sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

EY's Aaron Quintal points out NZ already taxes lots of capital gains and the big gap is gains made on the sale of owner-occupied houses

EY's Aaron Quintal points out NZ already taxes lots of capital gains and the big gap is gains made on the sale of owner-occupied houses
<a href="">Image sourced from</a>

By Aaron Quintal*

Another election has come and gone, with the most heated debate being whether we should tax capital gains. An important point that got lost in the discussion is that New Zealand already taxes a lot of capital gains under specific regimes in our income tax.

The most pervasive of these regimes is the financial arrangement rules, covering the taxation of everything from debt instruments to deferred property settlements to currency contracts and derivatives.

In short, any gain made on a financial arrangement, such as selling a corporate bond for more than you paid for it, is currently taxable under New Zealand law regardless of whether you are in business or not and regardless of why you purchased the financial arrangement.

These would usually be treated as a capital gain in most other jurisdictions and often subject to preferential rates of tax under their CGT. Not so in New Zealand, where the full amount of the gain is taxable at the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate.

Many gains from selling real property (houses) are taxable in New Zealand. Despite the common misconception, you do not need to be “in the business” of buying and selling houses in order to be taxable on the gain.
If you buy a house to do-up with the dominant purpose of selling it for a profit, you are taxable on the gain you make (subject to certain exclusions where the house is your family home and you don’t engage in “regular pattern” of do-ups).

Even if you don’t have the purpose of selling at a profit when you buy the property, if the project involves a subdivision of the land or substantial earthworks, drainage or roading, any gain you make will likely be taxable as ordinary income if the work is begun within 10 years of acquiring the land.

To the people who rang talkback radio in the lead-up to the election supporting a capital gains tax, saying they had done up three houses in the last couple of years and, in the interests of fairness, they should be taxable on that gain – you probably already are.

In situations where there has been pressure on the income tax base from people trying to convert income payments into otherwise tax free capital gains, Parliament has reacted swiftly to amend the law. Restrictive covenant payments, lease inducements and proceeds from the sale of patents, all of which are generally capital gains overseas, are taxed in New Zealand as ordinary income. There are not, quite simply, vast swathes of capital gains waiting to be earned tax-free.

The big gap in the New Zealand tax base, and the one that rightly gets the most attention, is gains made on the sale of owner-occupied housing. However, these gains are not something any political party planned to include in the scope of their CGT at the last election and almost all overseas CGTs completely exclude or preferentially tax owner-occupied housing.

Although international comparisons are always difficult, the available data show New Zealand has a higher tax to GDP ratio than countries like Australia, the US and Canada even though they have capital gains taxes and higher tax rates than New Zealand.

This tells us their exemptions, carve-outs and gaping holes in their tax system mean New Zealand has a broader and more comprehensive tax system than many of our competitors, even though we don’t have a separate “capital gains tax”.

OECD warnings that the New Zealand tax system is narrowed by the lack of a comprehensive capital gains tax need to be taken with a substantial handful of salt.

*Aaron Quintal is a tax partner at EY.

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.


OECD warnings that the New Zealand tax system is narrowed by the lack of a comprehensive capital gains tax need to be taken with a substantial handful of salt. could a lot of this article.

Yes, there is a CGT in principle, but many accountants are employed to avoid this.

To me, and put simply, if someone is negatively geared then they can only be looking for capital gains and yet get away with the 'didn't intend to statement. How can you lose money each month and say it was not bought for capital gain?


I totally agree.  This guy is saying that there is an effective broad-based CGT, apart from owner-occupied housing. 


Au contraire:  I know many landlord friends who have bought a few rentals, claimed for the costs for several years as they watched property values zoom up, and then waltzed away tax free when they sold.  Never a mention of any tax.  This is one of the biggest "industries" in NZ, worth $hundreds of billions in assets, & yet outside the tax regime (except in rare cases).


How he can choose to skate past this in his article is a mystery.


I agree.  Too much of New Zealand's tax code seems to rely on the integrity of those involved.  Where are the  checks and balances on CGT in the NZ Tax code?  For example, regarding subdivided properties, does the local council provide the list of consents for subdivision to the IRD so that the IRD can figure out who might be subject to capital gains? I think not.  


How an earth can you jump from NZ is highly taxed, to NZ is broadly taxed?

The two are completely seperate issues.  

Or are you insisting that all countries with a higher tax take than NZ are also all more broadly taxed than NZ?




NZ has a high tax to GDP ratio because it has a broad tax regime. NZ taxes more things without exemption; whereas other countries have many exemptions for their taxes.


Or maybe we just have higher tax rates, or more taxes?  Our GST isn't low. 33% kicks in at a very low level. etc etc


Excellent artcile..

It seems the issue is not the tax system.. one that fairly doesnt tax on such things as ones long term home or a stamp collection one has put together as a kid...

The issue is "advidance" and in far too many cases, simply not declairing.

And this comes down to then taxpayer money having to find and recover..and thats because those who complain about people who dont declair or advoid under rather suspect not report.