The OECD proposes a crypto-asset reporting framework
New levy proposal for farmers’ greenhouse gas emissions;
TOP’s bright idea about tax rate
Last week, the OECD launched its Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). This is a response to a G20 request that the OECD develop a framework for the automatic exchange of information between countries on crypto-assets. In other words, it is going to be a development of the existing Common Reporting Standards on the Automatic Exchange of Information or CRS. The CARF was presented to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors for discussion at their meeting this week in Washington D.C.
The proposed rules cover four areas:
the scope of crypto-assets to be covered,
the entities and individuals subject to data collection and reporting requirements,
the transactions subject to reporting as well as the information to be reported in respect of such transactions and
the due diligence procedures to identify crypto-asset users and controlling persons and to determine the relevant tax jurisdictions for reporting and exchange purposes.
CARF is intended to complement the CRS and mean that crypto-assets will be subject to automatic exchange of information reporting. Now the reason that that has come up is unsurprising really. Individuals holding wallets which are not affiliated with any current financial institution or service provider, and are therefore then able to transfer crypto-assets across jurisdictions. As the OECD report notes:
“this presents the risk that relevant crypto-assets are used for illicit activities or to evade tax obligations. Overall, the characteristics of the crypto asset sector have reduced tax administrations visibility on tax relevant activities carried out within the sector, increasing the difficulty of verifying whether associated tax liabilities are appropriately reported and assessed”
This is a very long way of saying there’s probably a lot of tax evasion going on in the crypto-assets sector.
CARF is therefore an obvious response. It is also part of the huge ongoing trends in the modern tax world of the acceleration in reporting and exchange of information between jurisdictions. This is a very, very significant development in the tax world that happened in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and has largely gone unreported in the wider press although it appears to be generally accepted by the public. When you align this alongside what’s happening with the Pillar One and Pillar Two proposals, then the days of tax havens where money can be parked outside the tax net of major jurisdictions, are numbered.
So what crypto assets are covered? Well, the definition is pretty broad, it targets assets “that can be held and transferred in a decentralised manner and without the intervention of traditional financial intermediaries”, i.e. banks and other financial institutions. This includes stablecoins, derivatives issued in the form of crypto-assets and certain nonfungible tokens.
There are three categories excluded from what’s termed “Relevant Crypto-Assets”:
crypto assets, where have it’s been determined they cannot be used for payment or investment purposes,
Central Bank Digital Currencies which represent a claim in Fiat Currency on an issuing Central Bank or monetary authority, which function similar to money held in a traditional bank account,
Specified Electronic Money Products that represent a single Fiat Currency and are redeemable at any time in the same Fiat Currency. (Not sure I’ve encountered any of these myself, to be honest).
Reporting entities are any intermediary or service provider which is facilitating exchanges between relevant crypto-assets or between relevant crypto-assets and fiat currencies. Generally, they will be subject to the reporting requirements of the jurisdictions in which they are either tax resident or have a regular place of business or branch through which they carry out reportable transactions.
Keep in mind, CARF ties in with the CRS which is already hugely comprehensive and covers most of the main tax jurisdictions and tax havens. The ability for crypto asset service providers to slip out from underneath the CARF reporting requirements is going to be quite limited.
Three types of transactions are going to be reportable:
exchanges between Relevant Crypto-Assets and fiat currencies,
exchanges between one or more forms of Relevant Crypto-Assets, and
transfers of Relevant Crypto-Assets.
CARF has been developed to sit alongside CRS and in fact at the same time the OECD carried out its first comprehensive review of the CRS regime. It’s proposing some amendments to bring new financial assets, products and intermediates within the scope of CRS. The changes are also being made to try and avoid duplicate reporting with that which is expected to happen under CARF.
The entire CARF framework runs to over 100 pages. It should be signed off subject to any further work requested by the Central Bank Governors and Finance Ministers at their meeting this week. There will no doubt be some further tweaking, so it’s not yet all set to go. No doubt there will also be some lobbying for changes in the regime.
CARF is, as I said earlier, part of a growing trend for international cooperation on the sharing of information. When implemented it basically will probably mark an end, or certainly a restriction, on the use of crypto assets for tax evasion and other nefarious purposes.
Making farms pay
On Tuesday, the Government released its proposals for how to price agricultural emissions.
These are in response to the recommendations earlier this year from He Weka Eke Noa, the Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership, for a farm level pricing system. The Climate Change Commission, He Pou a Rangi, also provided separate advice on agricultural emissions.
The Government’s proposals try and integrate what He Weka Eke Noa and He Pou a Rangi have suggested. The intention is to price agricultural emissions at the farm level. But it comes with a big stick – if the sector cannot reach agreement by 1st January 2025, then agricultural emissions will be be priced under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The key part of the proposal is a farm level split gas levy to price agricultural gas emissions. It will apply to farmers and growers who are GST registered and meet certain livestock and fertiliser use thresholds. There would be separate levy prices set for long lived gases and biogenic methane and these will be set up after advice from the He Pou a Rangi and in consultation with the agricultural sector and iwi and Māori.
The long-lived gases (basically carbon) price will be set annually and then linked to the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme unit price. There’s a separate biogenic methane levy which will be adjusted based on progress towards domestic methane targets. One of the feedback matters the Government is seeking is whether that methane levy price should be reviewed annually or every three years.
With regards to the revenue raised, the Government proposes it that the revenue is used to fund incentives and sequestration payments, with any remaining revenue to fund the administration of the pricing scheme and a joint government and Māori revenue recycling strategy. There’s a proposal for incentive payments for a range of on-farm emissions reduction technologies and practises. I fully endorse this policy of using funding from an environmental tax to help the transition.
But if you’ve been watching this, you’ll know it has taken a long time to get here. It’s almost 20 years since the infamous ‘Fart tax’ was first proposed and Shane Ardern MP drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament. So progress has been very slow on this, which I personally find very frustrating.
Here in the city, we need to be working on reducing our transport emissions. Rather ironically, on the same day of the Government announcement, Ruapehu Alpine Lifts went into voluntary administration. The ski field operation has clearly been affected not just by one very bad year and the effect of Covid. This is something that’s been building for some time.
We’ve also had the recent floods and damage reports coming out of Nelson where the insurance claims so far total $50 million. So change is happening all around us and my view is we are going to have to adjust to it and try and do something to reduce emissions as part of the global effort. We can’t rely on everyone else to do it for us.
TOP tackles tax bands
Finally, this week, there’s been a lot of talk about tax cuts ahead of next year’s General Election, particularly in the wake of the massive u-turn by the UK government over a proposed higher rate tax cut which has now resulted in the sacking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) Kwasi Kwarteng.
Amidst all of that chaos The Opportunities Party released its two-phase tax policy, phase one of which contains substantial tax cuts. But what caught my eye about TOP’s suggestion is their proposal to introduce a tax-free threshold of $15,000, together with adjusted tax thresholds.
Now tax-free thresholds are expensive, but they are seen around the world. Australia has one for the first A$18,200. The UK tax free personal allowance is £12,570 and America has a flat $12,000 exemption.
But what I thought is interesting about TOP’s proposal is they have looked at the question I’ve talked at length about what happens for low- and middle-income earners when their income crosses the current $48,000 threshold and the rate jumps from 17% to 30%. Under our current tax structure 12.5 percentage point jump is the highest such rate – the next jump at $70,000 is only from 30% to 33%.
So, I’ve been thinking for some time that we really ought to be looking at these thresholds and rate bands and maybe combining three into two, which is what TOP propose.
Now, TOP have got to either win an electorate or get across the 5% threshold before they’ll be in any position to propose their policy. (The second part of their policy would fund those tax cuts by a land value tax, which, of course, is longstanding TOP policy). We’ll have to wait and see until after next year’s election.
But if you want to hear more about what type of tax changes could happen and their implications then this week on RNZ’s The Detail podcast, Jenée Tibshraeny of the Herald and I spoke to Sharon Brettkelly about tax cuts here and in the UK, how our tax system works and what could be done if we’re helping people at the lower income level.
Well, 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 te wiki, have a great week!
Earlier this week, Nicola Willis, National’s finance spokesman, released information she had obtained from Inland Revenue regarding the cost-of-living payments. Included in this information was the fact that some 6,629 payments were made to individuals with overseas mailing addresses. Now it is possible that some of those persons did actually meet the criteria of being tax resident and also physically present in New Zealand at the time of the payment, however it seems more likely most of those payments were made to ineligible recipients.
This data supports anecdotal evidence I’ve heard from other tax agents who have reported examples of non-resident clients receiving the payment. And the fact that a significant number of payments were made to apparently readily identifiable non-residents is concerning is concerning and points to a potentially systemic error.
Nicola Willis also asked a number of questions regarding ineligible recipients. According to written answers provided by the Minister of Revenue currently, Inland Revenue is not aware of any recipients who were either in prison or under the age of 18, which is a bit reassuring.
It also emerged that 49,300 payments were made to persons who only declared investment income. Now that’s an interesting statistic itself, but as an Inland Revenue spokesman noted, the eligibility conditions did not prohibit payments to such persons so long as they met the three key criteria of their income being under $70,000 are tax resident and are physically present in New Zealand at the time of payment.
In the wake of the fallout from the first payment cycle in August, Inland Revenue has tightened up its processes before the second wave of payments made at the start of this month. As a result, the number of people receiving cost-of-living payments dropped by about 54,000. These types of checks apparently included Inland Revenue screening and questioning people who accessed their myIR accounts from an overseas Internet address.
MyIR is likely to be an extremely useful tool for Inland Revenue for spotting potential discrepancies. I do know one case where they noted that some numerous changes had been made to a draft return before it was finalised and when the return was subsequently investigated it turned out that the changes had been aimed at maximizing the available foreign tax credits in excess of what was allowable.
In relation to the cost-of-living payments errors were inevitable given that they would be made to an estimated 2.1 million recipients. For me, the bigger issue here is whether Inland Revenue is properly resourced. It estimated it required between 750 and 1,000 staff to deliver the payments. This is the equivalent of nearly 25% of its headcount of 4210 as of June 2021. The questions I’d be raising is why are so many additional staff required, particularly when you consider that Inland Revenue has just completed a $1.5 billion Business Transformation programme?
There’s also the question that there does seem to be a systemic error in relation to those payments made to individuals with overseas mailing addresses. In short, this is disappointing and shouldn’t really have happened. No doubt we’ll hear more about this as National is firing lots of questions on the matter at the Minister of Revenue, its MPs address on average somewhere between 80 and 100 written and oral to the Minister of Revenue each month.
Doomed, but an important point made
Moving on, last year I discussed a Taxation Review Authority (“the TRA”) case in which the taxpayer wanted assessments to be amended to reverse the effect of the over-taxation of a lump sum payment of $150,000 she had received from the Accident Compensation Corporation. This payment represented backdated compensation in respect of the previous compensation, which she should have received over the period April 2014 to September 2017. Instead, the back dated compensation was eventually paid as a single sum and subject to PAYE.
At the time, the taxpayer argued that this represented over-taxation as the payment should have been treated for tax purposes as having been derived on the accruals basis and spread over the income years to which the payment related. The Taxation Review Authority dismissed her challenge, but she has taken her case to the High Court who heard it late last month.
Her appeal was pretty much doomed from the start because currently there is no authority for the payment to be treated as she wishes, although conceptually I believe it’s a reasonable approach. And it transpired that it was a doomed appeal because the High Court declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for her to file an appeal against the TRA decision.
But as I said, I think the point she is making is valid. Subsequent to the TRA case I obtained information from ACC under the Official Information Act about how many people had received backdated compensation.
And it turns out hundreds of people each year do receive such payments. I therefore took the matter up with Inland Revenue and Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee. I understand that Inland Revenue officials are currently reviewing the treatment of lump sum payments made by ACC and the Ministry of Social Development with a view to reporting to ministers in the coming months. I’ll update you on any developments as they emerge, but that does sound hopeful.
Global tax reform effort broad but it stutters
Yesterday, the OECD released its annual publication on tax policy reforms. This provides comparative information on tax reforms across countries, and this edition focuses on the tax reforms that were introduced or announced during 2021. This 2022 edition has the largest country coverage in its history. It covers the tax policy reforms made in 71 member jurisdictions of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting on international tax reform and includes all 38 OECD countries.
The report (not available as a download) breaks down into four parts. The first looks at the macroeconomic background and includes an overview of developments in the global economy. Part two presents the latest trends in tax revenues and in the composition of taxes and also identifies how these were affected by the arrival of the pandemic in 2020. Part three provides detailed description of those tax reforms that were introduced in calendar year 2021. Part four is a special feature which examines measures countries have introduced in response to rising energy prices and also has some policy recommendations.
The key policy trends identified are that personal income taxes and Social Security contributions reduced in most countries, as policymakers tried to boost economic growth and promote equity. That said, changes in personal income tax rates were less common than in previous years. Measures were targeted towards low- and middle-income households, particularly those with children aimed at promoting employment and providing in-work benefits.
Corporate income tax rates were cut in four countries. And the general convergence of corporate income tax rates across the countries continues. However, the big development last year was the agreement of 137 jurisdictions to the Two Pillar solution to reform international tax rules. Now, that seems to be stalling at the moment, but still, as I said, represents a major development.
With regard to VAT (Value Added Tax or GST), not many changes happened last year other than the reversal of most of the temporary VAT reductions introduced in the wake of the pandemic in 2020.
In the field of environment related taxes, the OECD report some progress, but at a slower pace than previously. The effect of carbon prices remains low overall because of the temporary cuts to energy taxes that started to come in with effect towards the end of 2021.
In relation to property taxes there were some measures introduced promoting progressivity and fairness. These predominantly involved tax rises either through increases in tax rates or base broadening measures. The bright-line test being extended from 5 to 10 years last year is one such example of that. The report points out that such measures are often trying to promote the efficient use of existing housing stock as well as greater fairness of property taxation, a long running theme of this podcast.
Part Four on the support measures introduced by governments to try and protect households and firms from the impacts of high energy prices is interesting reading. Here in Aoteaora New Zealand, the major energy issue has been the impact of petrol prices. Fortunately, because of our high renewable sector, we’ve been somewhat shielded from the impact of higher energy prices. But if you’ve seen reports coming out of Europe and Britain in particular, you will know that some horrific energy price rises are either on the horizon or are happening right now.
The OECD report recommends a shift towards more targeted measures aimed at helping those on lower incomes. This “may require improvements to existing transfer and social welfare systems.” So as often with a lot of the stuff we see coming out of the OECD it’s very interesting to see international trends and consider those in a New Zealand context.
Well, 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 te wiki, have a great week!
The Budget information document release on Thursday caused a bit of a stir and some excitable commentary. A few points stood out for me, particularly in relation to the ongoing controversy over the cost-of-living payment and its delivery by Inland Revenue.
We already knew Inland Revenue was less than happy to be involved in it, but some of the further documents released shed further light on it. Treasury’s recommendation was,
“…if you wish to progress with the payment along the lines of the commission[sic], the Treasury recommends that Inland Revenue be the delivery agency, given they are the agency best placed to deliver such a broad payment in the short term.”
Inland Revenue, on the other hand, didn’t want to be involved because,
“…delivering this payment, which is estimated to require around 1,000 staff at its peak for around two months, would have critical operational impacts on Inland Revenue while delivering the current COVID 19 economic supports. The addition of this payment to the portfolio of services that Inland Revenue already delivers would severely compromise Inland Revenue’s already stretched workforce.”
That’s quite an admission from Inland Revenue. I guess some of the controversy about accidental overpayments of the cost-of-living payment to ineligible recipients is an assumption that Inland Revenue is highly efficient. In reality once humans are involved then on the precept of “garbage in, garbage out” there were always going to be a few errors involved.
What concerns me about Inland Revenue’s admission, though, is it does seem to point to perhaps the organisation is a little bit too lean and mean after its staff has been cut quite substantially by over 20%. We know it makes extensive use of contractors which as we discussed last year, led to an Employment Court case, which it won, by the way. On the other hand the admission that basically it needs to increase its staff by about 20% to manage something like this points to perhaps Inland Revenue being more stretched than it ought to be in staffing levels.
And that also indirectly does raise some questions about Inland Revenue’s enhanced capability following completion of its Business Transformation project. It is perhaps too simplistic to think that a couple of pushes of buttons is all that was needed to enable the cost-of-living payments to be made. But it does strike me as surprising that Inland Revenue has to devote a thousand staff and additional resources to deliver the payment.
Now, one of the other criticisms that emerged has been made about the payment is that only 1.3 million people have received it so far of the estimated 2.1 million. But in reality, it was known beforehand that all 2.1 million estimated eligible people would not receive a payment straight away. One of the papers notes,
“around 25% of potentially eligible recipients, around 500,000 individuals, will not receive this payment during the proposed August to October window because their assessment for the 2020 122 tax year is not complete”.
The paper goes on to explain that based on tax filing information for the year ended 31st March 2020,
“…around 38% of people who submitted an IR3 did so by the end of July, and 53% by the end of September 2020. Assuming the same pattern for the 2021/22 tax year, Inland Revenue expects there will be a long tail of IR3 filers who would not receive their cost-of-living payment during the proposed payment window.”
The paper notes this will mean Inland Revenue will have “increased contacts” as people will be asking why they haven’t received a payment. This will then “have an impact on other services for taxpayers” such as Working for Families.
This is quite a reasonable point. But, of course, politics has intervened. And when you’re beating a dog, any old stick will do. So, the Government is copping it for what was obviously something that would have happened in the first place.
The other point that comes across is a wider one around the future sustainability of the tax system. Treasury was pouring a lot of cold water on Ministers’ various spending plans and pointing out the unsustainability of what was being asked for. Treasury warned
“Meeting these new targets consistently will require you to maintain a balance between revenue and expenditure. Over the medium term this would require significantly constraining spending growth, unless your revenue strategy is adjusted to maintain a higher level of tax revenue-to-GDP in later years.”
As the Herald noted, that would mean finding new taxes to leave spending as a share of the economy higher over the long term.
Now, one of the reasons the Tax Working Group recommended a capital gains tax was it had considered the long-term fiscal sustainability of the tax system based on the then current spending trends. Its Submissions Background Paper in March 2018 pointed out that based on then current projections, the Government’s primary expenses would rise steadily to reach 31.1% of GDP by 2030 and would actually mean that there would be a deficit of. 1.2% of GDP by then. The TWG recommended steps were needed to widen the tax base.
Those issues have not gone away and in fact will have been exacerbated because of the increase in borrowings that the Government incurred as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic.
We are not really having a discussion around how are we going to fund an ageing population, the increased demands on health and, as I pointed out last week, adapting to climate change. Every government seems to be stuck around keeping tax limited to 30% of GDP, Bernard Hickey has a long series of very interesting commentary on this.
The Budget documents don’t really address that issue in my mind, and it’s something that, as I’ve said beforehand, we’re going to need a serious discussion around how we expand our tax base and manage these pressures. Superannuation, remember, is now the second single biggest item of Government expenditure. This discussion isn’t going to go away and inevitably it’ll come back to the question of taxation of capital. We probably see the politicians fence around it during next year’s election. But those pressures will remain.
Pressure derails OECD deal?
Now, speaking of politicians under pressure, President Biden had been struggling to get his Inflation Reduction Act through Congress. But this week he managed to do so after a few recalcitrant senators finally came on board.
There’s a couple of interesting implications about this. Firstly, it appears to move forward the possibility of America coming on board with the OECD’s global tax deal. And in particular, the Pillar Two proposal for a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.
However, it’s emerged that the Biden administration’s changes to the bill in order to get it passed appear to be at odds with how the minimum 15% corporate tax rate % is going to work. The details are a bit complicated, inevitably, but the corporate minimum tax of 15% will apparently only apply to the book income, that is income reported in financial statements of companies with revenue over US $1 billion. It will also only apply on a group level rather than at a country-by-country basis, which is contrary to the intention of the OECD tax deal, of eliminating the practise of setting up subsidiaries in tax havens.
Some international tax experts are saying the Biden deal may not now actually be compliant with the global tax deal. That possibly opens it up for other jurisdictions to say “Hang on, we’re not going to have that”. But ironically, it appears that US multinationals may in fact be keen to get the OECD Pillar Two deal passed through, because otherwise they may be exposed to additional taxes. So, watch this space. The point is, the Inflation Reduction Act is progress even if there are ructions still going on in Europe with Hungary now putting a spanner in the EU’s need for unanimity to agree the deal.
The other quite interesting thing that emerged is that the US Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, got US$80 billion of extra funding. And there’s a story from the Washington Post which explained why it needed that funding.
It includes an absolutely extraordinary photograph of the cafeteria in an IRS office in Austin, Texas. All that is visible is boxes and boxes of paper files, because the IRS had, as of the end of July, a backlog of 10.2 million unprocessed individual returns.
To give you an idea just how archaic the IRS’s system is, paper tax returns aren’t scanned into computers. Instead, IRS employees manually keystroke the numbers from each document into its system, (this is what Inland Revenue previously had to do until its Business Transformation programme).
It is absolutely extraordinary what’s going on with the IRS. I suggest every time you feel that Inland Revenue has dropped the ball and is hopelessly inefficient, thank God you’re not dealing with the IRS. We had a situation where we sent the IRS a letter in January 2020 and we did not get a reply until August 2021, and we were possibly one of the lucky ones.
Giant jump in tax writeoffs
And finally, a little snippet emerged about how much use of money interest the Inland Revenue has written off in relation to the COVID pandemic funding. National MP Andrew Bayly asked the Minister of Revenue how much tax interest and penalties have been written off for the last three financial years. The response was in the year to June 2020, it was $17.8 million, in the year to June 2021, $22.5 million, and in the year to June 2022, $26.8 million. Quite reasonably substantial amounts.
But what was also revealed was how Inland Revenue had applied its increased discretion to write off use of money interest as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. The total amount remitted between 10th June 2020 and 4th of July 2020 was $104 million, which is way above what I would have ever estimated. This amount probably relates to well over $1 billion of debt, possibly as much as $2 billion. It gives an idea of the fiscal impact COVID 19 has had and will probably continue to have.
Well, 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 te wiki, have a great week!
Inland Revenue has released Interpretation Statement IS 22/04 on claiming depreciation on buildings. Critical to this issue is determining the meaning of a “building” for depreciation purposes and the distinction between residential and non-residential buildings. The Interpretation Statement addresses this issue when it sets out when depreciation may be claimed for non-residential building and also for some fit outs. It confirms that no depreciation is available for residential buildings.
The Interpretation Statement then sets out where you can find the right depreciation rate for buildings when fit outs attached to buildings may be depreciable. How to treat an improvement of a building for depreciation purposes. And then finally, what happens when the building is disposed of or its use changes?
To recap, depreciation for all buildings was reduced to zero, with effect from the 2011-12 income year. Back in 2020 as part of the initial response to the pandemic, the Government reintroduced depreciation for non-residential buildings with effect from the start of the 2020-21 income year. Generally, the depreciation rate is 2% on a diminishing value basis, or 1.5% on a straight-line basis. Some other depreciation rates may be used where the building has a shorter than normal useful economic life. Examples would be barns, portable buildings or hot houses. Additionally, it’s possible to claim a special rate if the building is used in an unusual way.
Now for depreciation purposes “building’ retains its ordinary meaning which means anything that is structural to the building or used for weatherproofing the building. The Interpretation Statement emphasises that whether a building is residential or non-residential is an all or nothing test. If the building is non-residential depreciation is available, otherwise not, there’s no apportionment.
Residential buildings are any places mainly used as a place of residence. This includes garages or sheds included with that building. Places used as residential residences for independent living in retirement villages and rest homes are residential buildings are is short stay accommodation where there’s less than four separate units.
On the other hand, non-residential buildings include buildings used predominantly for commercial and industrial purposes, but not residential buildings. This also includes hotels, motels, inns, boarding houses, serviced apartments and camping grounds. Retirement villages and rest homes where places are not being used for independent living are non-residential buildings as is short stay accommodation where there are four or more separate units.
If improvements are made to a building, you must treat it as a separate item of depreciable property in the first tax year. Then you can either continue to treat it as a separate item of depreciable property or simply add it to the building by increasing the adjusted taxable value of the building.
In some cases, a fit out can be separately depreciated depending on the nature of the building and the nature of the fit out. Where the fit out is considered structural to the building or used to weatherproof the building it must be treated as part of building and not depreciated separately. Fit outs are depreciable in a wholly non-residential building and sometimes in a mixed-use building. But remember, the key point is that depreciation is not available under any circumstances for a residential building. So overall, this is a useful Interpretation Statement and is also, as has become the norm, accompanied by a very handy fact sheet.
The agencies tackling organised crime and its tax evasion
Moving on, last week I discussed a suggestion by ACT Party leader David Seymour to use Inland Revenue against the gangs. I looked at the powers available to Inland Revenue and discussed how practical his proposal was. To summarise, Inland Revenue has extensive powers which would be useful in tackling gangs and organised crime. However, this is a resource intensive approach which probably in Inland Revenue’s view, would divert its attention from other areas it considers equally important.
This prompted some discussion in the comments section and thank you again to all those who contributed. As I said, my view is Inland Revenue probably thinks other agencies, such as the Police, are better suited for this activity. But it will cooperate with those agencies. Its annual reports make clear they pass information to other agencies. So Inland Revenue is probably working on this matter in the background.
It was interesting just to take a look to see what other agencies were doing in this space and get a gauge of what’s happening. A key tool for the Police is the use of restraining orders to seize assets. According to the Police’s Annual Report for the year ended 30th June 2021 the value of restraints for the year totalled just over $100 million, including nearly $30 million seized from anti-money laundering.
The Department of Internal Affairs also has responsibilities for anti-money laundering, as it’s a key regulator on that. Its Annual Report to June 2021 indicates that perhaps it could do more in this space, as its budget for its regulatory services for the year was set at $52 million, but it only spent $44 million.
And then when you look at the DIA’s performance metrics, such as desk-based reviews of reporting entities, it’s supposed to be targeting between 150 and 350 such reviews annually, but managed only 219 for the year, up from 198 in the previous year. And on-site visits were meant to be somewhere between 70 and 180 but came in at 79. To be fair these were probably disrupted by the impact of COVID 19.
Still, there are other agencies involved in pursuing gangs including Customs who will also be very interested. Inland Revenue will be playing a role, it shares information with these other agencies. So even if it’s not wielding a very big stick publicly, it’s working in the background.
The interaction of tax and abatements on social assistance
Now tax has been in the news a lot recently with the election coming up even though it’s still just over a year away probably. National and the ACT Party have both set out they would proposed some tax cuts. Last Saturday, Max Rashbrooke, a senior associate at the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, who has written quite a lot on wealth and taxation put out some counter proposals to National and ACT’s proposals.
He suggested that really the focus should be on middle income earners. And he made a suggestion, for example, that we could have a $5,000 income tax free threshold, something we see in other jurisdictions. Britain’s is just over £12,500, Australia’s is A$18,200 and the US has a slightly different thing. It gives you a standard deduction of US$12,000. But anyway, let’s take that comment elsewhere. And Max suggested that something could be done in that space.
But it got me thinking about the question of who does actually pay the highest tax rates in the country. And the answer isn’t those on over $180,000 where the tax rate is 39%, it’s actually more around $50,000 mark if those people are receiving any form of government assistance, such as Working for Families. If they have a student loan as well, then an additional 12% of their salary after tax gets deducted.
The interaction of tax and abatements on social assistance, such as the family tax credit and parental tax credit can mean in some cases, the effective marginal tax rate for some families is more than 100% on every extra dollar they’re earning. This is an issue which the Welfare Expert Advisory Group touched on, but the Tax Working Group wasn’t allowed to address. But it’s a huge problem.
Take, for example, someone earning $50,000, just above the $48,000 threshold where the tax rate goes from 17% to 30%. And that, by the way, is the rate where I think we need to focus our attention on adjustments to thresholds and tax rates. At that level every extra dollar they’re earning is taxed at 30%. If they’ve got a student loan then they pay a further 12%. If they have a young family and are receiving Working for Families tax credits, then these are abated at 27%. Incidentally, the abatement threshold is $42,700. So that means that that person is on a marginal tax rate of 69%. Definitely not nice.
Then there’s a separate credit, the Best Start tax credit which has a separate abatement regime in addition to the Working for Families abatement regime I just explained. So that’s why people could be suffering an effective marginal tax rate of over 100%.
In my view, this is the area where we really need to be thinking about changing the tax system, because to compound matters, governments have been very cynical about not adjusting thresholds for inflation, something I’ve raised repeatedly in the past.
Working for Families thresholds were adjusted for inflation every year until National was elected in 2008. Starting in the 2010 Budget they started freezing thresholds. They also increased the abatement rate which used to be 20% and is now 27%. The current Working for Families abatement threshold is $42,700, which is less than what someone working full time on the minimum wage will earn annually
Looking at student loans the threshold where repayments start in 2009 was $19,084. That is now $21,268 but for a long period of time under the last government it was frozen. National also increased the repayment rate from 10% to 12% in 2013.
So this is an area where governments of both hues have been really quite cynical in my view, and where a lot of serious thought needs to go in about trying to address the inequities that have arisen. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group suggested the abatement rate should be 10% on incomes between $48,000 and $65,000, then increase to 15% before rising to 50% on family incomes over $160,000. (Yes, large families with that level of income could be receiving social assistance in some instances).
There’s a lot of work to be done in this space and inflation adjustments to thresholds is something that should be done anyway. But I think we need to think carefully around the thresholds and how the interaction with social assistance works. At the moment we’re not getting that sort of analysis from either any of the main parties and that’s disappointing, as it’s something that really needs to be addressed.
Why the FER deals with recurrent taxes better
And finally this week, just hot off the press is an OECD report on Housing Taxation in OECD countries. This makes for some interesting reading. Briefly, the report is concerned about how housing wealth is mostly concentrated amongst high income, high-wealth and older households. And in some cases, they believe that a disproportionately large share of owner-occupied housing wealth is held by this group. There’s been unprecedented growth in house prices, not just in New Zealand, but across the whole OECD, making housing market access increasingly difficult for younger generations.
In terms of suggestions the OECD believes that housing taxes are “of growing importance given the pressure on governments to raise revenues, improve the functioning of housing markets and combat inequality.” The report notes the way housing taxes are designed often reduces their efficiency. Recurrent property taxes, such as rates, are often levied on outdated property values, which significantly reduces their revenue potential. This also reduces how equitable they are because where housing prices have rocketed up, people are underpaying based on current values. And conversely people in places where prices are falling or have been stagnant are paying more relative to those in richer areas.
One of the suggestions the report makes is that the role of recurrent taxes on immovable property should be strengthened, by ensuring that they are levied on regularly updated property values. And this is one of these reasons why Professor Susan St John and I have been promoting the Fair Economic Return approach. One of the strongpoints of our proposal would be strengthening the role of recurrent taxes.
Capping a capital gains tax exemption on the sale of a primary residence
Another proposal would not at all popular. It is to consider capping the capital gains tax exemption on the sale of main houses so that the highest value gains are taxed. This should strengthen progressivity in the system and reduce some of the upward pressures. This is what happens the U.S. There is a US$250,000 exemption on the main home per person, and above that the gains are taxed. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have a similar type exemption here if we want to introduce a capital gains tax. But as I said, that would be particularly unpopular.
The OECD also believes there should be better targeted incentives for energy efficient housing, because housing, according to this report has a significant carbon footprint, maybe 22% of global final energy consumption and 17% of energy related CO2 emissions.
So, there’s a lot to consider in this report, and we come back to it and consider it in more detail. But again, it sort of comes to this point we’ve talked about repeatedly on the podcast, the question of broadening the tax base and the taxation of capital. These issues aren’t going to go away, particularly when you consider, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, how very high effective marginal tax rates are paid by people on modest incomes who may not have any housing. No doubt we’ll be discussing all these issues sometime again in the future.
Well, 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 te wiki, have a great week!
Last Saturday, the ACT party leader David Seymour appeared on Newshub Nation and suggested that Inland Revenue be used to deal with the gangs.
He believed the powers currently being used by Inland Revenue as part of its high wealth individual research project could equally be applied to deal with the gangs. It did make for some entertaining viewing, as interviewer Rebecca Wright was more than a little incredulous at the suggestion that gang members wearing patches would happily submit to filling out questionnaires. On the other hand, the notorious mobster Al Capone, was ultimately jailed for tax evasion so the use of Inland Revenue against organised crime is not that unreasonable a suggestion.
Mr. Seymour does seem to have misunderstood the nature of the powers currently being used by Inland Revenue as part of its high wealth individual research project. Those powers have been deliberately limited so that the information gathered is solely for research purchase purposes. They are therefore more prescribed than the general powers available to Inland Revenue. I also think Mr. Seymour was overstating how much of a sanction non-compliance with the high worth individual research project would be.
Now Inland Revenue does indeed have some extensive powers of information request and where appropriate, search and seizure. And if you want an example of how it can apply those rules that can be found in the case of Tauber v Commissioner Inland Revenue.
In this case, Inland Revenue was investigating a former accountant who it believed was suppressing income. After its initial information requests were not satisfactorily answered in its view, Inland Revenue then decided to use the powers available to it under Section 16 of the Tax Administration Act. It carried out simultaneous search and seizure operations at six separate locations, including a boat shed.
Mr Tauber responded by making an application for judicial review, claiming that the various Section 16 warrants were too widely drawn and not specific enough. The application also questioned whether the searches were necessary for carrying out the Commissioner’s functions and if the searches were carried out in an unreasonable manner. Unfortunately for Mr Tauber and the other claimants the courts upheld Inland Revenue’s use of its powers.
The case illustrates the extensive powers available to Inland Revenue. However, what it also illustrates is that applying those powers is a very intensive operation requiring a considerable number of resources. If you’re raiding six properties simultaneously with teams of investigators, you’re talking about an operation which may have involved somewhere between 40 and 50 people. Now if you think about dealing with gang members Inland Revenue would also want to be raiding several premises simultaneously. Therefore, that would require considerable resources from it and no doubt police officers to be available in case matters escalated.
It’s therefore questionable whether Inland Revenue would actually have the resources to carry out major investigations into gangs. And although tax evasion is a criminal offence, Inland Revenue would probably be of the view that the powers available to police and other authorities under the anti-money laundering legislation, which have been strengthened this week, mean those agencies are more appropriately deployed to deal with organised crime.
This isn’t to say that Inland Revenue wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to investigate tax evasion involving gangs if it felt considerable sums were involved. But as the Tauber case shows, using its full range of investigatory powers requires considerable resources, which ultimately, I think, Inland Revenue might feel better used elsewhere. In other words, “Nice idea, but yeah nah.”
Update on OECD tax reform
Moving on, the OECD delivered its latest update on the status of the international tax reform agreement to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors a couple of weeks ago. This included a progress report on the status of Pillar One, which is the proposal to ensure that market jurisdictions can tax profits from some of the largest multinational enterprises.
The OECD Secretary-General presented a comprehensive draft of what these proposed technical model rules will be for Pillar One. These are now going to go out for public consultation between now and mid-August. The intention then is to finalise a new Multilateral Convention by mid-2023 for entry into force in 2024.
In addition to updating the status of the Multilateral Convention to implement Pillar One, the Secretary-General’s Tax Report also gave an update on how an implementation of the OECD transparency agenda (the Common Reporting Standards on The Automatic Exchange of Information). And the latest update is that information on at least 111 million financial accounts worldwide covering total assets of nearly €11 trillion was exchanged automatically between tax administrations in 2021. And later this year, the OECD will finalise a new crypto-assets reporting framework, which will be included as part of the Common Reporting Standards. So things are moving ahead even if they’re going more slowly than people had expected.
In relation to the Pillar Two work, which introduces a 15% global minimum global minimum corporate tax rate, the technical work on that is largely complete and an implementation framework is to be released later this year to facilitate the implementation and coordination between tax administrations and taxpayers. All G7 countries, the European Union and several other G20 countries, along with several other economies, have scheduled plans to introduce the global minimum tax rules. New Zealand hasn’t reached that stage but consultation on the matter has just ended, so we may see something later this year.
IRELAND’S TAX RISKS
Now one of the ideas behind the Pillar Two global minimum corporate tax rate is to try and stop tax competition driving corporate tax rates lower. Now, one of the poster child’s for lower corporate tax rates is Ireland. And last week I mentioned Ireland’s strong GDP per capita growth in recent years. This appears in part to be a by-product of multinational and multinational investment in Ireland, attracted by Ireland’s low corporate tax rate of 12.5%.
Now tax is always full of unintended consequences and this week the Irish Finance Ministry highlighted a potentially huge downside of this policy for Ireland.
Apparently just ten multinational firms pay over half of Ireland’s corporate tax receipts. These are expected to be between €18 and €19 billion this year, up from an estimated €16.9 billion forecast just three months ago. And by the way, that’s nearly a five-fold increase in the last decade.
Now, on the face of it that all sounds good. But John McCarthy, the Irish finance ministry’s economist, warned that the fact that just ten multinational firms pay more than half of honest corporate tax, represents “an incredible level of vulnerability” for the Irish economy, as a shock, which impacted on the multinational sector would have severe fiscal implications for Ireland. I understand something like one in nine Irish employees are employed by multinationals such as Facebook, Google and Pfizer. Therefore, the fallout from a shock in this sector could be huge for Ireland.
Mr. McCarthy told reporters the level of concentration in such a small number of firms is something he has never seen in any other economy. He was therefore more worried about the overreliance on these types of firms than the impact of the global overhaul of corporate tax regimes could have on Ireland’s position as a hub for multinational investment. Ireland power. The same report estimates that Ireland’s tax take would be affected negatively by about €2 billion over the medium term.
Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe then chipped in saying he has long shared the concerns McCarthy outlined. He said the best way to manage the risk was to return to the pre-pandemic position where corporate tax receipts are not used to fund permanent spending. This seems an incredible admission that a low corporate tax rate is actually not sustainable over the long term. So that’s something to pause to think about when you hear talk about corporate tax cuts.
By the way, these concerns of the Irish finance minister and the Finance Ministry might explain why Ireland didn’t oppose the proposed 15% global minimum tax rate. I suspect that on the quiet this represents an opportunity for Ireland to raise its corporate tax rate without too much fuss. It would be interesting to know the level of concentration here in New Zealand. I guess the big four Australian banks and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund would represent at least 20% of the corporate income tax take.
IRD BACK LIQUIDATING DEFAULTERS
Moving on, a quick follow up from last week’s items about Inland Revenue’s enforcement and collection activity increasing. As of 30th June 2021, 140,000 taxpayers had arrangements with Inland Revenue covering $3.7 billion of tax. Now, Inland Revenue would be keen to ensure those numbers don’t continue to grow. Historically, what it’s done is taken strong enforcement action including initiating liquidations. Apparently about 70% of all high court liquidations were initiated by Inland Revenue. However, during the pandemic, as part of its more sympathetic response, that number fell to just under 30%.
However, I’ve been informed that since April that there’s been a huge escalation in Inland Revenue activity in the High Court and liquidation proceedings. So that’s the clearest sign of Inland Revenue’s increased focus on debt collection and a clear warning to all those out there that if you if you’re in trouble you need to front up and try and make arrangements with the Inland Revenue before they take it further to the liquidator.
AWARDS FINALISTS
And finally, this week, the Tax Policy Charitable Trust has just announced its four finalists in this year’s Tax Policy Scholarship competition.
This competition is designed to support tax policy, research and thinking. Entrance is limited to those under the age of 35, and the intention is that people are asked to give ideas of proposals for reforms to our current tax system, to address potential weaknesses and unintended consequences of existing laws. Now there are three topics in this year’s competition: environmental taxation, tax, administration generally, or the powers granted to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and to investigate for research policy purposes. (These are the powers that Mr. Seymour was referring to in his interview about tackling the gangs).
The four finalists are Daniel Doughty, a senior consultant with EY in Wellington. He’s proposing a small business consolidated reporting regime to simplify tax reporting for small companies. I think this is an excellent suggestion, so look forward to finding more about this. Our tax system expects a lot of administration from small businesses without really trying to adjust the compliance burden to help them with those processes.
The second finalist is Mitchell Fraser, a tax solicitor with Mayne Wetherell in Auckland. Mitchell is worried that the new powers granted to Inland Revenue for tax policy purposes may have unintended consequences. He’s suggesting alternative means to collect the information that’s wanted, including through Statistics New Zealand.
The third finalist is Vivien Lei, a group tax advisor with Fisher Paykel Healthcare. Vivien has got another interesting proposal to change New Zealand’s environmental practises by introducing an impact weighted tax regime. Under this model, organisations will be taxed on a net positive or negative impact on the environment. Now this is an area I’m very interested in and previous readers or listeners of the podcast will know that John Lohrentz, one of the runners up in the last competition, proposed a progressive tax on bio genetic biogenic and methane emissions in the agriculture sector. It’s therefore good to see there’s plenty of focus on this area.
And finally, there’s Jordan Yates, a senior tax consultant with ASB in Auckland, and he believes the tax policy landscape has been fractured and suffocated by political roadblocks. I don’t think he’s wrong there. Jordan’s proposing an independent statutory authority that would be responsible for the independent management of fiscal policy as it relates to the tax base. It’s an idea I’ve heard floated in other places and another one I look forward to hearing more about. This fracture is one reason why the Minister of Revenue, David Parker, has proposed his Tax Principles Act.
The finalists have all been asked to develop a 5,000-word submission on their proposal. They’ll then make a final presentation and answer questions at a function later this year in October, after which the winner will be announced.
This is a great initiative by the Tax Policy, Charitable Trust, and I look forward to hearing more about these proposals. And as we did with Nigel Jemson, the winner of the last competition and runner-up John Lohrentz we will hopefully have the prize winners on the podcast.
Well, 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 te wiki, have a great week!
