Offers for readers

The comment stream

Recent comments

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Finance sector jobs

Investment Associate - Portfolio Management Team
Dimensional Fund Advisors are an international asset management firm with offices in the U...more
Australia
Research Analyst - Australian market
ISS, a subsidiary of MSCI Inc, is currently seeking a full-time Research Analyst. This pos...more
Australia
Investment Manager
This private equity firm has an operational focus and works closely with their portfolio, ...more
Australia
Compliance Associate
Top Tier Global Fund Manager, Compliance Monitoring, Reporting and Policy Development, Att...more
Australia
efinancialcareers.com

Reader poll

Who do you think should be appointed Reserve Bank Governor to replace Alan Bollard when he retires in September?

Choices

Peter Dunne targets property traders to close NZ$50 mln loophole

Posted in News

Inland Revenue Minister Peter Dunne has proposed changes to GST rules on the sale of land and other high value assets to close down a loophole used by property developers that is costing taxpayers at least NZ$50 million in lost revenue. "The proposals target sellers and buyers in transactions involving high-value assets. In these transactions GST revenue can be lost by the government from a small minority of taxpayers deliberately using differing GST accounting treatments or winding up a vendor company so that no GST is paid," Dunne said. We welcome your insights and comments below. Here is the full statement below from Dunne. Here is the full discussion document.

Law changes to the GST rules on sales of land and other high-value assets are the focus of a discussion document released today by Revenue Minister Peter Dunne. "The proposals target sellers and buyers in transactions involving high-value assets. In these transactions GST revenue can be lost by the government from a small minority of taxpayers deliberately using differing GST accounting treatments or winding up a vendor company so that no GST is paid." "A conservative estimate puts the loss of GST revenue from the property development sector through such activities at about $50 million a year, and probably growing," Mr Dunne said. "That is clearly unacceptable and will be stopped. "The discussion document seeks public feedback on proposals for stopping these activities, as well as for clarifying a range of other GST issues for high-value transactions and making them more consistent - which is in everyone's best interest. "The main proposal is to introduce a mechanism known as a domestic reverse charge, whereby the obligation to account for GST in transactions involving land, other assets worth more than $50 million, and those involving "˜going concerns', would be shifted from the seller to the buyer. "As well as addressing revenue risk, the reverse charge would benefit businesses by removing cash flow concerns for the parties to a transaction in the period between GST payment and input deduction. It would also reduce the risks to sellers of an unexpected GST liability arising when, for example, a transaction is incorrectly zero-rated as a going concern. "Other changes proposed in the discussion document are aimed at making it easier to account for the taxable and non-taxable use of assets on which GST is paid. Specifically, the existing change-in-use adjustment would be replaced by an approach that would apportion input tax deductions in line with the actual use of goods and services. "Similarly, the discussion document proposes clarifying the boundary between residential accommodation, which is GST-exempt, and commercial accommodation, which is not. That would ensure better consistency of GST treatment of equivalent types of accommodation. "These are some of the proposed changes set out in this very timely discussion document. I urge all interested parties to have their say on the workability of the proposals and the draft legislation that accompanies the text," Mr Dunne said.

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.

16 Comments

I'm no lover of tax

I'm no lover of tax or Dunne, and I've not read the discussion document, but from this summary can see what his intent is, and on this one, assuming GST as a given, I think this a good idea.

For every accountant who has gained a timing advantage via differing accounting treatments for GST, there is one who gets innocently caught out. Personally I find the timing issues involved with GST and the invoice basis fraught with pitfalls and simply a pain (read waste of my time) - For GST full stop, I've never understood why IRD constantly proffer the invoice basis over the payments basis as the preferred option. A payments basis is superior in that neither the taxpayer, or the Government, can ever be caught out or disadvantaged by timing differences: you pay the GST only when you've received it, or vice versa. Just about all administrative problems surrounding GST concern time of supply.

And the sale from one associated company to another and then liquidating the vendor without paying the GST is straight our evasion, and means 'I' will never get a tax cut because I'm paying for the ones who do that. Though that was never a 'loophole' , it was simply a rort/evasion, but good to close it up.

... quickly reading the above ... mmm, they're putting the onus on the buyer to pay the vendor's GST, not sure I like that, but it is possibly the only way to get around the 'dump the vendor' company rort (payments basis wouldn't fix that). I've got this fear there are going to be some innocent buyers unfairly caught out, but will have to read the detail. Probably the lawyers will have a few sleepless nights with it, but that's the nature of our ludicrously complex taxing legislation: it's so easily to innocently get wrong via omission, and then the IRD, the employees of which take no risk at all everyday they go to work, try to clobber you back to the finances you had with your post bank account at primary school (Nanny State, she truly is a heartless bitch).

Anyway :) overall, if you've got to have a GST, then on a first look, I like this proposal. Those who have made a habit out of getting the timing advantage to work for them, won't.

Mark : They are tinkering

Mark : They are tinkering around the edges . The $ 50 m. is small beer , in relation to the size of the market . Rental properties in NZ have a total capital value of $ 200 billion . Yet IRD pay out a total of $ 700 m. to owner/investors . Why aren't Dunne / English and Co. focusing on the big stuff . Mop up the fiddly $ 50 m. bits later .

Roger, I'm hoping Bill is

Roger,

I'm hoping Bill is focussing on the negative gearing credit tax rort. That seems to be the indications from the press releases. Who knows though, I certainly wont get too hopeful. But it is reaching the point where a) opinion in the media and larger parts of the populace is in favour of clamping down on the ppty bubble AND b) the economy is in such a state that there may be no choice given the negative impact rampant ppty investing has on the economy.

For the record, my comments

For the record, my comments above relate only to the narrow, and specific issues dealt with in this discussion paper: GST on high value property transactions.

I believe my thoughts on any type of CGT, land value tax, etc, are otherwise well known - I am implacably against them. There is too much taxing in New Zealand, because our State is far to big, and the new surveillance powers now being assumed by the State evidence, indeed, we have gone from Nanny State to full Police State. What our successive governments have done to us, delivered us unto the coercive State, is an affront to all people who understand that the most important thing an individual can have, is freedom from tyranny and coercion.

On a purely personal note,

On a purely personal note, and indeed gratuitously, I would like to record that Peter Dunne is the most irritating politican in the last 20 years. At least Alamein Kopu didn't show up to be annoying.

nick off , Nike .

nick off , Nike . Your dunk is sunk . Basically , you stunk . De-bunk , punk !

Thankyou Roger

Thankyou Roger

Who is this Peter guy?

Who is this Peter guy?

"Oh 28 yr old' or

"Oh 28 yr old' or are u 30 now ?

Pete's the Guy that's going to MOVE on Spec Property Investors or Smart Property Investors or SPI's for short!

He's Gonna STOP the RORT.

How about politicians look in

How about politicians look in the mirror and stop their own rorts....Bill English housing, Hone Harawira Paris, Rodney Hide and Mrs 50K trip...Chris Carter and partner 80K travel in 6months etc etc

SPI=selfish politicians indeed!

Yep I'm still 28, simon37

I couldn't agree more Roger.

I couldn't agree more Roger. Perhaps English and Co are just warming up the people for the big property rort shutdown coming in 2010. There seems to be a little bit of momentum building for it. But, who knows - perhaps they are just secretly hoping that the market will right itself on its own.

Interesting. No GST on housing

Interesting.

No GST on housing or on interest but GST is charged on food and clothing.

Give the bankers credit for creating a system that works in their favour.

@Sam: I reckon English and

@Sam: I reckon English and Key have given Dunne a tar baby: any form of property tax shutdown would be highly unpopular abmong their constituency. So
Dunne's the fall guy and gets to put out the feelers to see if it's massively unpopular or not. He gets a few headlines and the Nats get to blame him in the event they do anything this term, or even if they do nothing. And that's why MMP as it stands is so good for National and Labour.

When buy a property or

When buy a property or enter into any kind of transactions with property developers, we would recommend that you do it through the legal and right channel.

Property Developers : You are

Property Developers : You are a total fool and a liar . Nobody in their right mind should ever do business with low-life creeps like you . Piss off !