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

PM says tax and transactions data from non-resident property buyers may be shared with Chinese authorities on 'Operation Foxhunt' for corrupt officials overseas

Property
PM says tax and transactions data from non-resident property buyers may be shared with Chinese authorities on 'Operation Foxhunt' for corrupt officials overseas

By Bernard Hickey

Prime Minister John Key has signalled that tax and property transaction data collected by New Zealand's IRD from non-residents in a crackdown on property trading here could be shared with foreign tax officials, including those from China hunting for corrupt expatriates with money invested in overseas assets.

Last December Key disclosed that Chinese President Xi Jingping had asked for New Zealand's help in tracking down a number of Chinese nationals who had fled to New Zealand with corruptly obtained funds. See our December article here.

Key yesterday announced a wide-ranging crackdown on local and non-resident property investors. It included a new 'bright line' test from October 1 that will means any capital gains from property sold within two years of purchase will  be taxed fully as as income. Also, all non residents would have to provide passport details, foreign tax details, open a New Zealand bank account and obtain a local IRD number. Here's our Sunday article with the details of the crack-down and Key's denial this morning that it was a capital gains tax.

Key said the new measures would make it much easier for IRD to control a growing problem of non-resident investors not declaring trading income. He confirmed the information could be shared with foreign authorities and was aimed at full compliance with international rules on money laundering.

"Arguably yes, because the New Zealand bank account issue is all about fulfilling our obligations under the anti-money laundering rules," Key said when asked if information would be used to help China's crackdown on economic fugitives.

Key prefers a 'bright line'

Elsewhere, Key told a post-cabinet  he had always favoured adopting the 'bright line' test, but that IRD had been reluctant until recently. He said Cabinet had preferred a three year threshold for the test, but that IRD preferred the two year threshold that was adopted. He said however that a 10 year or 20 year 'bright line' test, as was preferred by Treasury, would effectively be a capital gains tax.

"What they (IRD) basically say is, the further out you go, the more exceptions you have to have and we thought it was pretty clean and clear cut at sort of two years," Key said.

Asked if a 10-20 year bright line test was the same as a capital gains test, he said it would. "If you go for an infinite period of time then you are basically saying that you are going to tax capital on every transactions," he said.

Poll-driven decision?

He denied the Government had done any polling on the issue, but acknowledged that National's pollster Curia did regular polling on a variety of economic issues, including Auckland housing.

"We haven't done any polling on housing. Zero. I can't think of a single...we have our standard questions that we ask every single week and we have for years about economic development, but we didn't go out and specifically poll on this, or what would happen if we had a bright line test. We just don't do that," Key said.

Asked if Curia had polled on the issue, he said: "Not that I've seen. We just have the stock standard questions that we poll every week, and there's a whole range of questions within that, and there are questions about housing and the economy, but they are not specific about this stuff and they are not new. It's a slightly more elevated issue than it probably was a couple of years ago, but it's not the most elevated."

He said the Government had been having discussions with the Reserve Bank on the issue for weeks, but he denied that the Reserve Bank's April 15 speech calling for a reduction in the tax incentives for property was a direct cause of the latest crackdown.

"I think you have seen sustained price increases that have been a bit quicker than we would like in recent times, and the second point was that we started having discussions with the Reserve Bank, particularly around the speech that they gave, about what would be some alternatives," Key said when asked what had changed the Government's mind over the last five weeks and whether the Reserve Bank's April 15 speech had made a difference.

"They came up with the LVRs for investors. We thought this might complement that," he said.

'Unlikely to deflate Auckland prices'

He also said the Government's measures, along with the Reserve Bank's new LVR restrictions for Auckland landlords, were unlikely to deflate Auckland's property market, but may slow house price inflation, which was currently too high and not sustainable. He said the Government's measures were not a 'silver bullet'.

"We didn't model that number, or at least I didn't see any modelling," Key said when asked if the Government had done any modelling on the likely impact on house prices.

The Reserve Bank has modelled that its new LVR restrictions could reduce Auckland's annual house price inflation rate, which is the high teens at the moment, by two to four percentage points.

"The bottom line is a decent chunk of the houses that are bought are bought by people in the investor category and the rules for them changed yesterday. I would say a reasonable number, I don't know how large, but a number are bought  by non-residents ,and the rules for them changed yesterday. And thirdly, I think there are people who, out of ignorance or deliberately, were cheating the system and they will certainly be on notice that the system has changed. So will it have some impact? My guess is yes. How much I don't know," he said.

He also said the Government had not budgeted for any additional revenue over the next four years from the new 'bright line' test, although its extra NZ$29 million of spending on IRD compliance activity due to be announced in Thursday's Budget 2015 was forecast to generate an extra NZ$420 million. A March 2010 Treasury briefing paper recommending a five year test estimated annual revenues of NZ$30 million by the fourth year of the policy.

"We haven't budgeted for any additional revenue as a result of the changes we made yesterday because we are taking an ultra-conservative view," Key said.

"Do I think we will get more revenue? The bright line makes it much clearer,  much easier for IRD. They've got the $33 million we put into Budget 2013 and the $29 million we announced yesterday for Budget 2015. That's estimated to bring in $420 million. I suspect if we add into that what we are doing in terms of non-residents you will see a greater number but we just haven't budgeted what that might be," he said.

Key also reiterated the Government had no plans to introduce an Australian-style tax aimed specifically at non-resident investors, saying it would contravene Free Trade Agreements New Zealand had with Australia, Mexico and Japan.

He did say, however, that even though the Government did not plan a foreign buyers register, it would release the new IRD information from non-residents in aggregate.

"My preference would be to work towards releasing that information to you so you can see," Key said, adding however it may be difficult to separate out non-resident New Zealand citizens who are overseas on OEs.

(Updated with more quotes from news conference, details)

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.

36 Comments

I have been warning for some time, as the tax base shrinks the hunt for dodgers or new sources will expand.

Up
0

Especially if you are not a voter.

Up
0

Lol. Hang on... do I count because I don't vote?

Up
0

No. You don't count.
Stand up and vote, or don't complain.

Up
0

Is there choice?

Politics is broken, I want to vote for the antithesis of what we have today.

Up
0

If politics is broken, is that just a sign that society is broken? Remember, they represent the majority.

Up
0

I am being told to vote for people with no brains by someone also with no brains, yes I can see how that is going to help.

Up
0

So is he also saying that Australia's non-resident investor tax is breaching NZCER where New Zealanders (resident in New Zealand) buying property in Australia is concerned - or are New Zealanders exempt from that tax given the NZCER trade agreement is in place?

Can some reporter please ask?

Point is, if as he claims such a tax would breach FTAs we have with Australia, Mexico and Japan - fine, exempt their citizens from such a tax. How hard is that?

Excuses, excuses, excuses are wearing thin, thin, thin.

Up
0

Singapore and Victoria State in Australia both have an 'infrastructure tax' or stamp duties on foreign buyers (kiwi excepted in Australia). How did these countries which both have a multitude of Free trade agreements do this. The Australia move is interesting because if NZ doesn't follow suit with restrictions on immigration and foreign buyers then eventually Australia might put more restrictions on what kiwis can do in Australia to prevent back door entry by foreign buyers.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/overseas-property-investors-w…

Up
0

Government Policy initiated by Reserve Bank speeches?
The Government is unable/unwilling to do anything unless it's hand is forced.
Well, we look forward to spokespersons from our Universities, health Boards, Schools, IRD, Immigration, Polytechnics etc now able to move forward, make speeches, and initiate government policy as the Govt have none themselves other than tight fiscal control. No point in remaining silent anymore - hey you might get some quick policy improvements.

Up
0

You shouldn't have to kick a dog to get it to move.

Up
0

Sooo, did Key have one arm wrenched up behind his back when the announcement of this policy was made and if not allowing foreigners to buy our land is against fta's then surely that is proof positive that in terms of benefits, they aren't worth the paper they are written on - TPPA anyone?

Up
0

It won't do anything, those corrupted chinese officals don't purchase any assets under their name, they use their children, chidren's partner, wife, wife's relatives or alike to help them to "hide" their money here via property investment or other big assets purchase... every single chinese living in new zealand knows what's going on... i cannot belive nz government is such blind or somehow believe it is doing good to the economy.

Why do you think you have so many chinese students here, and all appered to be from the "rich" families????!!! 8 out of 10 are offsprings of those officals.

Kiwis heard many times-that chinese can sell their apartments in china and buy a million dollar home here....should ask yourself first... how could these chinese own multiple houses in china in the first place? Why there is a sudden surge in Auckland property market since Xi started his corruption crack down???

Maybe no one have told you kiwis, Xi JingPing is working on a property register in China to identiy more corrupted officals, because china also have local residency booklet system, it traces back your entire family,even your wife's sister... All corrupted officals have to sell before they get caught, hence why they are moving their money to overseas in a rush.

Xi have got his hands on Canada and USA house markets, nobody is willing to take the risk to invest there, the only two option left is Australia and New Zealand.

NZ government needs to wake up.

Up
0

At last - after 5 years of waiting - here is our first insider

Read carefully

Usually those that know don't tell

Up
0

This is nothing new, except maybe its hinting at the scale of it.

Up
0

The trouble is when our politicians retire they get looked after by those they looked after ie on the boards of companies, just take a look at whom is on the boards of the NZ branches of the Chinese banks and you can see why they seem to be deaf and blind to what is going on.

Up
0

It's called 'deferred bribes'. It's a common practice amongst American politicians.

Up
0

Turns out that Sabin, ex Northland MP has been appointed CEO of the big Chinese development at Cape Karikari up here in the North. Didn't he resign for "personal reasons"? We've got ex National MPs Jenny Shipley, Don Brash and Judith Collins in donkey deep with high profile Chinese businesses plus numerous examples of wealthy immigrants, many with some very dodgy history, getting fast tracked into the country with help from "our" elected representatives. Once they are here seems they have a personal hotline to sort out any problems with immigration, the police or "our" justice system.
Something doesn't smell quite right.

Up
0

We _know_ it's happening. the question is what can we do about it?

Up
0

An old Chinese guy told me this stuff about 8 years ago. That was before this recent crackdown on corruption occurred. He also said stuff like: he advised new Chinese immigrants here to not buy the new Merc or BMW. That it is better, safer to blend in...
He had a lot of stuff to say. eg Kidnapping of children was a common business practice related to corruption, debt payment enforcement over there.
In time, this sort of thing may increase here....

Up
0

Who are the cosy elite surrounding John Key and co and are they corrupting our system of governance. Is democracy at risk?

Ex No 10 insider says "We have, in some ways, regressed. Corruption used to be the norm in countries, democratic or otherwise. Power was inherited and bought; political appointments were traded for favours in a system under which the elites literally owned the state."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085342/Stop-listening-insular-…

Up
0

I fail to see how this Chinese free trade agreement is helping NZ. It's pretty common knowlege that they are a corrupt country. They have thrown all our markets out of kilter. I fail to see the benefit of letting a government controlled economy mess up our country?. maybe it's time our own politicians were investigated for corruption?

Up
0

Can somebody tell me, if a family home is in a Trust, is it (the trust) subject to capital gains tax if it sells within within 2 years?

Up
0

My opinion is that a trust is a seperate legal entity, so yes it will also be liable for CGT

Up
0

In New Zealand, Trusts are _not_ separate legal entities.

Companies are but Trusts aren't. The property and activity in a Trust are considered to be actions of the Trustees. The difference is that the property is being held be the Trustees for a specific purpose.
This is one of the reason the tax for gifting to Trusts was removed, since the Trust is the same as the Trustee, and instead the disbursements are taxable.

A Trust is one step more removed than a Sole Proprietorship (which is more a trading enterprise, and again not a separate legal entity).

But not as removed as a Company, which is considered a separate entity for it's actions and ownership/trade.

I haven't got personal experience in Partnerships so can't give definite answer there.

The separate legal entity things is also why you shouldn't use a Trust as a trading enterprise. If you're going to be trading/running a business that a Trust's beneficiaries are receiving benefits then it would be more proper to setup the Trust, then establish a Company with the Trust holding a portion of the shares. This clarifies things such as which are Trust assets (for enjoyment of beneficiaries), and which are company business assets (for operating business/making profit). Doing this also means that day to day business management decisions can be signed off by the Company staff (managers, directors), rather than having to get every little thing co-signed by all the Trustees. Whether a Look Through Company (LTC) is required to pass losses back to the shareholders to claim as tax deductions, or to use a Limited Liability Company (LTD) which isolates all losses to the company and protects claims being made again the assets entrusted to the Trust but stops losses being passed as tax benefits to shareholders (it just gets rolled over to the next company year). The bonus of the setting up of a company is that other investors can come and go, buying and selling or having buyback, to the company just as normal business activity without worrying about it from a Trust or Trustee perspective.

Up
0

You are re-writing history Cowboy

When did New Zealand re-write the Trustee 1956 Act?

Must have been in the last 20 years while I wasn't looking

Up
0

Check with your accountant and lawyer. Trusts aren't separate legal entities, which is why you need to get all the Trustees to sign all the time (as the actual owners).

Up
0

I am. I do. I talk to myself all the time

Up
0

The "Trust document" isn't considered to be a incorporation instrument either. It's legally considered to a recognised written "Undertaking" by the Trustees.

Which is why changing a Trustee is such a major pain in the butt because it effectively means the old Undertaking must be signed off, and then recreated by the new Trustees.

That's also why when you do your IR6 (income return for Trust) the Trusts own retained profits are referred to in the documentation as "Trustee Income". Which really threw me the first few years. The Trust can't have income... as it's not an entity! All the income therefore belongs to the "Trustees" collectively but since the Trustees can have different tax rates, the Trusts activities are ringfenced and taxed at the one rate as "Trustee Income". as opposed to disbursements which are beneficiary incomes and can be taxed at the Trust end (preferably) or by the receiving beneficiary (if appropriate). The Trusts I manage (Trustee) for are still in growth phases so have only Trustee Income so far. (I'm not the Settlor)

Up
0

Incorporate a company and make the company the trustee (Corporate Trustee), the directors of the company then have the powers of the trustee. You can change the directors of a company very easily whilst the trustee remains the company.

Up
0

In a Trust the trustee(s) is/are considered the legal owner of the property in the Trust (without being allowed to have full ownership rights).

Thus a Trust like any other person (natural born or corporate) will be subject to the law.
The question that would be asked is why you would be selling a _family_ home if you only had it under two years.

Personally I would like to think that a call and letter to the IRD, explaining your rather extraordinary circumstances that you were forced to sell, would find a favourable ear considering that there can't be too many people is such extenuating circumstances.
Of course, in my case the "someone offered me a fistful of munny" would not qualify in the new rules, as it would indicate significant capital gains, even if the _intention_ wasn't to sell, the _actuality_ was the gain was significant to be worth liquidating. Exactly the kind of fringe case the rules want to catch.

Up
0

A Trust is a separate legal entity

Trustees can come and go while the Trust continues in perpetuity

Ownership of the assets of the trust do not change with a change of trustee

The Trustee is simply the guardian

Up
0

Incorrect, a Trust can only exist for a maximum of 99 years.
If a trustee is added or removed, then the trust documents need to be re-issued and sign off's should be gained indemnifying the exiting Trustee(s) against any future claims against the Trust.
The incoming trustees also need to be aware that they are personally liable for seeing that the property of the Trust is properly managed and that any problem relating to Trust property is considered to be their personal action.

this is one of the reasons we had such large problems finding new Trustees for the FreeMason lodgerooms and property. It used to be a way of retiring off the dedicated but elderly members and give them something of importance.
But it came to light that many Trusts and Beneficiaries had no idea who their trustees were, and the Trustees often hadn't been in contact for years.
With the shake down we lost lots of Trustees and many weren't willing to take on the job knowing that they would actually have to take personal involvement and responsibility for the management of the Trust. If there was a problem such as a break-in and someone was hurt, or maintenance not done and it caused an accident, the Trustees were responsible. It was considered that they had given a legal Undertaking that they would operate the property as their own for the benefit of the beneficairies. Such a statement has strong legal grounds and the property is "as their own", not "best efforts"/"when it's convenient" because the Trust itself isn't an entity, merely a statement of a collective of people Trustees.

Up
0

..Cowboy is correct. A trust is not a legal entity. The assets are owned by the trustees... personally.

Up
0

thanks for the time and effort Cowboy. Really interesting. I feel like there are a lot of people out there with misconceptions about trusts -I suspect they are not what they used to be, or people never understood them in the first place.

Up
0

hand over a $5 note with a particular serial number on it to identify [your]herself...and.

Ms Jiao, who holds both Taiwanese and New Zealand passports, will be released in December after serving a years' jail, and will then be subject to a four-month good behaviour bond...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/5-note-leads-woman-to-a-bag-of-cash-at-the-st…

Up
0