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

Govt unveils series of tax tweaks for banks, farmers and rich families as cashed up IRD reaps extra NZ$115.2 mln in unpaid tax

Rural News
Govt unveils series of tax tweaks for banks, farmers and rich families as cashed up IRD reaps extra NZ$115.2 mln in unpaid tax

By Bernard Hickey

The government has detailed a series of tweaks for banks, farmers and rich families claiming Working For Families payments that could raise at least NZ$31 million.

The Budget 2011 announcements came as the government revealed the Inland Revenue Department's crackdown on tax avoidance had already gathered NZ$115.2 million of tax inside the first nine months of the crackdown.

Last year the IRD was allocated NZ$119.3 million over four years to help chase down tax avoiders. So far the IRD had recovered NZ$5.74 in tax for every NZ$1 spent on investigating avoidance.

"In these difficult times, anything short of full compliance with tax obligations is effectively stealing from the honest New Zealand taxpayers paying their due. I am committed to following up on tax evaders," Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said.

Dunne said the government would change 'thin capitalisation rules' for foreign-owned banks from 4% to 6% from April 1 2012. The change limits the amount of debt that non-banking multinationals can use to increase their interest deductions for tax purposes.

The change would raise around NZ$8 million of extra tax revenues in the first year and a further NZ$31 million in each subseqent fiscal year, Dunne said.

He also announced plans to review the treatment of non cash benefits for employees claiming Working For Families so they could not be used to dampen down taxable income.

The government would also review the tax treatment of 'mixed-use' assets such as yachts and holiday homes.

"There have been instances where high-value assets such as yachts and holiday homes which are both rented out and used privately have provided owners with inflated tax deductions, which either result in less taxable rental income or tax losses that can be used to offset other income," Dunne said.

"Everyone would like to own a holiday home, but it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer," he said.

Livestock valuations

Dunne said the government had begun looking at options for fairer rules covering livestock valuation elections.

Under the current rules, farmers usually value their livestock for tax purposes under one of two valuation methods -- the herd scheme or the national standard cost scheme.

"Under current rules, a farmer can switch back and forth between the two methods, choosing the more favourable outcome for tax purposes. This can mean increases in market valuations go untaxed, while decreases in valuation can be eligible for tax deductions," Dunne said.

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.

10 Comments

Small time player this Dunne guy unfortunatly we will be subsidising this conman for the rest of his life.

"Everyone would like to own a holiday home, but it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer," he said. 

I think its more a case of we the citizens are sick of subsidising you and bankers!

You make enough coin a week more than the average kiwi why dont you go sort out your own retirement like the rest of us have to?

Theres a saving straight away...now add all the other poor preforming confidence tricksters and I bet that saving would be more than 30 million per year... 

Up
0

Errr... Dunne needs to learn about the livestock schemes. In one you pay no tax for 'increases' but neither is there a deduction for 'losses'.  In the other one you pay on 'profit' and deduct on 'losses'.

Actually agree with the holiday house rort coming to an end.

Up
0

Good job with the holiday home one, it's a joke claiming back expenses on holiday homes.

Up
0

* How many government MPs do NOT have at least one holiday home?

* How likely is it that National and Bill English (Southland dairy farmer from Southland dairy farm family, brother of Federated Farmers CEO Connor English) will ever take anything even remotely resembling a "hard line" of any sort against NZ farmers?

* How likely is it that this government (fruit of the loins of NZ's wealthiest families, best friend of Big Business, implementor of significant tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest, increaser of GST) will ever take anything even remotely resembling a "hard line" of any sort against NZ's wealthy?

Bill English placed his million-dollar family home into a trust administered by his wife then claimed a $50,000 per year accommodation allowance from NZ taxpayers. He used NZ tax dollars to bail out SCF "investors" for HIGHLY suspect reasons. He plotted to sell Kiwibank while assuring the nation that he had no plans to sell Kiwibank. He has thrown a spanner into the Kiwisaver works, and he is borrowing NZ into the poor house.

This is not a government of or for the people, except its own people and those at the very top, who are usually one and the same thing.

Up
0

He came from sheep farming stock, not dairy

Up
0

Just to tweak your figures: Double Dipton the Southland farmer  -- not to mention Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister -- was gifted $900 p/w by oblivious taxpayers to live in his own $1.2m home.

Other than that, I'd say you were essentially correct on all points.

Up
0

Bill English was legally entitled to claim that allowance. He did nothing wrong yet English paid it all back even though he didn't have to. You can be sure that every Labour MP was claiming the same allowance but none of them repaid anything. That's why people trust Bill English but no one trusts Labour.

Up
0

Hmm. Yet to meet anyone who trusts any politician.  Labour, National, ACT and so on....

(there was a guy who died a couple of years ago that some people seemed to trust... Notiable due to the rarity.)

Up
0

If he was doing nothing wrong, why did he repay the money?

After all, his boss even threatened anyone who so much as mentioned the issue.

Was it because the Auditor General's office announced they would be investigating the legality of English's nice wee earner?

Up
0

A character straight out of Orwell's book - a pig who believes some pigs are more equal than others.  That he reimbursed the taxpayer for his largesse means nothing - as we still pay him, which is frankly more than he deserves from any one of us as taxpayers.

Up
0