Tax News

Are corporate tax cuts on the agenda?

Are corporate tax cuts on the agenda?

11 Feb, 2025 | The Week in Tax

  • Could the US retaliate against a digital services tax?

Last week, in a series of interviews with the press, notably with Newstalk ZB, Finance Minister Nicola Willis dropped several hints about what might be in the forthcoming May 22nd Budget. In particular, she talked about the corporate tax rate, and the possibility of cuts to that as part of promoting the Government’s growth agenda.

Corporate tax rate above OECD average

Speaking with Heather Du Plessis-Allan, Ms Willis commented:

“Well, if you compare New Zealand with the rest of the world, we’re not as competitive as we used to be. Which is to say that our corporate tax level is reasonably high when you compare it to the rest of the developed world.”

This is a very valid point which comes up frequently in discussions. Our current company tax rate at 28% is well above the OECD average of 24% and has been out of alignment for some time.

New Zealand back in the late 80s under the Fourth Labour Government was actually at the forefront of cutting company tax rates.  A particularly interesting action was to align the company tax rate with the top individual and trust rates of 33%. The three basically stayed in line until the election of the Fifth Labour Government and the increase in the top personal tax rate to 39% in 2000.

There have been a couple of corporate tax cuts over the past 15 years or so. In 2007, the rate was cut from 33% to 30% and then in 2010, as part of the rebalancing that took place under Bill English with the increase of GST from 12.5%, the corporate tax rate was cut to 28% where it remained since.

As I’ve discussed previously, there has been a long running global trend towards lower corporate tax rates. But that has slowed in recent years, first because of the effect of the Global Financial Crisis and secondly, the fiscal shock to government finances because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, according to the OECD in 2023, corporate tax rates rose generally across the board. Nevertheless, we are out of sync at the headline rate level.

More to investment than the corporate tax rate and will it work?

A lower corporate tax is undoubtedly attractive. However, the tax rate needs to be seen in context with what other incentives are available. Overseas companies and investors are very focused on what else might be on the table. A lower company tax rate would certainly be attractive, so the suggestion has been met with enthusiasm by some. Others are a bit more sceptical. Economist Ed Miller noted that when the effect of the corporate tax cuts in 2007 and 2010 are considered there does not seem to be any significant increase in foreign direct investment as a result.

The last tax working group didn’t see overwhelming evidence to support the  theory that lower tax cuts at lower corporate tax rate would attract investment.

Problems and an alternative

There’s a flip side to this though, and it’s tied into the Government’s intention of restoring a surplus. Our corporate tax rate is not only above the OECD average, but our corporate tax take is also high by world standards. According to OECD statistics, 14% of the total tax receipts in New Zealand for 2022 came from company tax, whereas around the OECD the average is 12%.

So, if the Government, in an attempt to boost economic growth, is going to cut the corporate tax rate, it must then look at other alternatives to replace the lost revenue. One of the things it did back in 2010 and which it has already repeated, was to remove depreciation on all buildings. Depreciation for commercial buildings was restored under Labour but then removed again from the start of the current tax year on 1st April 2024.

A counter argument to the Government’s proposal for corporate tax cuts would be that enhanced depreciation allowances, including restoration of commercial building depreciation, which would include factories, might be a more effective approach than across the board tax cut.

How to replace lost tax revenue?

But if the Government is thinking of a corporate tax cut, and that does seem to be the case, what counter measures could they take to ensure that it is not fiscally too draining on the resources? One option might be that the availability of imputation credits may be restricted.  For example, it might be that you can elect to have a lower corporate tax rate, but you imputation credits are no longer available to for shareholders.

As an aside, imputation (sometimes called franking) credit regimes were very popular during the 1980s, but gradually fell out of favour over time, mainly because, or in part because the European Court ruled that imputation credits or franking credits have to be available to all shareholders resident in the EU. After the German government lost this case its response was to heavily restrict the use of franking credits.

Change the tax treatment of Portfolio Investment Entities?

Another option might be to review the taxation of portfolio investment entities held by persons with effective marginal tax rates above the 28%.  To quickly recap, Portfolio Investment Entities (PIEs) have a tax rate of 28%, equal to the company tax rate, which is also the maximum prescribed investor rate for individuals. So, there is actually a tax saving opportunity for individuals whose other income is taxed above the 28% rate for PIEs.

The Government might look at this, decide that will no longer apply and instead income from PIEs will be taxed at the person’s marginal rate.  That could raise sufficient sums to partially offset the effect of a lower corporate tax rate.

The Finance Minister also mentioned reforming the Foreign Investment Fund regime, which is currently being considered by Inland Revenue and made some encouraging sounds about that potentially being an option.

We shall see. No doubt there’s a lot of work going on in Treasury and Inland Revenue looking at these options.  All will be revealed in the Budget on 22nd May.

A threat to our Digital Services Tax

As covered in our first podcast of the year, one of President Trump’s initial executive orders withdrew the United States from the OECD Two-Pillar international tax deal. I drew attention to the second paragraph of that Executive Order, which directed the US Treasury to consider taking actions against other jurisdictions for tax actions which are potentially prejudicial to American interests.

Vernon Small, who was an advisor to the former Minister of Revenue, David Parker, now writes a weekly column in the Sunday Star-Times has picked up on this point noting that “Treasury has budgeted to rake in $479 million between January 2026 and June 2029 from a 3% Digital Services Tax (DST) on tech giants like Google and Meta.”

This, according to Small, “is an heroic piece of forecasting given current uncertainties and the provision for delaying collections until 2030 if progress is made on a multilateral approach through the OECD.”

And then the crunch point:

“Trump has bosom buddies in high places in the industry with Elon Musk first amongst them, and Mark Zuckerberg making a play for the new US administration’s affections.

Trump has promised to retaliate against discriminatory or extra-territorial taxes aimed at US interests. So the DST could be a prime target.”

Vernon Small is underlining the potential threat to our revenue base and our sovereign right to tax. If the OECD deal does fall over there are a number of countries including Canada, no longer America’s best friend, it seems, with DSTs ready to go. So there’s a whole potential for a tax war.

The Trump threat to tax administration

But equally worryingly, coming out of the United States is something about the question of bureaucratic independence from the executive. This might sound an arcane issue but it’s actually quite important to the independence of tax authorities.

One of the first actions of the Trump administration was to sack 17 Federal Inspectors-general. There’s also a move to put all Federal Government employees on the basis that they serve at the pleasure of the President. This would mean that an employee could be fired without the need for cause as the American terminology puts it.

Project 2025’s Schedule F

The implications of this have been picked up by Francis Fukuyama, the author of the famous The End of History essay written in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Writing for the Persuasion Substack under the title Schedule F is Here (and it’s much worse than you thought) Fukuyama wrote:

‘ “For cause” protection means that the official cannot be removed except under specific and severe conditions, like committing a crime or behaving corruptly. And now many individuals have been moved, in effect, to Schedule F because they are said to serve at the pleasure of the President.

Consider what this may mean if Trump hand picks a new Internal Revenue Service chief, that individual can be pressured by the Government to order audits of journalists, CEOs, NGOs and NGO leaders. Removal of Inspectors General will cripple the public’s ability to hold his administration accountable.’

Trump’s decision to move all Federal employees to Schedule F status is a step towards autocracy. What perhaps we all need to keep in mind is that the separation between the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Revenue is actually incredibly important. Yes, at times the Inland Revenue might do something which probably might embarrass the Minister of Revenue, but he cannot directly intervene in Inland Revenue’s operations.

A key part of a well-functioning democracy is that civil servants can act independently from their nominally political superiors. Fukuyama is right to say we should therefore have some concern coming at what’s happening in, in the United States because it does seem to be centralising power very rapidly around the President.  The .potential for mischief is therefore enhanced as a result, and don’t think that such a step ultimately doesn’t have tax consequences.

Latest on the changes to the United Kingdom ‘non-dom’ regime

On a more positive note, last year I discussed the changes to the so-called ‘non-dom’ regime in the United Kingdom. This is where persons who are not domiciled in the UK have a special basis of taxation. Basically, they’re not taxed on income and gains which are not remitted to the UK.

This is a significant concession which is ending with effect from 5th April this year when it will be replaced by something which is more akin to our transitional resident’s exemption. This is pretty important for the approximately 300,000 Britons like me who’ve migrated here, plus the significant number of Kiwis who have assets in the UK or family going to the UK but have retained assets here. All of this group are potentially within the scope of these reforms.

There’s been a fair amount of push back on the reforms together with concerns that there will be a flight effect as wealthy, ‘Non-doms’ leave the UK. The UK Labour Government has been under pressure to make some changes to the proposals.  

In response, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) Rachel Reeves announced a concession (ironically at the gathering of the super-wealth at Davos) which will increase what’s called the temporary repatriation concession.

This concession will allow non-doms a three year window to pay a temporary repatriation charge on designated foreign income and capital gains so that they can subsequently be remitted to the UK without any further tax. The temporary repatriation charge will initially be 12% before rising eventually to 15% in the year ended 5th April 2028. For comparison, without the concession remitted income would be taxed at rates up to 45% and remitted capital gains would be subject to capital gains tax at 24%.

There’s a lot of opportunity here for potential tax savings for those who could be affected or will be affected by the proposed change to the non-dom regime. We’re still working through all of the implications but we will be updating our clients and bringing you developments as 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.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

Higher interest rates on unpaid tax

Higher interest rates on unpaid tax

26 Apr, 2022 | The Week in Tax

  • Higher interest rates on unpaid tax
  • Extended reporting requirements for trusts
  • The potential New Zealand tax implications of a British political scandal

The Official Cash Rate was increased last week, but Inland Revenue seems to have pre-empted the effects of an increase as two weeks ago it announced that the interest rate for use of money interest on unpaid tax and for the prescribed rate of interest for fringe benefit tax purposes would increase from 10th May.

The use of money interest rate on unpaid tax will rise from 7% to 7.28%, and the prescribed rate of interest for fringe benefit tax purposes will rise from 4.5% to 4.7%, with effect from the quarter beginning 1st July 2022. The use of money interest rate for overpaid tax remains at zero.

With the final provisional tax payment for the March 2022 income year coming up on 9th May, it’s a good time to ensure that your Provisional Tax payments are as accurate as possible to minimise the effect of this use of money interest. That’s particularly true where a taxpayer’s residual income tax for the year is expected to exceed $60,000. So right now, advisers like myself are looking at this situation and making sure clients are getting ready to make the payments they need to minimise any potential interest charge.

As we’ve discussed previously tax pooling is a useful tool in dealing with tax payments. And right now, people are making use of tax pooling not only to get ready for the Provisional Tax payment coming up, but we’re also wrapping up the final tax payments due for the year ended 31 March 2021. There will be people who haven’t paid sufficient tax for the year and could be looking at substantial use of money interest and maybe even related late payment penalties.

This is therefore a good time to make use of tax pooling intermediaries. Typically, the deadline for making a request to use tax pooling is 76 days after the terminal tax date for the relevant taxpayer. If the taxpayer has a 31 March balance date and is linked to a tax agent, that is typically 7th of April, which means that sometime in mid-June is the final date for payment. If they’re not linked to a tax agent the terminal tax due date was on 7th February and therefore they’ve only got a few days left to make that payment using tax pooling.

What’s happened is that in the wake of the Omicron wave, Inland Revenue have used the discretion that was given to them when the pandemic broke out to extend the deadline for the time in which a request for making tax pooling can be made.

That time has now been extended to the earlier of 183 days after a terminal tax date or 30th September this year.

There are a few conditions. The contract must be put in place with the tax pooling intermediary on or before 21st June. Furthermore in the period between July 2021 and February 2022, the so-called affected period, the taxpayer’s business must have experienced a significant decline in actual predicted revenue as a result of the pandemic. This meant they were unable to either satisfy their existing commercial contract with tax pooling intermediary or weren’t able to enter into one, or they’ve had difficulties finding the tax return because either they or their tax advisor was sick with COVID.

Now this is a good use of the discretion available to Inland Revenue. But remember, it is COVID 19 related. So if you just happen to have been caught off guard and didn’t make your payments on time, you’re not going to get this additional extension of time. Tax pooling is a very useful tool which you should make use if you can.

But if you can’t, talk to Inland Revenue and make them aware that you have issues. You’ll find that they are more approachable in this than people might expect and can be quite fair so long as you come to the table with a reasonable offer.

Trust compliance just got more expensive

Moving on, we’re now starting to prepare tax returns for the year ended 31 March 2022. And for this year, the required reporting requirements for domestic trusts have been greatly increased following a legislative change last year.

In connection with that, Inland Revenue has released Operational Statement OS22/02, setting out the new reporting requirements for domestic trusts. These reporting requirements were introduced to gather further information from trustees so Inland Revenue can “gain an insight into whether the top personal tax rate of 39% is working effectively and to provide better information and understand and monitor the use of trust structures and entities by trustees”. It’s what we call an integrity measure.

There is a hook in that the legislation is also retrospective as it enables Inland Revenue to request information going back as far as the start of the 2014-15 income year.

The Operational Statement is a pretty detailed document, setting out over 48 pages the obligations involved. There’s a very useful flow chart on page 6 setting out what trusts will be caught under the provision and required to make the relevant disclosure disclosures. The basic rule is that all trustees of a trust, other than a non-active complying trust, who derive assessable income for tax year must file a tax return and therefore will be subject to the reporting requirements.

Non-active complying trusts are not required to file tax returns. These are trusts receiving minimal income under $200 a year in interest, no deductions other than reasonable professional fees to administer the trust and minimal administration costs, such as bank fees totalling less than $200 for the year. Such trusts are not required to file tax return.

The trustees also need to file a declaration that it is a non-active complying trust, it’s not enough to be not required to file a tax return, it must also file this declaration.  The types of trusts covered by this exemption are ones which may hold a bank account earning some interest. More generally, their principal asset is the family home and the beneficiaries are living in that place and are responsible for meeting the ongoing expenses.

For those trusts required to comply there’s a fair bit of detail involved. But fortunately, there is an option for what they call Simplified Reporting Trusts. These are trusts which derive assessable income of less than $100,000 or deductible expenditure, which is also less than $100,000 and the total assets within the trust at the end of the income year are under $5 million. Such trusts can use cash basis accounting and aren’t subject to the full accrual reporting requirements set out by the Operational Statement.

In addition to preparing detailed financial statements, there are several other requirements that the trustees are expected to provide to Inland Revenue. These include details of each settlor of the trust and each settlement made on the trust together with details of beneficiaries and distributions made to beneficiaries. The trustees must also provide details of who holds the power of appointment within the trust.

All this expands greatly the amount of reporting that trusts have to do now. And although typically you do see financial statements prepared for most trusts that do have to file tax returns, these requirements extend those reporting obligations. And I daresay many trustees aren’t going to be too happy about the increased costs that will come out of that.

And of course, we have this potential issue now, that Inland Revenue may request information going back as far as the start of the year ended 31 March 2015.  There’s a fair bit of controversy around this measure which would certainly mean a lot more work for advisors and trustees.

A very British scandal that risks Kiwis

Now, over in the UK, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, the equivalent of Finance Minister Grant Robertson, is embroiled in a political scandal after it emerged that his wife, Akshata Murty, has been claiming non-domiciled status for UK tax purposes.

Non-domicile status means that a person’s foreign income and capital gains are generally not subject to UK income tax and capital gains tax unless they happen to be remitted to the UK. It so happens that Ms Murty’s father is the billionaire owner of an Indian IT company, and it’s estimated that she may have saved up to £20 million of UK income tax on dividends from her father’s company. Needless to say, it’s not a great look for Mr Sunak as the person responsible for managing the finances of the UK to find himself in that position.

But Ms Murty’s status as what is called a non-dom is actually quite common. Most New Zealanders living and working in the UK would qualify as non-doms and may be able to make use of this special status. The exemption is pretty generous. In fact, according to a University of Warwick research study, more than one in five top earning bankers in the UK has benefited from claiming non-dom status.  Apparently a sizeable share of those earning more than £125,000 per annum have non-dom status. For example, one in six top earning sports and film stars living in the UK have claimed non-dom status.  As these persons have got an average income of more than £2 million pounds per year it’s a pretty significant benefit.

Now what New Zealand advisers need to be watching out for is misunderstanding the complexity of these rules.  It used to be the general rule that a non-dom’s income was not taxed in the UK if it wasn’t remitted to the UK. The opportunity was for New Zealand trusts to make distributions of income to UK resident beneficiaries, but never actually remit that income to the UK. Instead it stayed in a New Zealand bank account or some other non UK bank account and therefore wasn’t subject to UK tax rates, which could be as high as 45%. It also meant that the income distributed wasn’t taxed at the trustee rate of 33%, so it was a very nice, tax-efficient system.

However, the rules have been subject to a number of changes in past years, as political pressure has built on the question of whether these non-doms should get such generous tax treatment. I’ve seen a number of cases where advisers have continued to apply what they think the rules are, unaware that there have been significant changes to the use of non-dom rules and the remittance basis.  They have therefore inadvertently created tax liabilities for not only for the UK resident beneficiary, but potentially also for the trust.

The UK has introduced a register of trusts and in some cases, New Zealand trusts may be required to be part of that register. Along with UK inheritance tax this is one of these ticking time bombs where there is a lot of people who don’t know what they don’t know and could be in for an unpleasant shock.

It’s also fairly highly likely in the wake of this political scandal that there may be more changes to come to the non-dom exemption so trustees with beneficiaries resident in the UK, should be very careful about making distributions to such beneficiaries in the mistaken belief they are trying to exploit a rule which has been amended.  Generally speaking, the use of trusts in the UK and in particular distributions from foreign trusts to UK tax residents is a real minefield and great care is required to avoid potentially serious tax consequences.

Well, that’s it 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 kaha, stay strong.