Budget Day lockup is a mad frenzy of activity as you basically have three and half hours to sift through a massive information dump, determine the key points and write something for release at 2PM when the Budget is officially released.
Surprisingly, in the midst of all the information provided, you don’t get copies of any accompanying legislation, bill commentary and Regulatory Impact Statements that will be also released at 2PM. Therefore, those of us who are in the Budget Lockup are a still little bit blind as to the full details of the Budget initiatives. Because of this I increasingly view the Budget Lockup as an interesting experience, a good opportunity to interact with Treasury officials, because you can actually ask for specific information and an opportunity to perhaps quiz the Minister of Finance on some points.
Budget Day – just a government showpiece?
On the other hand, it is increasingly clear from the run up to Budget Day that the budget itself is very much a set piece for the government of the day to boost specific Budget initiatives and narratives. Any detailed analysis on the day is swamped by all the good or bad news about the state of the economy or who’s getting extra or reduced funding. It’s not really until the week following the Budget that you start to get some detailed analysis of what is in the budget and the potential implications.
Investment Boost – a real boost to productivity or just meh?
On Budget Day the Investment Boost proposal was well received, but as people looked into the detail some concerns have emerged. What the measure does is essentially accelerate the depreciation which would have been claimed on these assets. This is done by way of an immediate 20% deduction with the remaining 80% of the asset expenditure depreciated as normal. My initial reaction was to recall the First Year Allowances I used to deal with when I was working in the UK and which operated in a similar fashion.
The twist is last year the Government removed depreciation on commercial buildings, including factories, to pay for its tax cuts. But this year commercial buildings are included in those groups of assets that are able to qualify for the Investment Boost. This about-face has prompted Andrea Black the former independent advisor to the last Tax Working Group, and a previous a guest on the podcast to write an op-ed in The Post about the Investment Boost initiative. In summary, she argues if we are trying to boost productivity, then Investment Boost is a step in the right direction but is not the productivity game changer that is being promoted.
New Zealand is an outlier, again
Andrea is critical that the Investment Boost initiative does include commercial property and notes that our labour productivity is poor and that direct assistance in terms of accelerated depreciation – which she strongly supports – doesn’t really exist for many New Zealand manufacturers. She includes a very telling graph put together based on information obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment about how other countries subsidise business, including through tax breaks and government loan guarantees.
As can be seen we only grant government loan guarantees for exporters, in contrast to most other countries in the OECD. Similarly, we and Finland are the only countries which do not provide direct government lending support to small and medium enterprises. The United States, for example, has the Small Business Administration, and this initiative was something we looked at when I was on the Small Business Council back in 2018-2019. I thought then, and still do, that the lack of government financial support for our SME sector is something we really need to address.
A step in the right direction but…
As Andrea notes until Investment Boost New Zealand had no accelerated depreciation which meant we were very much out of line with other jurisdictions. So the Investment Boost initiative is a step in the right direction even if it perhaps could have gone further. I have little doubt Investment Boost will have an effect on investment, like Andrea whether it will have the effect the government is hoping for in boosting productivity, I’m not so sure.
I’m particularly concerned wearing my devious tax planner cap that the opportunity now exists for some clever financiers to put some property related deals together to accelerate the building of some commercial properties to obtain the 20% upfront deduction. I saw something similar happen in the UK with the former Business Enterprise Scheme, which was designed to boost startups but quickly saw property backed schemes emerge to claim the generous deductions. Anyway we shall see how this plays out over time.
Investment Boost, Fringe Benefit Tax and skewing the composition of our vehicle fleet
Incidental to this issue Newsroom published an interesting article talking about the impact of proposed changes to the Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) regime treatment of motor vehicles. The article suggested that the Investment Boost proposal, which applies to vehicles as well, might mean that we might see a shift away from the use of double cab utes.
There’s a number of reasons that they are now so prevalent on our streets and a growing component of the vehicle fleet. One reason is that there was a perception that double cab utes qualify for the work-related vehicles exemption from FBT. The other was that manufacturers were promoting these vehicles with some highly favourable deals.
The increase in the number of double cab utes prompted Angela Hodges, from NZ Tax Desk to comment the combination of those two factors and particularly the perceived exemption has
“skewed the composition of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet over time, with tax settings influencing business-purchasing decisions in ways that probably weren’t intended”.
The Newsroom article suggests that the coming FBT changes together with the Investment Boost initiative may encourage a switch away from double cab utes to alternative vehicles. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Inland Revenue’s “significant funding boost”– what can we expect?
Moving on and in as big a surprise as the sun will rise tomorrow, Inland Revenue was given additional permanent funding of $35 million per year to invest in tax compliance and collection activities. As the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Peter Mersi, pointed out, “This is a significant funding boost and is recognition of what we do and the excellent results we’ve had so far this year.”
These results include for the year to 31st March 2025 assessing additional tax of $880 million from audit activity and improved debt collection activities, with just under $3 billion collected in the year to date compared with $2.7 billion for the previous year. There’s also been a doubling in the number of prosecutions and a big increase in the collection of overseas student loan repayments. In my view this is a scheme that really needs a lot of re-thinking about how it’s managed.
In addition to that $35 million Inland Revenue also got an additional $29 million per year last year for compliance and debt collection. Furthermore, the Government has also agreed to continue $26.5 million of funding set to end this year. All up Inland Revenue is getting close to $90 million of funding for investigation and debt collection activities.
This should have a significant impact given the rate of return of between seven and eight dollars for each dollar invested, which has been achieved in the past. The total return from increased compliance and collection activities is therefore potentially as high as $700 million per year.
A warning and a reminder
Against this backdrop people should keep two things in mind. Firstly, as I’ve said on many previous occasions, Inland Revenue has vast resources. It receives data from many sources, and it is increasingly efficient at absorbing, analysing and acting on that data. The basic proposition you should operate on is; if you have put anything in writing anywhere, Inland Revenue will have access to that information at some point. In particular, Inland Revenue has become increasingly efficient in tracking property transactions.
The other point is in relation to tax debt. If you are behind, take action and front up to Inland Revenue. It’s much better doing so than hoping you won’t be on their radar. Being proactive will get a better result for you in the long term.
The Digital Services Tax is dead – now what?
Now at last, in the run up to the budget, the Minister of Revenue, Simon Watts, announced that the Government had decided to discharge the Digital Services Tax bill from the legislative programme. This had been introduced in 2023 by the previous Labour Government. It was really intended as a backstop to OECD’s Two-Pillar international tax initiative.
According to Mr. Watts, “we’ve been monitoring international developments and decided not to progress the Digital Services Tax bill at this time. A global solution has always been our preferred option and we have been encouraged by the recent commitment of countries to the OECD work in this area.”
The consequence of the decision is that the forecast revenues from the introduction of the Digital Services Tax will no longer be included in the Crown accounts. This represents a $476 million reduction in tax revenue over a four-year period. The question therefore arises as to what replaces this lost revenue.
Google New Zealand’s billion-dollar service fees are not unique
In the same week as the Budget and the announcement about the Digital Services Tax, Google New Zealand released its results for the year ended 31 December 2024.
During the year Google NZ paid $1.05 billion in service fees to related parties, almost $100 million more than in 2023.
A week or so later, Facebook New Zealand announced its December 2024 results and the amount of fees it paid to associated entities was over $150 million, roughly the same as for 2023.
Jonathan Milne of Newsroom wrote an interesting article looking at the question of the payments that were being made by all the tech companies. Taking into consideration the fees paid by Apple, Amazon, Microsoft together with Google and Facebook he estimated the annual amount of service fees being paid to associated entities was close to $4 billion. Assuming all are deductible then at the corporate income tax rate of 28% that represents over $1.1 billion of lost tax revenue.
What about the OECD Two-Pillar deal?
Now, of course, it’s more complicated than this simple calculation. But the withdrawal of the Digital Services Tax should be seen alongside what can only be described as regulatory capture in Washington by the tech giants. That in turn has led to these trade threats made by President Trump against digital services taxes and other attempts to tax the tech giants. This all means that the international Pillar One and Pillar Two proposals in which Minister of Revenue Simon Watts places great faith are practically dead in the water.
The Government therefore has a problem. Having accepted it’s not going get $476 million of revenue from the Digital Services Tax, how does it replace that lost revenue. What about the potential $4 billion of service fees going in affiliate fees, should these be subject to some questions under the transfer pricing rules? What is going to happen in that space? Will some of the roughly additional funding of $90 million discussed earlier be deployed in boosting Inland Revenue’s reviews of the transfer pricing practices of the tech companies? We don’t know, but this is an area other jurisdictions around the world are also grappling with.
In Australia at the moment some of these transfer pricing issues are involved in the PepsiCo case. The case revolves around an embedded royalties issue, basically: do some of the payments made for concentrate include some form of royalty which should be subject to non-resident withholding tax? Typically, non-resident withholding taxes for royalties are between 5% and 10% of the payment. Increased focus here may be a means of recovering some of the lost revenue from the digital services tax.
This issue of the treatment of service fees is in my view probably one of the most interesting challenges in the international tax space right now. All around the world there’s great interest in addressing this issue of transfer pricing. We’re therefore watching to see how Inland Revenue moves and, as always, we will report on developments as and when they arise.
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.taxor 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.
The investment boost tax incentive announced as a centre piece of “The Growth Budget” is one of the bolder tax initiatives in recent years.
From today businesses of any size can fully deduct 20% of the value of new assets (or secondhand assets purchased from overseas) in the year of purchase. For example, if a company invested $200,000 in new plant, $40,000 would be immediately deductible. The remaining $160,000 would be depreciated as normal. There is no cap on this allowance which is also welcome (and a little surprising).
Investment boost also applies to new commercial and industrial buildings. Although residential buildings and most buildings used to provide accommodation will not be eligible there will be explicit exceptions for hotels, hospitals and rest homes. Any construction project underway before 22nd May 2025 may also qualify if the asset is used or available for use for the first time after that date.
The allowance may also be available for improvements to depreciable property such as significant strengthening of an industrial building. This should be welcome news for owners facing earthquake strengthening costs.
Treasury and Inland Revenue estimate this initiative will increase GDP by 1%, wages by 1.5% and the country’s capital stock by 1.6% over the next 20 years. Half of those gains are expected in the next five years as it sparks an investment boom.
On the other hand, investment boost doesn’t come cheap with an expected cost of $1.7 billion per year over the next four years to 30 June 2029.
I speculated last week that the Budget might contain changes around accelerated depreciation, which I considered would be a better and more affordable option than a cut in the corporate tax rate.
Which is exactly what the Finance Minister Nicola Willis acknowledged when announcing the incentive it; “delivers more bang for buck than a company tax cut because it only applies to new investments, not those made in the past.”
I thought we might have seen an increase in the $1,000 full write-off for low-value assets. Although that didn’t happen this is a welcome move particularly as it is available for any businesses of any size without cap.
On the other hand it is somewhat ironic that having removed depreciation on commercial and industrial buildings last year, the Government has now enabled new commercial and industrial buildings to qualify for the 20% deduction. Allowing this is perhaps a belated recognition that removing depreciation in the first place would hinder investment?
The Ghost of Bill English?
I also described last week the many and quite significant changes to KiwiSaver Bill English made during his time as Finance Minister. The reduction in the Government’s contribution to a maximum of $260.72 annually and removal in full for those earning over $180,000 annually is therefore straight out of English’s playbook. (In fact during the question & answer session the Finance Minister commented that officials had advised removing the contribution completely).
This is to be compensated by increased employer and employee contributions first to 3.5% from 1 April 2026 and then to 4% from 1 April 2028. How that plays out in boosting saving will be interesting to see. On the other hand, the proposal to extend KiwiSaver eligibility to 16-17 year olds is a good move.
Not much love for low-income families
Earlier this year a Treasury paper noted 30% of all single-parent families faced an effective marginal tax rate of 50% or more. The Budget contains changes to the Working for Families which (very) partially addresses this with a lift in the family income threshold from $42,700 to $44,900. However, this has been paid for by means testing the first year of the Best Start tax credit and lifting the Working for Families abatement rate from 27% to 27.5%. (Another very Bill English-type move).
To put that in context if the Working for Families threshold had been adjusted for inflation since it was last set in June 2018, it would now be $54,650 or nearly $10,000 more.
The low threshold and high abatement rate mean many families find themselves in debt with Inland Revenue. To address this the Government is releasing a discussion document with proposals to make Working for Families payments more accurate. This is helpful but nowhere near as much as a meaningful increase in the threshold which, remember, is still below what a person on minimum wage would earn annually.
(Also worth noting that an additional $154 million over four years was found to increase the abatement income threshold for SuperGold cardholders from $31,510 to $45,000. That’s welcome but it’s interesting to compare this with the assistance given to younger families and workers whose taxes pay for NZ Superannuation).
More money for Inland Revenue
As expected, Inland Revenue will get another $35 million a year for compliance and debt collection. This is expected to return four dollars for every dollar spent in the year to 30 June 2026 and rising to eight dollars per dollar spent in the year to 30 June 2027. The expectation is that Inland Revenue is on track to collect more than $4 billion in overdue debt by 30 June.
Elsewhere, we got no further details on the proposed tax changes to thin capitalisation and employee share schemes announced earlier this week. These are expected to cost $75 million over four years, the majority of which relates to the thin capitalisation proposals.
Overall, a growth budget perhaps but one that relies on several sleight of hand moves, and does next to nothing to address the problem of low-income families facing high effective marginal tax rates.
Earlier this year, Inland Revenue ran a consultation on the not-for-profit sector. In the course of that consultation it raised the treatment of the taxation of mutual associations, including clubs and societies. Inland Revenue indicated that mutual transactions between clubs and members, such as subscriptions, which were previously thought to be exempt from tax, were in fact taxable. It transpired Inland Revenue had actually been sitting on a draft operational statement on this matter for some time.
Inland Revenue has now released a draft operational statement (“OS”) on the taxation of mutual transactions of associations, clubs and societies.
This OS takes into account submissions Inland Revenue received on the not for profits consultation. One of the issues this draft OS considers is whether the principle of mutuality applies. As the draft OS notes, under the common law principle of mutuality, an association of people such as a club or society, cannot derive taxable income from transactions within the circle of membership of the association. Mutual transactions do not generate profits for the association, because the amounts received by the association come from members transacting with themselves.
This primarily refers to subscriptions, but as the draft OS also notes, the principle does not apply where legislation provides otherwise. And what Inland Revenue has highlighted in this consultation is that it wants to give greater clarification about the scope of these potentially mutual transactions.
The basic position is supplying stock or services to members is taxable. That’s not a new position, but as the draft OS comments
“…this has not been communicated clearly or consistently, and Inland Revenue is aware affected customers take different approaches. We are hoping to increase awareness of the correct treatment and achieve certainty and consistency by finalising a statement on this aspect following consultation.”
A change of tack
The key point the draft OS proposes is that member subscriptions may be subject to tax, which does represent a change in practice. Therefore, “an object of this consultation is to test whether the reasoning for that conclusion is sound.”
To be frank, this has caused a bit of a stir amongst the potentially affected clubs and societies. There are exemptions given for specific charities and sports clubs, but a large number of organisations would previously have thought and filed tax returns on the basis that transactions involving member subscriptions were exempt. This does work both ways. If the subscription is treated as exempt, then costs relating to subscriptions are not deductible.
The paper contains 7 examples setting out various scenarios and how transactions might be treated. As noted, Inland Revenue’s position is that in some cases membership fees and levies are not mutual in nature but represent income and are taxable. A key point in this approach is if the associations constitution allows distributions to be made to members. If distributions are prohibited, then membership fees and levies are income. The following examples taken from the draft OS illustrate the issues under consideration.
One for legislative reform?
The sector has been taken a bit by surprise by this consultation. In my view it represents such a change of interpretation it should be legislated if Inland Revenue wants to achieve that clarity. To be fair, Inland Revenue is saying that any changes made after consultation is finalised would be prospective and it would not generally seek to reopen prior years. I recommend all potentially affected groups to submit on this draft OS, consultation on which is open until 25th of June.
Inland Revenue gets tough on student loan debts
Moving on, Inland Revenue has been regularly providing updates on the progress of its debt collection and general enforcement in the wake of the additional funding of $116 million over 4 years it got in last year’s Budget for this purpose. Last week, we discussed the extra $153 million Inland Revenue has recovered in the year to date from the property sector alone.
Its latest update this week is about its progress on recovering student loan debt and included the news that “One person was arrested at the border last month and they have since paid off their debt.” According to Inland Revenue at the end of April, there were 113,733 people with student loans believed to be based overseas. More than 70% of those people were in default of their loans and in total they owe $2.3 billion. This includes 150 overseas based borrowers with a combined default debt of $15 million. It is therefore understandable why Inland Revenue is a tougher line on student loan debt.
Information sharing with New Zealand Customs…and airlines
Inland Revenue gets notified by New Zealand Customs about any border crossings into New Zealand by overseas based borrowers. According to the RNZ report apparently airlines are also providing similar information to Inland Revenue. This is an interesting, and previously unknown, detail.
Once notified Inland Revenue will then apply to the District Court and the police can make an actual arrest, which, as noted, happened last month. Since 1st January 2024, 89 people have been advised they could be arrested at the border. This has prompted 11 of them to take action, either by making acceptable repayments or entering into repayment plans and applying for hardship. So far during the current financial year to 30th June, this programme has collected $207 million in repayments from overseas borrowers. This is up 43% on the same period in the previous year. So yes, it’s making progress.
Progress, but…
On the other hand, some of the reported numbers are quite concerning to me, and I consider also highlight why student loan debt has become such a problem. As noted above those 113,733 overseas based borrowers owe over $2.3 billion, but more than a billion dollars represents penalties and interest. What happens is that as the interest and penalties pile up, many debtors get to a point where they feel it can’t be repaid, and they simply freeze hoping the issue will somehow go away. This phenomenon is well understood by Inland Revenue because it happens with other tax debt.
Therefore, the question arises about the efficacy of the current penalty and interest rate regime. Interest and penalties accumulate swamping repayments, so little progress in repaying debt is made even where repayments are being made. The overall amount of debt on Inland Revenue’s books then just blows out.
Debt more than 15 years old? How did that happen?
One particular point really concerns me about Inland Revenue’s latest update. Apparently for over 24,000 of the overseas based borrowers, the debt is more than 15 years old. In many cases, it’s highly likely that people in that category are not going to return to the country, so the threats of arrest at the border are probably not going to be effective.
But then the question also arises is it really very realistic to expect people to repay debt which has been allowed to accumulate for 15 years? And a really big question here is what was Inland Revenue doing during that time?
It’s all well and good to say Inland Revenue is clamping down now. But it seems to me to be against natural justice that it can target debtors where the debt has been allowed to accumulate, and insufficient action was taken early enough to control the debt and prompt earlier repayment.
Inland Revenue, as we repeatedly mention on this podcast, has enormous information sharing and gathering powers. The question really arises as to whether sufficient resources were made available in the first instance to keep control of the student loan debt. And now we’ve reached a situation where, to borrow an old saying, “You owe the bank $100,000, it’s your problem. You owe the bank $1 million; it becomes their problem.” It seems to me that’s where we’ve reached with overdue student loan debt.
Are the rules fit for purpose?
It should also be noted that looking into the legislation applying to student loan debt it appears it’s quite difficult for Inland Revenue to write off debt and interest as part of reaching a settlement. The rules are very prescriptive in such instances, apparently deliberately so.
As a consequence, I wonder if this holds people back about making attempts to settle outstanding debt. There’s also the question of debt over 15 years old and what records are available to prove outstanding amounts. Inland Revenue has the luxury of having the upper hand here where the age of the debt means debtors may not be able to provide any contradictory evidence about lost payments or incorrect adjustments. Although it’s good to see Inland Revenue is making progress on the overall collection, I don’t think that means that it should avoid scrutiny for how the debt book has been handled in the past.
Pre-Budget teasers
The Budget is next Thursday and ahead of it, there’s always plenty of speculation as to its contents. Things have got spicier because of the pay equity issue: depending on who you want to believe this has either “saved the Budget” or just happens to be a coincidence.
As usual there’s been a steady stream of announcements from the Government about particular items which will be in the Budget. A very interesting and quite significant one relates to future drawdowns from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (“the NZSF”), established by the late Sir Michael Cullen in 2002.
The country’s biggest taxpayer
Ahead of the Budget the Finance Minister announced that the Government will start drawing down on the NZSF with effect from 2028, five years ahead of first forecast. It is just worth keeping in mind that since inception the NZSF has been paying tax. In fact, it is the only sovereign wealth fund in the world which is taxed. For the year ended 30th June 2024, its tax bill was $1.2 billion. It’s usually the largest single taxpayer in the country, meaning it’s already contributing to the funding of New Zealand Superannuation.
Changes ahead for KiwiSaver? National’s record would indicate so
Elsewhere there’s been speculation about what’s going to happen with KiwiSaver. The Finance Minister has alluded to some changes leading to speculation that the Government’s contribution could be increased for lower income earners or might be means tested for higher income earners.
It’s worth noting that previous National-led governments have a pattern of playing around with KiwiSaver. The maximum Government contribution each year used to be $1,043 a year until that was halved by Sir Bill English with effect from 1 July 2012. He also scrapped in 2009 a $40 annual fee subsidy. English also removed the $1,000 kick start payment from 21st May 2015.
The biggest KiwiSaver change English made was introducing employer superannuation contribution tax (“ESCT”) on employer contributions to KiwiSaver funds from 1 April 2012. To illustrate how important that change was, the amount of ESCT collected annually was $1.982 billion for the year to 30th June 2024 or about 1.7% of the Government’s total tax take for the year. Consequently, ESCT is too big for it to be changed in any way. But I do think we might see some tweaking of the Government’s KiwiSaver contribution settings.
A potential corporate tax cut or accelerated depreciation?
There’s also been talk about a potential corporate income tax cut, but I’m with Robin Oliver who said that if they’re going to do it, they’d have to go big. In other words, from probably 28% down to 18%, and that’s simply not going to happen because it would be unaffordable. On the other hand I do think we might see some more targeted investments around increased or accelerated depreciation allowances, which I, and the business sector, would certainly welcome.
The Green alternative
The Greens took the opportunity also to publish their alternative budget on Wednesday. Looking past the predictable scoffing from opponents a few initiatives stand out. They’re proposing a higher top rate of 45%, which is the same top rate as Australia and the UK just for reference, it should kick in at income over $180,000 with the 39% rate starting at $120,000. The trade-off is that every person will get $10,000 a year tax free exemption. The 45% top rate is comparable to other jurisdictions, notably Australia and the UK. I’m not so sure about the thresholds though as the level they kick in seem on the low side.
Think 45% is high? Try Austria
As an aside and about high tax rates I was very surprised to find out this week that Austrian Government, which is a centre right coalition, has kept in place for the next four years a top income tax rate of 55% applicable to income above €1,000,000. Food for thought therefore claiming the Greens’ suggestions are excessive. (As a sidebar and follow on from my comments last week about mandatory indexation of thresholds, Austria is actually reducing part of the inflation adjustment for the tax rate thresholds. In Austria income tax thresholds are automatically adjusted annually by 2/3 of the inflation rate unless the government legislates otherwise).
A Capital Acquisitions Tax?
The Greens are also proposing a 2.5% wealth tax on net assets over an individual’s threshold of $2,000,000 with a 1.5% tax applying to net assets held in “private trusts,” The press has talked about the Greens introducing an inheritance tax, but that’s not actually correct. In fact, and I think this is probably the most interesting revenue raising idea from the Greens, what they are actually proposing is a variation of the Irish Capital Acquisitions Tax. Why this is interesting is Capital Acquisitions Tax is a donee based tax. In other words, it is the person who receives the gift who is taxed. By contrast a typical inheritance tax or estate duty work on the principle of any taxes being paid by the donor (the person, or their estate making the gift.
Under the Greens proposal a 33% wealth transfer tax will apply to significant gifts and inheritances received, over an accumulated lifetime threshold of $1,000,000. The 33% rate is the same as the Irish Capital Acquisitions Tax. This is an interesting proposal and it’s the first time I’ve seen a New Zealand party raise it as an option.
Elsewhere the Greens want to increase the corporate tax rate to 33% and also restore a 10-year bright-line test, as well as reintroducing interest deductibility restrictions. All of the tax increases are to pay for a huge social. Investment programme, including free dental care. It would also include a major increase in the threshold for Working for Families from the current $42,700, which has not changed since June 2018, to $61,000. The current 27% abatement rate would also be reduced.
Wealth taxes and capital flight
On wealth taxes, a reason why tax practitioners including myself are sceptical about the revenue projections for a wealth tax are the issues of valuation and capital flight. Valuation issues are always a key objection to wealth taxes, but I think the question of capital flight is one that we perhaps have to think hard about when considering the impact of a wealth tax. That’s because I think we are very vulnerable to capital flight to Australia.
Australia has always been a huge land of opportunity for many Kiwis but it’s also very attractive for those Kiwis moving there who qualify for the Australian Temporary Resident exemption. This exempts non Australian sourced income and capital gains from Australian tax. It’s similar to our Transitional Resident exemption, but unlike that which is generally only available for 48 months, the Australian Temporary Resident exemption, is more or less indefinite or until the point you either become an Australian citizen or marry or cohabit with an Australian citizen.
A bewildering brouhaha
In the run up to the Budget, there’s been a quite bewildering to me brouhaha over who can or cannot attend the Budget Lockup. It’s really surprising that Treasury would get itself dragged into such a controversy with its unpleasant tones of attempting to silence critics. I do think as a result of that, together with the pay equity issue, Thursday’s Budget Lockup could get a little fractious. I certainly think the Parliamentary ‘debate’ will be particularly rowdy.
What does happen in the Budget Lockup?
Thursday should be my 15th Budget Lockiup. I’ve attended every single one since 2010 other than the COVID affected 2020 Budget. The routine is that we get access to the Budget documents at 10:30 and then we have about 90 minutes to analyse them before the Minister of Finance (and several colleagues) comes in to give a speech and answer questions. After that Q&A session Treasury provides lunch, and everyone finalises their analysis for release at 2 o’clock when the Finance Minister starts delivering the Budget to Parliament.
To be honest, I don’t know why the Finance Minister bothers with a speech to analysts. We’ve all read the material and frankly it’s much more interesting to ask questions about particular details. Obviously, finance ministers all want to sell the big picture, but for most in the Lockup, including myself, we’re very much more interested in the detail.
This is why the Lockup matters; it’s one of those few opportunities where experts can directly ask questions of the Minister of Finance and other attending ministers. The first few questions will go to the Press Gallery after which economists and other experts chime in.
It’s quite interesting to see who attends the Lockup. I’ve sat next to next to overseas economists, analysts from the British Embassy as well as plenty of other colleagues from the Big Four and other various accounting and advisory firms. But the best part of the Lockup is the question and answer with the Finance Minister which I’m looking forward to as I think it could be a bit spicy this year.
Budget predictions?
I don’t actually think that we’ll see a lot of tax measures in the Budget other than possible accelerated depreciation changes. We might get more details about those changes previously announced in relation to the Foreign Investment Fund regime. As I said, I think the Lockup could be a little bit more entertaining this year and I do expect the Parliamentary debate to be more raucous than usual.
Tax Freedom Day
16th May was Tax Freedom Day according to business accounting firm Baker Tilly Staples Rodway. From this day onwards, workers will have paid their tax bill for the year and are now working for themselves for the rest of the year. Interestingly, according to Bake Tilly Staples Rodway the overall tax paid has increased by 4.66% on last year. That’s despite the tax cuts announced in last year’s budget.
Happy Anniversary…to me 😊
May 16th was also the 32nd anniversary of my arrival in New Zealand, and for those who don’t know my back story, I arrived on this day in 1993 as a backpacker, to follow that year’s Lions tour. The All Blacks finished up winning that series 2-1. Despite that result, I had a great time, and I decided I rather liked New Zealand so I explored opportunities about how I could stay. The rest, as they say, is history. One of the key changes is these days I’m very much an All Blacks fan. Anyway, happy anniversary to me and many thanks to many, many people not least of all my wife Tina for what’s been a fantastic 32 years.
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.taxor 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.
