National’s new finance spokeswoman Amy Adams says the IRD “don’t support [the bright line test] going to five years” – but a spokesman for the department says her comments are “not strictly true”

National’s new finance spokeswoman Amy Adams says the IRD “don’t support [the bright line test] going to five years” – but a spokesman for the department says her comments are “not strictly true”

The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is attempting to distance itself from comments made by National’s new finance spokeswoman over its opposition to the bright line test extension.

In a media stand up on Wednesday, Amy Adams said: “the IRD don’t support [the bright line test] going to five years.”

But an IRD spokesman says Adams’ position “is not strictly true.”

“There was no submission on the topic of the bright-line test extension at the Inland Revenue annual review hearing before the FEC [Finance and Expenditure select committee] on February 21.

“Rather, a committee member asked the Commissioner a question about whether government departments supported the extension of the test, and the answer made reference to IR’s view on the policy extension.”

The spokesman said the IRD only provides policy advice to the Government. “We don’t necessarily provide a position for or against.”

He said he was “not quite sure how [Adams] could make that claim.”

However, in a regulatory impact statement (RIS) prepared by the IRD and Treasury for the Minister of Finance and Revenue Minister, the IRD said it preferred leaving the bright-line test at two years.

Its main argument was that it believed extending it to five would capture people the policy wasn’t aimed at.

Adams referred to this part of the RIS, which was released last month, when questioned on the issue:

“The Treasury notes that the risks relating to over-reach and lock-in are unable to be quantified and therefore it is difficult to assess their significance in relation to the Government’s objectives for extending the bright-line test. 

“The IRD considers that two years is the better bright-line period, mainly because this reduces over-reach." 

The RSI also warned the Government that the high level of non-compliance so far seen with the bright-line test (which is at roughly 50%) will continue if it is extended by another three years.

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.

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.


Bad start Amy. A attempted politicisation of a Government department.

Sounds like she's taken Joyces play book and run with it. At least she was pretty accurate.

I disagree. Extending the period to five years will have unintended consequences. Just a political stunt to make it look like they are doing something in trying to solve a complex problem.

if you are a rental investor then a 5 year brightline is fine - 2 years was never going to be effective.

How many properties does Amy Adam's own? About half a dozen if I recall.

"Mum and Dad investors". There won't be many of those Amy because New Zealanders can't afford to have kids and pay a huge mortgage.

This is essentially what Amy is doing here:

Good one Bilbo.

You pay these people to never fix the problem. If they did they would be in the poo.
How dumb can one be to never see the true picture....existing since Adam was a Kid.
They want their leverage, salary and expenses....cough up....

Your access to our unique content is free - always has been. But ad revenues are diving so we need your direct support.

Become a supporter

Thanks, I'm already a supporter.