HOT TOPICS:   Gold   |   Unitary Plan  |    Mortgage rates

The comment stream

Reader poll

How many new houses will the Government-Auckland Council accord produce in Auckland over the next three years?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

If you live and work overseas but rent out your New Zealand house, the IRD is proposing to change the rules to draw you back into a New Zealand tax liability. Your view?

Posted in Business

The IRD is proposing to change its interpretation of "residence" and the change is likely to have important implications for New Zealanders living and working outside the country.

It is likely to increase the tax burden for both employees and employers.

If you own a house here, the IRD now wants to make that a key reason why you should still be taxed as a New Zealand resident.

Previously, it was only one of a number of other tests to see if you had a New Zealand tax liability.

Many Kiwis working overseas will be familiar with the 183-day and 325-day rules, both of which are subject to the permanent place of abode rule.

“Under the proposed interpretation, many people currently overseas, who believe they are not taxable in New Zealand, may have an unfortunate surprise because of the change in approach and weight placed by Inland Revenue on property retained in New Zealand," said Murray Sarelius, tax partner at KPMG.

Three key changes are being proposed:

Permanent place of abode:

The new statement provides that to have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand a person must have a particular place of abode that is an "available dwelling". In contrast, the current position (PIB No 180) considered the availability of a dwelling as just one factor in assessing the durability of a person’s connection to New Zealand.

Permanent home:

The Commissioner’s new view, reflected in the statement, is that the term "available" in the context of the permanent home double tax agreement tie-breaker test is not based on mere occupation, or immediate availability for occupation. This is in contrast to the position in PIB No 180 which stated that where a person rents their house to non-related persons while they are overseas, that house will not be a permanent home which is available to them.

Habitual abode:

"The statement discusses Case 12/2011 (2011) 25 NZTC 1-012, [2011] NZTRA 08 and the application of the habitual abode double tax agreement tie-breaker test. Specifically, if the circumstances of a particular case require, periods outside the period of dual residence may need to be considered. Where this is the case, the Commissioner considers that such periods can only be taken into account so far as they assist in, and are relevant to, determining whether the person had an habitual abode in New Zealand during the period of dual residency."

These changes come hard on the heals of changes to employer-paid living-away-from-home accommodation, which has caused a storm of protest.

"There are some aspects of [this new] draft that go too far to treat people as tax resident in New Zealand," said Sarelius.

"Residence is an important area that impacts on many businesses and internationally mobile employees."

"In its current form, the Interpretation Statement will make it more difficult to determine whether a New Zealander working abroad is still taxable here, and will tax some people who should not be taxed."

These latest proposals are not yet the IRD's position. They have issued them 'for comment and discussion only' among tax professionals, although anyone may submit a view. The deadline for comment is January 31, 2013.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

17 Comments

Just another reason to use

Just another reason to use Trusts

or a LTD liabilty company

or a LTD liabilty company (the successor to the LAQC)

I think a practical, but

I think a practical, but hypothetical scenario might help readers understand the implications of this change.
Consider Sally Anne, a highly qualified nurse who has a home in Auckland that is rented out.  After mortgage interest it makes about $1000 per year.  In the past she has paid N.Z. tax on that $1000 as a non resident.
But Sally Anne earns the equivalent of NZD300,000 in Saudi Arabia and pays tax of 5% on her wages. 
With this change Sally Anne would pay tax on her world wide income, but get a credit for the tax paid in Saudi Arabia on that income.
The N.Z. tax on her salary would be about $90,000, less the $15,000 Saudi tax paid;
Net result; pay Peter Dunne $75,000.
Sally Anne and expatriates like her would be highly pissed off.

Yes given that I am in that

Yes given that I am in that hypothetical scenario if Peter Dunne thinks I'm going to be paying NZ tax for zero benefit to myself.... well, good luck with that.

Mind you, I also have a Euro passport, which came before my NZ one.

I'm shortly going to enact my masterplan of being tax domiciled in Costa Rica (no tax paid on income earned outside the country) and never being tax resident in NZ, Oz, or Europe long enough (185 days in any 2 year period) to ever pay any tax at all.

Gotta love that internet.

You miss the point, that

You miss the point, that under the proposals the 185 day rule doesn't apply.  If you are deemed to have a permanent place of abode in NZ then you do not even need to set foot in NZ.  You would be deemed to be a tax resident, and thus subject to tax on your world wide income (subject to double tax treaties etc).

As to the comment 'well good luck with that' then you'll be hoping that you have no equity in the house in NZ as the next step will be Peter Dunne selling off your house to repay your deemed income tax to the IRD.
 
There is merit to a discussion as to whether it is acceptable for the Nurse in your example to be paying no tax in NZ yet has the ability at any time to come back to NZ and use the taxpayer funded health system, education system etc.  If you are a US citizen you have an obligation to pay tax on your worldwide income regardless of residency (above certain limits) to provide for the benefits you receive through citizenship.  

No I got that. I don't own a

No I got that. I don't own a house in NZ, but I am a director of a limited liability company that does. IF they try and tax me in NZ even though I am living overseas I'll find a loophole like create a company offshore and transfer my house to that company etc.

There is some merit to a discussion on why the IRD thinks I should pay NZ tax when I am not costing the NZ government anything. IF the hypothetical nurse (or myself) choose to move back to NZ then we'll be paying tax when we get a job in NZ, which is fair (although I don't get any kind of rebate for never using the education system or the healthcare system, not having any kids nor ever being in hospital a day in my life, or on a benefit, or needing the justice system etc etc).

Unlike US citizenship there are very few benefits to NZ citizenship. There are tons of great places in the world to live, many of which are a hell of a lot more fun than NZ. I'd just bin my NZ citizenship if it meant being taxed as a kiwi no matter where I live in the world.

I disagree there are few

I disagree there are few benefits to NZ citizenship.  There may be not many tangible benefits whist you are overseas.
 
The intangible benefit is the ability to return at any time and access free services, mainly education and health, and just saying that there is an argument that Kiwi's overseas should pay for this intangible. 
 
If they are unwilling and give up citizenship then thats a choice that can be made, but I wonder how many would make that choice?

More money for the

More money for the Accountants and tax lawyers, certainly..

We could extend this analogy

We could extend this analogy to ownership of other NZ assets as well, and tax every one who has invested in NZ, in some way or other...It is only the ordinary individuals who will be penalised, others hiding behind companies and entities will get away scot free, always.

Have to agree with the

Have to agree with the comments - the ordinary person gets squeezed again.
Seems its ok for multi nationals to pay next to no tax in NZ, e.g. Google, & for the IRD to now also be chasing "free" accommodation given to workers working away from home.
 

When you are short of money,

When you are short of money, you go looking for it everywhere....and even create situation where there is no escape !!!
 
welcome to the ever rising Goverment Funding shortfall......property ownership is not going to be such a good idea after all.....there is nowhere to hide !!!
 
western economies will be facing deficits for the next decade or two....think where they will extract revenue the most from !!!

The maintenance of

The maintenance of infrastructure/services never seems to get a mention when people grumble about paying taxes. If you own a home here, the roading up to your drive has to be paid by someone. Access to your property is sustained by taxes, should you not share in that responsibility even if you are away? Regardless of whether it is a home or a business, you benefit from the common pool. It doesn't matter whether it is rates or income taxes, no one wants to pay it.
 
The emergency services that might show up at your place while you are away to put out a fire- they need to show up to work every day even though it might not be your house this time or the next. If they were not there, and you did happen to have a fire, would you be willing to coordinate the services from wherever you are, halway around the world, and pay the astronomical one-off fee yourself? If you could even find such services for hire in the absense of such publicly maintained services.  SO high are the expectations for public benefit, and so low is the willingness to contribute to the common fund, that the inevitable result is the constant degrading of both infrastructure and public services. If everyone thinks they are above contributing, then the great improvements that have been institutionalized around the world over the 20th century will be gone. They didn't magically appear and they won't magically keep going without constant support from everyone, not just the suckers who still believe in civic duty.
 
The USA expects every one of their citizens around the world to account for their income, no matter whether they hold property or business in the US or not. IRD is simply trying to get people with capital in NZ to pay a reasonable share for the maintenance of services which give that capital the value it has. Without the infrastructure and services provided by NZ, the houses, and businesses are not worth much. It isn't taxing people who live elsewhere and do not have property or businesses here. That seems pretty fair to me.

Ok... What if I'm overseas

Ok... What if I'm overseas having left NZ without owning a house, then after 5 years away I decide to buy a residential investment property. Now I'm taxed on my worldwide income and that is equitable? What about the intervening 5 year period? Why is this any different to someone owning a property at the time of leaving? It's not as simple as suggested. 

Lets take these as they come

Lets take these as they come because you are simply wrong,
An overseas owner,
1) pays for roads, sewerage and water with rates, these are collected no matter what or where.  The overseas owner however probably consumes less services eg council library so is probably paying NET more than a resident.
2) Emergency services are paid for with a levy in the house insurance, you have to have insurance if you have a mortgage its compulsory.
USA, we dont live there so it doesnt matter.
In terms of services there are other ways to provide water and sewerage for yourself.....simply treat it and collect it on site....its sustainable.   Much of the services you are commenting on are seeing rate rises of 6% per annum, that is a doubling every 12 years....At that rate many of us wont be able to pay it when we retire.
Now in terms of Central Govn taxes and services the overseas owner isnt consuming much and is actually paying taxes in the country they are in already.  Also they are still paying GST on maintenance and other items consumed by the property so the NET may not be much loss.
What concerns me is really an individual working on an OE etc is facing a double tax bill, sorry but that isnt fair.  Now aiming to catch a foreign business that is profiting from doing business here but paying no NZ tax on that income, yes that needs to be changed, which I suspect is the real thrust of this.
regards
 

What if the property is in a

What if the property is in a Trust?

Youv'e seen nothing yet, I am

Youv'e seen nothing yet, I am relaibly informed that Possum head has other tax plans:- Fly Air NZ  anywhere worldwide and you are deemed a NZ residnet taxable on your worldwide income, failure to pay will require Air NZ to repatriate you to NZ  and be held in custody on Auckland Island pending payment plus an accomodation cost of your stay.Next will be Fornication duty with a deemed minimum weekly indulgence of 7 at $10 each, politicians and beaurecrats will be exempt as they are all Eunuchs - result govt debt eliminated quick smart.
PS Father Christmas will be calling on us all 25/12.

So you move to Oz and join

So you move to Oz and join the other 50,000 expats due to the dire employment situation in NZ,.You then contribute to the Australian tax system but unfortunately must hand back some of your hard earned ozzie $'s due to the repercussions of the governments inadequacies which have contributed to loss of tax receipts collected by Mr Key?
Simple solution for the government............penalize with new ex-pat property tax for having the audacity to leave Gods Own!