government spending on health and education services received in kind.
As the paper notes basically when you just look at disposable income, that is market income plus transfers, such as Working for Families credits or New Zealand Super, these are incomes are generally lower than market incomes on average over the population of New Zealand, and fairly unequally distributed. However, once you bring in indirect taxes and in kind benefit payments to get final incomes as defined, these are significantly more equally distributed than disposable incomes and close to market incomes when averaged over all households.
Yes, but what about Gini?
The Note also considers the Gini coefficient. This is the measure of inequality, where the higher the number, the more inequality society is. The Gini coefficient starts at 45.6 ± 1.5, and that drops to 35.8 once you bring in income support payments. Once you include consumption taxes and the benefits in kind such as health and education you end up with a Gini coefficient of 28.1 which is considerably lower and indicative of a much more equal society.
What the Treasury analysis did was to take 66% of all core Crown tax revenue and 68% of core Crown expenditure and allocated that to New Zealand households. Although the effect is approximately neutral as the note describes the effect is unevenly distributed. Households in the bottom five “equivalised disposable income deciles” received on average more in government services than they paid in taxes, whereas the opposite is true for houses in the top four deciles.
The second decile is the one where there’s a large amount of support happening. This is because there’s a fairly high concentration of New Zealand super recipients in that second docile.
The Note also considers “retired households”, where one of the people in the household is receiving New Zealand super.
“Drink yourself more bliss”
I was amused to see in the analysis of indirect taxes a comment about the average alcohol excise amounts increasing reasonably steady with each decile household equivalent. In other words, the richer the decile, the more they drink. That is a crude summary but it did amuse me.
As I noted, the Treasury analysis covers GST and the effect of economic benefits in kind. There was some commentary at the time of last year’s High Wealth Individual report that it wasn’t really quite fair because it didn’t take into account what the impact of GST and government benefits in kind. This is interesting to see, and I definitely recommend having a read of the note which is a reasonably easy read.
The Australian Tax Office raids the Exclusive Brethren’s business operations
And finally this week, a story coming out of Australia caught my eye about the Australian Tax Office (“the ATO”) raiding multiple premises associated with the global headquarters of Universal Business Team (UBT) on March 19th. UBT is a Sydney registered company that provides services and advicee to about 3000 exclusive Brethren owned businesses in 19 countries.
ATO investigators also apparently raided the head offices of a number of Brethren run companies, including OneSchool Global. In what would also be the standard procedure here, they confiscated phones, computers, documents and other materials. This was done as part of what the ATO call a “no notice raid”. Inland Revenue can do such raids as well, but the point is, it’s not done very often, and the fact that this has happened is extremely intriguing to see.
One of the things that I see frequently pop up in the comments of these transcripts, are questions/ pushback about charities having an exemption from tax on their business profits. It’s more complicated than that, but it’s there’s an obvious tension there. (Again thank you to all those who contribute, your comments are read even if I don’t always respond).
On this point I recall a discussion I had with the late Michael Cullen when he was chairing the last tax working group. During a roadshow event I asked him if there was anything which had surprised him during his role. He replied that he had been surprised by the scale of the charitable sector. He and the group had some concerns about whether in fact, all the charitable donations were being used for charity. In particular whether donations made under an exemption to an exempt business were in fact being used for a charitable purpose. The Tax Working Group’s final report noted:
“80. …the income tax exemption for charitable entities’ trading operations was perceived by some submitters to provide an unfair advantage over commercial entities’ trading operations.
81. notes, however, that the underlying issue is the extent to which charitable entities are accumulating surpluses rather than distributing or applying those surpluses for the benefit of their charitable activities.”
The Sunday Star Times asked Inland Revenue to comment on the ATO’s action but Inland Revenue just dropped a dead bat on it. But I would think, as the Sunday Star Times said, any information relating to New Zealand businesses that came into the ATO’s hands would proactively be passed on under the Convention on Mutual Administration Assistance and Tax Matters, part of the double tax agreement between Australia and New Zealand.
The scale of information exchange which goes on between tax authorities is very largely unknown, but it’s probably one of the most revolutionary changes to the tax landscape which has happened in the last five to 10 years. I don’t think we’ve yet seen anything like the impact that it will have.
Will Inland Revenue follow suit?
In summary the ATO clearly feels that it’s justified in launching a “No notice raid”. The question is whether Inland Revenue is considering something similar or is it just going to sit back and watch carefully? We don’t know, it won’t say, but you can be sure that it will be watching very closely to see what findings that come out of the ATO raid. If it does get anything interesting from the ATO, expect to see something similar happen here.
On that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, kia pai to rā. Have a great day.
IMF and Climate Change Commission suggest changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme are needed.
Like a never-ending Groundhog Day, every International Monetary Fund report on the New Zealand economy suggests tax reforms would promote efficiency. For example,
“There is a sense that the asset allocation in New Zealand households has a bit too much emphasis on housing versus other investments. We think a capital gains tax at the margin would help.”
That was IMF Mission Chief Thomas Helbling in 2017.
“…tax policy reforms are needed to promote investment and productivity and growth increase, increase the progressivity of income tax and mobilise additional revenue in response to long term fiscal challenges. To achieve these objectives, reforms should combine comprehensive capital gains tax, land value tax and changes to corporate income tax.”
And invariably the IMF’s conclusions are usually followed by a fairly dismissive response from the Minister of Finance of the day.
In 2002 it was the late Sir Michael Cullen responded to that year’s report: “The IMF’s credibility is not assisted by the fact that it tends to apply the same policy template regardless of the country’s circumstances”. This year Nicola Willis’s retort was “There are some things that are certain in life, death, taxes and the IMF recommending a capital gains tax.”
Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour also weighed in commenting. “I see the IMF again saying, oh, you need a capital gains tax. Every country has one. The only countries that don’t have one are New Zealand and Switzerland. But I say let’s be more like Switzerland.”
However, I’m not so sure that this was quite the zinger he hoped because as someone mischievously pointed out on Twitter, Switzerland has a wealth tax and a $59 per hour minimum wage in Geneva.
Deputy Prime Minister and former Treasurer Winston Peters was apparently not available for comment.
A de-facto capital gains tax – the bright-line test
Now, amidst all of the commentary about the IMF’s suggestions, one of the things that came up time and again is that in many ways, we do have a de-facto capital gains tax, except we don’t call it that. The bright-line test is an example of the approach that we’ve adopted, which has been ad hoc and responsive based on the government of the day’s policies at the time.
As you may recall the bright-line test was brought in with effect from 1st October 2015 by the National Government and it then applied to disposals within two years. In March 2018 the Labour Government introduced a five-year period and in 2021 it was increased a 10-year period. And so, a quite confusing scenario has developed as to which bright-line test applies because some of the exemptions have changed over time as well, particularly in relation to the main family home.
In one way, therefore, the reduction of the bright-line test back to two years again from 1st July is to be welcomed because it is clarifying and simplifying what has become an incredibly complicated area.
Tax Red Flags: More than just the bright-line test to be considered
The bright-line test and taxation of land has plenty of red flags when together with the excellent Shelley-ann Brinkley and Riaan Geldenhuys and moderator Tammy McLeod, I made a presentation about tax red flags on Tuesday to the Law Association. (Formerly the Auckland District Law Society). My thanks again for the invitation to present and to my excellent co-presenters, we had a very lively session talking around this.
In short when you drill into our current land taxation rules, they are very incoherent. The bright-line test is a backup test. It applies if none of the other land taxing provisions apply. And this is something that tripped up people before the bright-line test was introduced and will continue to do so even now it’s been reduced down to two years.
For many people, the particular issue to watch out for is the question of subdivision. If you own a property and undertake a subdivision within 10 years of acquisition it may still be caught under the existing rules, outside of the bright-line test. And in some cases, you may be caught by the combination of the provisions with the associated persons test which deem transactions to be taxable if at the time you acquired the land you were associated with the builder, dealer, or developer in land.
Sometimes the tax charge can be triggered way past the 10-year timetable since acquisition. That’s particularly the case in relation to a disposal of property where building improvements have been carried out. That particular provision, section CB 11 of the Income Tax Act, deems income to arise if a person disposes of land and
“within 10 years before the disposal”, the person or an associate of the person completed improvements to the land and at the time the improvements were begun, the person or an associated person carried on a business of erecting buildings. Note, the reference to “within 10 years before the disposal.” So, you may have owned that land for considerably longer than 10 years and yet still be subject to the provision.
Just a pro tip for anyone thinking ‘Great, with a two year bright-line test coming in, I can now sign a sale and purchase agreement, make sure settlement takes place after July 1st and it’s not going to be subject to the bright-line test.’ That’s not the case. The sale point for the bright-line test in that case is when the sale and purchase agreement is signed and not when settlement happens. I had at least one client get caught by that very provision because they went for a long settlement thinking that got past the two year period. It didn’t, and it is another case of always seek advice on transactions involving land, because as I’ve just outlined, the provisions are complicated.
Could a capital gains tax be ‘simpler?’
And this was the point we reinforced during our seminar. There is a lot of complexity already in our tax system around the taxation of land and in my view, in some ways a capital gains tax would actually clear away a lot of that uncertainty. It’ll become clearer that, broadly speaking, if you buy something, and you sell it subsequently, any gain will be taxable.
Now, how the gain is calculated and the rate at which it’s taxed are two different things. But often in the debate around the capital gains tax, those two things get conflated to run as an argument against the taxation of capital gains.
In my view, the point still remains that we have a confusing hotchpotch approach to taxing capital gains and at some point, grasping the nettle with a CGT as suggested by the IMF and also the OECD, would ultimately perhaps be a better approach.
Incidentally, doing so would be consistent with the well-established principle we have of the broad-based low-rate approach. There’s nothing to say that by broadening the tax base, we could not hold tax rates at current levels or even lower. Bear in mind that the when the last tax working group recommended the capital gains tax, it was intended to keep to help keep the top tax rate at 33%.
Watch out for trustees on the move across to Australia
One of the other issues that came up in our Tax Red Flag Seminar was the question of trustees, and beneficiaries and settlors moving cross-border, particularly to and from Australia. That is something all three of us are seeing quite a bit of and it is something to watch out for as a key red flag.
The IMF on how to tax wealth
If there is a certain repetitiveness to the IMF’s discourse about taxing capital, it’s part of a global discourse on the topic. Earlier this month the IMF released a How to Tax Wealth note. These how to notes are “intended to offer practical advice from IMF staff members to policy makers on important issues.” And this this was a very interesting read as you might expect.
The IMF’s How to Tax Wealth note neatly coincided with the release of the UBS/Credit Suisse, Global Wealth Report for 2023. According to the report, in 2022 New Zealand ranked sixth in the world with an average wealth of US$388,760 per adult. On the basis of median adult wealth per adult, again in U.S. dollars, we ranked 4th behind Belgium, Australia and Hong Kong, with a median wealth of US$193,060.
Incidentally, these rankings were after a very sharp fall from 2021 levels, where New Zealand was only behind Sweden in the biggest loss in wealth per adult.
I am genuinely very surprised to see New Zealand rating so highly for both average wealth and median wealth. On the other hand this Credit Swisse/UBS report is another example of why there’s a great debate going on around the taxation of wealth not just here, but globally.
And this IMF How to Tax Wealth note is instructive in its approach. It starts by making a very obvious point, how much to tax wealth is a distinct question from how to tax wealth. The note argues that:
“returns to capital generally should be taxed for equity and possibly efficiency reasons. and that in many countries, wealth inequality and better tax enforcement strengthen the case for higher effective taxation than in the past.”
Now the IMF doesn’t make any particular proposal about a specific level of tax, the note is basically about ‘here are things you should consider.’ But on the question of wealth taxes, it does come down pretty much against them noting,
“Improving capital income taxes tends to be both more equitable and more efficient compared with replacing them with net wealth taxes. Countries hence should prioritise improving capital income taxation over considering the introduction of wealth taxes”.
Then it talks about – in terms of strengthening capital taxes – addressing loopholes, notably the under taxation of capital gains in many countries. There’s a passing comment, that perhaps you can use a one-off net wealth tax or maybe apply it to very, very high wealth levels.
Time for inheritance tax?
But the Note also concludes “taxing capital transfers through gifts or inheritance provides another opportunity to address wealth inequality.” The IMF comments that the efficiency costs of such taxes are modest, and notes that “inheritance taxes are better aligned with redistribution than estate taxes, since exemptions and rate structures can account for the circumstances of the heirs.”
What really makes the New Zealand tax system unique is not the absence of a capital gains tax because, as David Seymour pointed out, other countries don’t have that, namely Switzerland. It’s the complete absence of taxes on the transfer of wealth, which has been the case now since 1992. That’s what makes New Zealand unique – we have no general capital gains tax together with no estate or gift or wealth taxes.
And this is an area where I think a lot more consideration needs to go into because as the IMF noted, we’ve got fiscal challenges ahead, and where might the revenue be raised from to meet those challenges.
The IMF and Climate Change Commission suggest changes to the ETS
And finally, back to the IMF again. It concluded its mission report by noting that “New Zealand’s ambitious climate goals call for major reforms,” and it referenced the Emissions Trading Scheme, having helped limit net emissions by encouraging robust reductions and removals, particularly from afforestation.
But the IMF then went on to say that “significant reforms” are going to be needed to meet domestic and international targets, and these include reducing the number of available units in the ETS, pricing agricultural emissions and strengthening the incentives for gross emissions reductions within the ETS. The IMF finally note that given the ambition of New Zealand’s first nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, the use of international mitigation i.e.; buying credits from offshore, is likely to be required.
Now the IMF report was a week after the Climate Change Commission, and pretty much said the same thing, and advised the coalition government they should halve the number of ETS units on offer in each of the next six years. The last ETS auction did not go brilliantly. That has a flow on effect in that by reducing the amount of income from emission trading unit sales, it’s going to limit crown revenue for tax cuts.
Vale Rod Oram
It’s interesting to see a confluence of opinion happening here and an appropriate time to remember the late Rod Oram someone who was a very strong environmental journalist. I was fortunate enough to know him all too briefly after we met at a panel discussion. We’d planned on him appearing as a guest on the podcast. Sadly, with his passing that will never happen now, and our thoughts go out to his family and friends.
And on that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, kia pai to rā. Have a great day.
Inland Revenue does not consider removal of commercial buildings depreciation “to be a fair and efficient way of raising revenue”.
New 12% online Gaming Duty still leaves $500 million gap in the Government’s tax package.
It’s been a busy week in tax, beginning on Sunday when the Associate Minister of Finance, David Seymour, announced that interest deductions for residential properties would be restored to 80% deductibility from 1st April.
There had been a proposal under the Coalition Agreement for the present 50% deductibility in in the current tax year to increase to 60% with backdated effect, but that has now been dropped. The Minister also confirmed interest on residential investment property will become fully deductible with effect from 1st April 2025, in line with the Coalition Agreement.
Interest deductibility “Yeah, Nah”
The announcement reignited a long running debate over the fairness of the measure restricting interest deductibility. The crux of the argument against it being that businesses are allowed to deduct their costs when deriving income, and the change made to restrict interest deductibility by the last government was contrary to standard business and tax practice.
But when you consider this point keep in mind that under the Income Tax Act, expenses are deductible to the extent to which they are incurred in deriving gross income or to the extent they’re incurred in the course of carrying on a business deriving accessible income.
“The extent to which” is the key phrase and the argument around non deductibility revolves around the fact that the economic return for landlords comprises of fully taxable rental income, and a capital gain which is largely tax free. But legislation generally has ignored this point of possible apportionment between what is taxable income and non-taxable capital income. This leads on to the never-ending debate as to whether we should tax capital gains. And so the argument of deductibility is just another continuation of this question.
It’s also worth noting that businesses with overseas owners are subject to the thin capitalisation regime. This also restricts interest deductions where the New Zealand company’s debt to asset ratio exceeds 60%. Now this measure also contradicts standard tax and business practice, but it’s part of many jurisdictions around the world as a means of countering the risk of excessive interest charges transfer pricing money out of the country. In other words, there are arguments for and against restricting interest deductibility.
Improving the position of renters
On Thursday, the Minister of Revenue released an Amendment Paper for the current tax bill along with five Regulatory Impact Statements two of which covered the restoration of interest deductibility and the reduction of the bright-line test period to two years. There was some interesting commentary by Treasury in both impact statements noting:
“Rental affordability is a significant issue in New Zealand. Based on Household Economic Survey data for the year ended June 2022, a quarter of renting households were spending over 40% of their disposable income on rent housing, and rents have risen faster than mortgage payments. Renters also have higher rates of reporting housing issues like dampness, mould and heating.”
Treasury, Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development all agreed that restoring interest deductibility should have a long-term effect of putting downward pressure on rents, but ‘should’ is doing a lot of work in this space. Other measures are going to be needed to improve rental affordability.
But restoring interest deductibility has the benefits of simplifying matters. Restricting deductibility was an imperfect measure, with a great deal of complexity and arguably went too far in the other direction of apportioning expenses relating to the split between taxable and non-taxable income.
Trustee tax rate increase to 39% confirmed subject to $10,000 exemption
The announcement on interest deductibility was followed on Monday by the Finance and Expenditure Committee (the FEC) reporting back on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. There’s a great deal of interest around this Bill as it included the proposed increase in the trustee tax rate to 39%.
As had been hinted by Finance Minister Nicola Willis a couple of weeks back, there is going to be a de-minimis introduced for trusts with trustee income (undistributed income) of $10,000 or less. Such trusts will continue to have the 33% trustee rate apply to trustee income. However, for all trusts where the trustee income exceeds $10,000, a flat rate of 39% will apply. Therefore, if there’s $10,000 of trustee income the 33% rate applies but if it’s $10,001 the new 39% rate will apply on everything. It’s not the first $10,000 is taxed at 33% and the excess at 39%. It’s an all or nothing.
The FEC justified introducing the de-minimis exemption on the basis that the information it had received was that the compliance costs for many trusts were in the region of between $750 and $1,000 per annum. Therefore, the potential $600 benefit of a $10,000 threshold would be swallowed up by compliance costs, which is a fair point. But the reaction among my colleagues and myself is that the $10,000 threshold, although welcome is too low because, by the FEC’s own logic, something closer to $25,000 could easily have been justified.
It’s worth noting that the compliance costs for trusts have increased substantially in the last couple of years. Firstly, following the Trusts Act 2019 coming into force. And then secondly, Inland Revenue’s greater disclosure requirement for the March 2022 year onwards. By the way, we have seen nothing about those greater disclosure requirements being dialled back by Inland Revenue now there is the 39% tax rate in place. Back in 2021 part of the argument for not increasing the trustee rate to 39% at the same time as the individual tax rate went to 39% was to allow Inland Revenue to gather data on whether there was substantial amount of potential income sheltering through trusts. That theory seems to have been ditched for the moment.
Energy Consumer and deceased estates remain at 33%
Separately the FEC confirmed that the trustee rate for energy consumer trusts would remain at 33%. It also made changes to the treatment of deceased estates following submissions. A flat rate of 33%, will apply to all deceased estates rather than the deceased persons personal tax rate as originally proposed. More importantly, the trustee rate of 33% will now apply for the year of the person’s death and three subsequent income years. That was in the in the wake of many submissions pointing out that deceased estates typically don’t get wound up inside 12 months. These changes are welcome.
The Bill also covered off a number of amendments to other key topics, including the introduction of the global anti base erosion rules, the taxation of backdated lump sum payments for ACC and social welfare, rollover relief in respect of bright-line property disposals and relief under the bright-line tests for people affected by the Nelson floods.
Those global anti avoidance rules will take effect in two parts, the so-called income inclusion rule with effect from 1st January 2025 and then the ‘domestic income inclusion rule from 1st January 2026. This is a little later than the rest of the OECD and the intention is to give the affected multinational enterprise entities (those with consolidated revenue above €750 million per annum) time to get ready.
Inland Revenue recommended against removing building depreciation
On Thursday the Minister of Revenue published an Amendment Paper containing details of the proposals regarding the restoration of interest deductibility for residential investment properties, replacing the current five and ten year bright-line tests with a two year bright-line test period, removing the ability to depreciate commercial buildings and introducing a new Casino Gaming Duty. The Amendment Paper was accompanied by a detailed commentary . and, as I mentioned earlier, the relevant Regulatory Impact Statements. Now as usual, these Regulatory Impact Statements (RIS) contain some interesting reading.
The ability to depreciate commercial buildings is being removed in order to help pay for the Coalition Government’s tax package. However, in the relevant RIS Inland Revenue recommended recommends retaining the status quo and that “the Government reconsider introducing commercial and industrial building depreciation when fiscal conditions allow.”
Citing its last Long-Term Insights Briefing Inland Revenue noted that in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the RIS, that under some assumptions made by the OECD:
“…New Zealand was likely to have had the highest hurdle rate of return for investment in and industrial buildings for the 38 countries in the OECD. This was when New Zealand allowed 2% depreciation on these buildings. Denying depreciation deductions will drive up these hurdle rates of returns even higher and make New Zealand a less attractive location for investment.
This tax distortion does not only impact building owners. To the extent the additional cost is passed on and there is less investment, it also impacts any business that needs to use a building and the customers of such a business. It thereby negatively impacts productivity more generally.”
Inland Revenue conclude in paragraph 32 of the RIS:
“We do not consider the removal of building depreciation to be a fair and efficient way of raising revenue. We are particularly concerned about the efficiency impacts which will make New Zealand even more of an outlier in pushing up cost of capital for commercial and industrial buildings. We therefore recommend retention of the status quo. We note this RIS is not evaluating the merits of the Government’s tax package as a whole.”
So, why is the Coalition Government withdrawing building depreciation? Because doing so is worth $2.31 billion over four years which was understood before the election. Even so it’s fairly interesting and unusual to see such a blunt assessment.
A new Gaming Duty
National’s Election policy included a new online gaming duty which was expected to raise something like $700 million over a four-year period. I was one of the those who was a bit sceptical about the revenue forecast. And it transpires that the numbers were indeed a bit optimistic.
What is now being proposed is a new 12% gaming duty for online offshore casino websites and this is in addition to GST, which is already payable when gambling on offshore sites. This new duty would be in line with how some other countries tax offshore casino websites. It’s estimated to collect $35 million of additional tax revenue in the forthcoming year ended 30th June 2025 and expected to grow by 5% each subsequent year. This still leaves a gap of about $500 million over four-years in the original revenue forecasts.
The Budget in May is becoming more and more interesting for finding out how the Government will follow through on its commitment to increase personal income tax thresholds. Even though they won’t compensate for the effect of inflation since 2010 those threshold adjustments come at a substantial cost. I could see that further cost reductions may be imposed further down the track. Those are political matters which we’ll have to wait and see how they work out.
Foreshadowing a capital gains tax?
Some commentary in the bright-line RIS raised the prospect of a capital gains tax. Treasury, for example, proposed a 20-year bright-line test or longer as it
“…would capture more capital gains, thereby improving the fairness of the tax system and supporting more sustainable house prices.”
Inland Revenue meantime felt the 10-year bright-line test was not an efficient way of taxing capital income before adding “If the government wanted to tax the income, it would be preferable to have a tax on these gains, irrespective of when the assets were sold.” It’s interesting to see Treasury and Inland Revenue raising the bogeyman of a capital gains tax to address funding and fairness issues within the tax system.
And on that note, that’s all for this week, I’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients.
“As-salamu alaykum. Peace be upon you and peace be upon all of us.”
