The Taxation Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters Bill was passed into law earlier this week. This is the bill that contained the controversial interest limitation rules. With the enactment, Inland Revenue have released two special reports, one covering a new option for employers to calculate fringe benefit tax following the rise in the top tax rate to 39%.
The second is on the interest and limitation and additional bright-line test changes and clocks in at 216 pages which gives you a good idea of the complexity of the changes
To recap, although the relevant legislation has only just been enacted, the interest limitation rules have actually been in force since 1st of October last year. Since that date the interest deductions for residential investment property is limited to 75% of the interest paid.
Now, the 75% limitation will apply until 31st March next year, at which point it will reduce to 50% and gradually the amount deductible will decrease until no interest will be deductible from 1st April 2025, unless the property in question qualifies as a new build. The special report goes into these changes in detail and helpfully contains almost 100 examples.
The special report also covers changes to the bright-line test, which was extended with effect from 27th March last year to 10 years. Now the act codifies that change and also includes some rollover relief provisions in new sections CB 6AC and CB 6AF. These enable transactions involving look through companies, transfers to and from look through companies or partnerships, that the bright-line test doesn't reset the timeline for ownership. There's also a limited exemption for where a trust transfers property back to a settlor.
Other submitters and I wanted to see expansion of the rollover relief provisions for trusts, but they were not pushed through in this bill. But we should see more in the next tax bill, which will be released around the time of the budget, which by the way will be on Thursday, 19th May. The special report does note that although trust resettlement transactions are not currently covered by the legislation it is intended that rollover relief for some resettlement transactions should be introduced in the next available tax bill.
As I've said previously, given the complexity of these rules, I think we can expect to see amendments of a technical nature, and in some cases perhaps quite substantial, coming through in subsequent tax bills. But it's good that Inland Revenue have made this guidance available with plenty of examples to work through.
Even more complexity
Moving on, the interest limitation rules apply to residential investment property in New Zealand, rental property overseas is excluded from the rules, which means deductions are still available. However, they are subject to the loss ring fencing rules. The whole treatment of residential property has been radically altered in the last three or four years, firstly with the introduction of the loss ring fencing rules and now the interest limitation rules.
With overseas properties, one of the issues that arises is the application of the financial arrangements regime to interest deductions that we claim for overseas mortgages relating to investment property. This is an area which I've discussed in the past and in particular, the problem that arises where exchange rate fluctuations on an unrealised basis may trigger income for a taxpayer. This is because the value of the mortgage in New Zealand dollar diminishes and economically, the taxpayer has made a gain at least on paper.
The financial arrangements regime is probably one of the most complex parts of the Income Tax Act. And previously, there hasn't been a lot of official Inland Revenue guidance that is in a digestible form for your average taxpayer. But fortunately, in recent years, that's started to change. For example, we had interpretation statement 20/07, which explained the application of financial arrangements rules to foreign currency loans used to finance foreign residential investment property.
We've now got a draft interpretation statement out for consultation which explains when people can account for income and expenditure under the financial arrangements rules on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis. This is the exemption available for what are termed “cash basis persons”.
Now this is very handy guidance to see because it walks through the meanings of when a person can be a cash basis person for financial arrangements regime and then the implications if they fall out of it. And it gives examples of that. It also covers the adjustment that's required when a person ceases to be a cash basis person and must return financial arrangements income on the accrual basis. That is, unrealised gains and losses must be picked up and included in income.
The interpretation statement sets out four steps for determining cash basis person status. Firstly, determine all the financial arrangements held by that person. Secondly, exclude what are termed “excepted financial arrangements”. Thirdly check whether the absolute value of income and expenditure for the income year in question is less than $100,000 AND whether in every day in the income year, the total absolute value of all financial arrangements is $1million or less.
If you get past those, you still may have a problem with the fourth step, the income deferral threshold. This is something that's not well known and is a real trap for young players. It compares the income and expenditure calculated on a cash basis with what would be the income calculation on accrual basis. If the income deferral between the two is less than $40,000, then you can be a cash basis holder. If not, then you fall into the accrual regime.
Now, as you can imagine, all this is pretty complicated. And although it's good to see some guidance on this matter, I can't help but think that we need to step back and wonder whether we are pulling people into the regime, who really shouldn't be there.
The complexity of these calculations is at times mind numbing and we need to look carefully at the thresholds for cash basis persons which have not been increased in over 20 years. This is yet another example of how the tax system, deliberately or otherwise, ignores the impact of inflation and pulls people into the net, which perhaps they shouldn't be.
This is particularly true with the volatility of exchange rates at the moment. I’ve frequently seen unrealised exchange gains arise one year only to reverse the following year. Yes, these fluctuations get resolved by the final wash-up calculation (the “base price adjustment”), but it still imposes a high compliance burden for perhaps marginal amounts of extra tax.
This is a real issue for people and one I think merits review. There hasn't been a review of the financial arrangements rules since 1999 on the basis the rules mostly work pretty well. Notwithstanding that, these thresholds should be increased and how the regime applies to overseas mortgages should be reviewed to determine if they should be part of the regime and if so, can we do something to make the matters more compliance friendly?
The way the regime works, by the way, is you get the bizarre scenario where the sale of the underlying property without which the mortgage wouldn't exist is often exempt for New Zealand tax purposes. But the foreign exchange gains on the mortgage will be taxable. So that's conceptually a little bit of a mismatch. Often, by the way, it should be said that you also get the scenario where even if the capital gain is exempt in New Zealand, the gain is often taxed in the country in which the property is situated.
An eye on what the Aussies are doing
And finally, earlier this week, the Australian budget was released. This is a couple of months ahead of the normal, and that's because there's a general election coming up, which must be held no later than the end of May. Now, that means that the election result may mean that what's in this budget may be well reversed by a new government.
But there were a couple of things in here that caught my eye that may not change. The Australian Government, like ours, is grappling with the rapid rises in the cost of living, so it has it has introduced a fuel excise cut. It has also increased the low- and middle-income tax offset for the current year ending on 30 June 2022.
It proposes to increase this tax offset by A$420 for the current year to a maximum of A$1,500 dollars for individuals and A$3,000 for couples. But it's not going to be available for taxpayers’ incomes over A$126,000. This measure is going to cost the Australian government A$4.1 billion to enact. It's an example of something we talked about last week, using tax to try and take the pressure off cost of living increases..
A more permanent measure though, and something which we may see here, at least expanded, is that the Australian Tax Office has had its funding for its tax avoidance task force on multinationals, large corporates and high wealth individuals, expanded for a further two years. And it's been given a total of A$652.6 million to extend the operation out to 30th June 2025.
Now, this taskforce was established in 2016, and undertakes compliance activities targeting multinationals, large public and private groups, trusts and high wealth individuals. The additional funding is expected to increase tax take by A$2.1 billion dollars, pretty much a little bit over a return of three to one for the investment. And for that reason, I expect that funding will stay in place whatever government is in power after the general election.
I also think it's something Inland Revenue might be looking to see here. We have the high wealth individual project going on at the moment, looking into what wealth there is in New Zealand and how the wealthy hold that wealth and how they structure their tax affairs.
Although it’s a research project I think you could see Inland Revenue getting more funding following that project to investigate the tax practices of the wealthy. So watch this space. And as always, we will bring you developments as they emerge.
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 find your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send your feedback and tell your friends and clients. Until next time, ka pai te wiki. Have a great week.
Terry Baucher is an Auckland-based tax specialist with 25 years experience. He works with individuals and entities who have complex tax issues. Prior to starting his own business, he spent six years with one of the "Big Four' accountancy firms including a period advising Australian businesses how to do business in New Zealand. You can contact him here.
18 Comments
The bright line test and other dances around property are simply the fiddling of a timid government too gutless to do what it knows needs to be done: introduce a universal annual tax on the unimproved value of all land, and lower the threshold of the 39% income tax rate to no higher than double the average wage of about $75,000, and apply it to trusts, to gifts, and to inheritances.
Bernard Hickey commented that Transmission Gully Expressway had increased the value of the land bordering it by $ 7.8 billion ... a tax free windfall for those wealthy landowners ...
... a land tax would return some of that largesse , a small % , back to the government annually ...
We need a comprehensive land tax !
If the alternative is a massively punitive tax regime with none of the carve-outs that make them acceptable in other parts of the world then I'll take the fiddling government option, every time. Inheritance taxes are a scam, the government has no claim to your things when you die and nor should they. The idea that someone who has paid tax on every cent of their estate as it was earned should be taxed again solely in order to pass it on to relatives is obscene.
'The idea that someone who has paid tax on every cent of their estate as it was earned should be taxed again solely in order to pass it on to relatives is obscene.'
Wrong. It is not the person who has died who pays the tax. An inheritance tax (and gift tax for those who try to beat death) is a tax on the beneficiary's unearned windfall gains.
So all those countries with substantial inheritance tax thresholds, rollover relief and carve-outs for family assets are 'repugnant' too? Gosh, I wonder why you don't hear about that in NZ. Could it be that the political classes have weaponised taxation as a means for waging class warfare, instead of carefully and logically funding the state through sensible administration of the tax system?
It might be considered 'just' in university common rooms of the world, but thankfully our tax systems are designed with a little more thought and restraint than that. Otherwise you end up absurd ideas like the Greens Wealth Tax, which would have captured home owners in Auckland with one house, but let Christchurch property investors with multiple units off scot-free. If it sounds good through a megaphone, it's probably pretty crappy tax policy.
'Effective increase of tax on residential rental property equals a drop in living standards for both the owner and the tenant.'
That depends on what you do with the tax revenue. Certainly a no-exceptions national tax on all land will affect owners directly and renters indirectly. But that tax can be used to reduce GST, or to make the first $20,000 of everyone's personal income tax-free, or to introduce a universal basic income, or to fully fund all health care, ensuring that there are no financial barriers to the well-being of every New Zealander.
The point of taxing the unimproved value of land is that land is not 'the productive sector': it is just there, fattening the pockets of owners but producing nothing. It's what you DO with the land that is either productive or non-productive. (And that's another, income-tax, story.)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.