DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effectiveness of Tax Reviews in New Zealand: an Evaluation and Proposal for Improvement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effectiveness of Tax Reviews in New Zealand: an Evaluation and Proposal for Improvement THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX REVIEWS IN NEW ZEALAND: AN EVALUATION AND PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENT The Centre for Commercial and Corporate Law Inc 2020 i The Effectiveness of Tax Reviews in New Zealand: An Evaluation and Proposal for Improvement Published in Christchurch by The Centre for Commercial & Corporate Law Inc School of Law, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand ISBN 978-0-473-52769-3 This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and on the conditions prescribed by the Copyright Act no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means whether electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright owner(s). The publisher, authors and editors expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person whether a purchaser of this publication or not in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted in reliance in whole or part. Published by the University of Canterbury ii Foreword FOREWORD This book proposes the establishment of a New Zealand Taxation Review Commission (NZTRC). It develops its argument for this in two ways. First, there is a survey of ad hoc tax reviews between 1922 and 2019. This survey ends with an analysis of the learnings that can be drawn from these reviews and draws together some thoughts on the characteristics of ‘best practice’ for review committees. Secondly, lessons are sought from a selection of permanent bodies that consider aspects of tax policy in a number of other countries. The final part of the book is the development of a plan for the Commission, concluding with draft legislation for its implementation. This book presents a survey of a 100 years of tax reviews in Aotearoa New Zealand. Coincidentally, those reviews are book-ended by two global pandemics (as a random aside, the 1922 Committee into Taxation made no reference to the global pandemic of 1918/19.) Over that century, taxation has been transformed. Some simplistic measures reveal a glimpse of this change. The Land and Income Tax 1916 contained 168 sections and was 42 pages long. The Income Tax Act 2007 is 2,400 pages long, counting the section numbers would numb the brain, and it is only one of the Revenue Acts. In 1919, the Government’s tax revenue (in descending order of magnitude) was from income tax (newly emerged as the principal source of revenue), customs duty, stamp and death duties, and land tax. In 2019, the sources of revenue (in same order) were income tax, goods and services tax, and excises. In 1918, about 36,000 taxpayers paid income tax in a total population of 1.15 million. In 2019, there were about 3.8 million income taxpayers in a population of just under 5 million. No doubt there are a number of other random measures that could be chosen to illustrate the change. All point in the same direction. Tax, its forms, and its collection and administration have changed immensely over the last century. In Sawyer’s view, few of the committees achieved much when we take a short-term perspective from the time of the report. But on a longer-term perspective, most have left a ‘significant’ but not usually ‘substantial’ impact. The one with the most lasting impact is probably the 1994 Organisational Review. Sawyer has mapped out a route through this century of transformation using 10 of these Reports. It is probably not a definitive list. For example, there was the 1952 Commission of Inquiry into the Taxation of Maori Authorities. There may be others. But the chosen 10 are the important markers. For scholars of legal history and, more particularly, tax history this survey provides material for further study. Linking these reports to broader questions of tax policy development and economic history would be an interesting project, or more likely several interesting projects. Beyond that potential use, this analysis gives a useful description of how tax policy has been developed over the years. Given the radical changes in taxation and tax policy over the past 100 years and Sawyer’s doubts about the iii The Effectiveness of Tax Reviews in New Zealand: An Evaluation and Proposal for Improvement lasting influence of them, the description ‘ad hoc’ seems most apt. That sets the scene for the proposals for a more coherent approach. Sawyer makes the case for a permanent Taxation Review Commission, or at least a semi-permanent one. He constructs this by drawing on the lessons from past reviews and here the principles of best practice are especially useful to his case. Secondly, he considers permanent bodies in a number of countries that perform some of the roles he envisages for the New Zealand Commission. He envisages that the mission and role of the Commission involves establishing ‘principles of taxation’ and studying, examining and if necessary recommending changes to New Zealand’s tax system. This model is fully developed, including an outline of draft legislation. No doubt further work would be required before legislation could be passed and, in this regard, much could probably be learned from the New Zealand Law Commission. Established in 1986, the Law Commission has provided independent reviews of many areas of law and made recommendations to its responsible Minister. Its practice of developing issues papers, undertaking extensive consultation and the use of expert reference groups has proved a helpful model. There are probably many insights that could be brought to bear on developing this tax specific body from New Zealand’s experience with a permanent body designed, as its purpose states, for the ‘systematic review, reform and development of the law in New Zealand’. The development of tax policy currently rests with Inland Revenue’s Policy and Strategy Group, working jointly with Treasury. Policy is developed using the Generic Tax Policy Process, a framework that has been used since 1995. This does involve extensive consultation but there are no independent voices in the process. The Policy and Strategy Group also drafts tax legislation. All other legislation in New Zealand is drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, a separate statutory body established by the Legislation Act 2012 and under the control of the Attorney-General. Tax disputes are subject to a mandatory disputes resolution system administered by Inland Revenue and which is designed to have as many cases resolved internally as possible. This has probably been the most successful civil justice reform initiative in New Zealand’s history, if keeping cases out of tribunals and courts is the measure of success. There is a specialist tax tribunal, the Taxation Review Authority, but it hears a mere handful of cases a year, although a larger number do make their way to the High Court. In summary, Inland Revenue does policy development, writes the legislation, applies it and adjudicates on it when the taxpayer disagrees. Inland Revenue has a monopoly of most of the process. Further, New Zealand is relatively unusual internationally in not having a specific Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Taxpayer Charter, Tax Ombudsman or Tax Advocate. There are such instruments and/or persons in, for example, Australia, United States, Canada, South Africa, Mexico. The creation of a Tax Review Commission would bring some independent voices to the process. As Sawyer states, ‘[p]olitical considerations should not inform the work of the NZTRC, rather well-established good tax policy guidance should iv Foreword be the basis’. But as he also reminds us, it must be ‘remembered that Parliament ultimately determines the law’. That points of course to that basic constitutional principle in the New Zealand system. The Constitution Act 1986 s 22 states that it is not lawful for the Crown to levy tax ‘except by an Act of Parliament’. But as Sawyer goes on to note, the law is ‘in practice heavily influenced by the Executive.’ The development of good tax policy is essential for New Zealand’s economic well-being. More esoterically, but just as importantly, the development of it in a sound institutional manner is essential for New Zealand’s well-being. Those institutions need to be structurally robust, outwardly focussed on the breadth and diversity of interests in New Zealand society, permanent, professional and independent. Sawyer’s model of a NZTRC should be carefully considered. The existing system of policy development by a professional, independent civil service supplemented by occasional specialist committees has not been ineffective. But that does not mean that a re-think is not a worthwhile project. This book makes a valuable contribution to public policy in New Zealand. It is not just for ‘tax nerds’ (although there is plenty in it for them), but for all interested in New Zealand’s economic and social wellbeing and those concerned about robust policy development. His proposal warrants serious consideration. Let us hope it gets it. Shelley Griffiths Professor of Law University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand May 2020 v The Effectiveness of Tax Reviews in New Zealand: An Evaluation and Proposal for Improvement PREFACE “We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience” John Dewey Tax committees are integral to a number of jurisdictions in terms of undertaking an extensive review of their tax system (whether in whole or in part), undertaking consultation with the private sector over proposed tax policy changes, and more generally, having an influence on the tax policy framework as a jurisdiction reviews the appropriateness of all or parts of its tax system. This book adopts an exploratory case study as it reviews and reflects on the role of ad hoc tax committees in New Zealand over the last 95 years from the early– 1920s to mid–2019.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dinner Speech at the Conclusion of The
    1085 DINNER SPEECH George Barton QC* This conference, now ending, has provided a special opportunity for those who have long admired Sir Ivor Richardson to celebrate his outstanding contribution to New Zealand, over many decades. All of those who have taken an active part in the Conference will have been honoured to co-operate in such wonderful festschrift. It has been like basking in reflected glory! On occasions like this, it has become almost traditional practice to recapitulate the biographical data of the guest of honour. The temptation to follow the standard practice should be resisted. Sir Ivor needs no reminding that he was born in Ashburton, was a pupil at Timaru Boys' High School, graduated in 1953 with an LLB degree from Canterbury University College of the University of New Zealand - and so on! Indeed, being constantly reminded of the basic facts in dinner-speech after dinner-speech, Sir Ivor might well be justified in drawing the inference that doubts are held about his ability to recall the most elementary facts about his own life. It is sometimes said that a mandatory age of retirement is explained as a kind of statutory presumption of senility. There is no room for such a rationalisation in Sir Ivor's case. But it must be acknowledged that mandatory retirement does avoid the kind of problems that seem to have arisen in the past when some Judges were able to remain on the Bench until their 80s, or even their 90s. One remarkable example was Salathiel Lovell, who was on the verge of 90 years of age when, in 1708, he was appointed a Baron of the Court of Exchequer in England.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand 1 │
    NEW ZEALAND 1 │ Taxing Energy Use 2019: Country Note - New Zealand This note explains how New Zealand taxes energy use. The note shows the distribution of effective energy tax rates – the sum of fuel excise taxes, explicit carbon taxes, and electricity excise taxes, net of applicable exemptions, rate reductions, and refunds – across all domestic energy use. It also details the country-specific assumptions made when calculating effective energy tax rates and matching tax rates to the corresponding energy base. The note complements the Taxing Energy Use 2019 report that is available at http://oe.cd/TEU2019. The report analyses where OECD and G20 countries stand in deploying energy and carbon taxes, tracks progress made, and makes actionable recommendations on how governments could do better to use taxes to reach environmental and climate goals. The general methodology employed to calculate effective energy tax rates and assign tax rates to the energy base is explained in Chapter 1 of the report. The official energy tax profile for New Zealand can be found in Chapter 2 of the report. Chapter 3 additionally shows effective carbon tax rates per tonne of CO2, and presents the corresponding carbon tax profiles for all countries. The report also contains StatLinks to the official data. Structure of energy taxation in New Zealand As at 1 July 2018,1 the main taxes on energy use in New Zealand are the following: • Excise taxes, earmarked to the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), apply to gasoline, LPG and CNG, methanol when used for propellant purposes. • As at 1 July 2018, gasoline and diesel used in the Auckland region is additionally subject to a surcharge of NZD 0.10 per litre.2 • In addition, several levies apply at very low rates, compared to the excise taxes.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploratory Overview of Property Taxation in the Commonwealth of Nations Riël C.D. Franzsen and William J. Mccluskey
    An Exploratory Overview of Property Taxation in the Commonwealth of Nations Riël C.D. Franzsen and William J. McCluskey © 2005 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper The findings and conclusions of this paper are not subject to detailed review and do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Please do not photocopy without permission of the authors. Contact the authors directly with all questions or requests for permission. Lincoln Institute Product Code: WP05RF1 Abstract This study provides an overview of the property tax systems in the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as Zimbabwe (a member state until its withdrawal in 2003) and Montserrat, a British dependency. An annual tax on property is levied in 49 of the 55 countries studied. For a variety of reasons property tax is not utilised optimally in any one of the 46 developing countries studied. However, it is generally recognised in most of these countries that property tax could and should become a more important source of own revenue for especially urban municipalities or, in respect of the various small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific region, where local government does not exist, at central government level. Although comprehensive property tax legislation exists in most of the jurisdictions studied, giving practical effect to the provisions of the law presents problems in many of these countries – with the developed countries the general exceptions. A wide variety of tax bases are used and typically the property tax coverage in many if not most of the developing countries is unsatisfactory.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Estate and Inheritance Tax Guide
    Worldwide Estate and Inheritance Tax Guide 2021 Preface he Worldwide Estate and Inheritance trusts and foundations, settlements, Tax Guide 2021 (WEITG) is succession, statutory and forced heirship, published by the EY Private Client matrimonial regimes, testamentary Services network, which comprises documents and intestacy rules, and estate Tprofessionals from EY member tax treaty partners. The “Inheritance and firms. gift taxes at a glance” table on page 490 The 2021 edition summarizes the gift, highlights inheritance and gift taxes in all estate and inheritance tax systems 44 jurisdictions and territories. and describes wealth transfer planning For the reader’s reference, the names and considerations in 44 jurisdictions and symbols of the foreign currencies that are territories. It is relevant to the owners of mentioned in the guide are listed at the end family businesses and private companies, of the publication. managers of private capital enterprises, This publication should not be regarded executives of multinational companies and as offering a complete explanation of the other entrepreneurial and internationally tax matters referred to and is subject to mobile high-net-worth individuals. changes in the law and other applicable The content is based on information current rules. Local publications of a more detailed as of February 2021, unless otherwise nature are frequently available. Readers indicated in the text of the chapter. are advised to consult their local EY professionals for further information. Tax information The WEITG is published alongside three The chapters in the WEITG provide companion guides on broad-based taxes: information on the taxation of the the Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide, the accumulation and transfer of wealth (e.g., Worldwide Personal Tax and Immigration by gift, trust, bequest or inheritance) in Guide and the Worldwide VAT, GST and each jurisdiction, including sections on Sales Tax Guide.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Tax Policy Considerations
    Third Sector Enterprise: Some Tax Policy Considerations Jonathan Barrett and John Veal* I INTRODUCTION Bright lines do not satisfactorily demarcate charitable and entrepreneurial operational domains.1 In New Zealand, for example, Sanitarium,2 the non-spiritual arm of the Seventh Day Adventist church, directly competes with multinational corporations,3 such as Kellogg’s,4 and domestic firms, notably Hubbard’s,5 in the field of breakfast cereals.6 * School of Business, Open Polytechnic, New Zealand. This paper should be considered work in progress. 1 Of the total income for non-profit institutions, 61 percent came from the sale of goods and services.’ See ‘Statistics New Zealand, Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account: 2004 (2007) <http://www.stats.govt.nz>. 2 The Sanitarium brand is used in New Zealand by the New Zealand Health Association Ltd which is owned by The New Zealand Conference Association, itself part of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in New Zealand 1 group; the latter two organisations are registered charities. For convenience sake, Sanitarium will be referred to as if it were a trading company. 3 It may be noted that Sanitarium manifests the kinds of behaviour expected of multinational corporations particularly in defending its intellectual property. See, for example, Garry Williams, ‘Marmite® v Ma’amite: Why did Sanitarium® freak?’ NZlawyer (Online), 9 November 2012 <http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/NZLawyerextraarchive/Bulletin62/extra62F1/tabid/4820/Default.a spx>. 4 Kellogg (New Zealand) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kellogg (Aust.) Pty. Ltd and part of the United States-listed Kellogg’s Company. Kellogg’s bases its corporate responsibility strategy on ‘the four pillars’ of ‘Marketplace, Workplace, Environment and Community’.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Avoidance: Causes and Solutions
    Tax Avoidance: Causes and Solutions Ling Zhang Master of Business 2007 The thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Business. Table of content 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3 1.1 Background Overview ................................................................................................. 3 1.2 New Zealand tax system .............................................................................................. 4 1.3 New Zealand Tax Policy .............................................................................................. 6 1.4 History of New Zealand income tax ............................................................................ 6 1.5 Tax avoidance in New Zealand .................................................................................... 7 1.6 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Defining tax avoidance ............................................................................. 9 2.1 Modeling tax avoidance – accounting analysis .......................................................... 10 2.2 Income splitting .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Description .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Case law .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • V.Alum 2012Pdf3mb
    FACULTYFACULTY OFOF LAWLAW A YEARYEAR ININ REVIEWREVIEW 20122012 Welcome to another edition of V.Alum ACH YEAR FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS it has been my privilege to E introduce you to our year’s work and the many achievements of our staff and students. I am always compelled to state how proud I am of those achievements and you, as readers, are within your rights to think ‘He would say that, wouldn’t he?’ (as Mandy Rice Davies said of a witness to the judge of her trial). This year is a little different. The work and talent of this Faculty has been judged in the QS World University Rankings by Subject, a global ranking that compares universities across 29 individual disciplines. The ranking features over 600 universities from 27 countries in the world, using more than 50,000 responses from academics and employers, and is the largest survey of its kind to date. The Faculty of Law at Victoria ranked highest in law for a New Zealand university, in the top five of law faculties in Australasia and 23rd in the world. It is wonderfully satisfying to have all the hard work, persistence and sheer talent of my colleagues recognised. On a more domestic note, our students feel the same way. In a survey of “Student Experience” conducted by Victoria University, we scored 89% in terms of satisfaction with their experience of this Faculty. This result is also rewarding in a different way. Our students are our ambassadors and a reflection of our core values and abilities. James G.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Information Act Response 20200139
    Reference: 20200139 8 June 2020 s9(2)(a) Dear s9(2)(a) Thank you for your Official Information Act request, received on 7 April 2020. You requested the following: I request a copy of the report referred to in the Newshub item on August 3 2019 that referred to a Treasury report dated 2018/08 ‘Treasury Officials Recommend Government Look at Universal Basic Income,’ Newshub, August 3, 2018, https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/ politics/2018/08/treasury-officials-recommend-government-look-at-universal- basicincome.html. and a copy of any "correspondence" relating to this story / report over the previous 6 months and 6 months after its release. On 22 April 2020 the time period was clarified to 6 months either side of the release of the report - i.e. from 3 March 2018 to 3 February 2019. Information being released Please find enclosed the following documents: Item Date Document Description Decision 1. 13 March 2018 T2018/613 – Establishing the Released in full Welfare Overhaul: Draft Terms of Reference and Appointment of Chair. I have decided to release the document listed above, subject to information being withheld under the following section of the Official Information Act, as applicable: Direct dial phone numbers of officials, under section 9(2)(k) – to prevent the disclosure of information for improper gain or improper advantage. 1 The Terrace PO Box 3724 Wellington 6140 New Zealand tel. +64-4-472-2733 https://treasury.govt.nz Direct dial phone numbers of officials have been redacted under section 9(2)(k) in order to reduce the possibility of staff being exposed to phishing and other scams.
    [Show full text]
  • CA ANZ's Submission to the Tax Working Group
    Tax Working Group ––––––– CA ANZ Submission on the Future of Taxation, April 2018 i Introduction Sir Michael Cullen, Secretariat of the Tax Working Group By Email We welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Tax Working Group on the future of taxation in New Zealand. CA ANZ would like make an oral submission in relation to our submission. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand We are a professional body of over 117,000 Chartered Accountants around the world. We focus on the education and lifelong learning of our members, and on advocacy and thought leadership in areas of public interest and business. General Position In formulating its submissions, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand takes a best practice, public policy perspective. That is, we endeavour to provide comment on a “what is best for New Zealand” basis. We recognise Government’s legitimate right to set tax policy direction. We comment on those policies, and also make comment on their practical implementation. Our public policy perspective means we endeavour to provide comment free from self-interest or sectorial bias. Research confirms that in practice the best tax system is one with a broad tax base and low tax rates. Such an approach restricts the conditions that make tax avoidance attractive. Our guiding principles in formulating this submission are that New Zealand’s tax system must not impede New Zealand’s international competitiveness; growth of the New Zealand economy; and innovation and entrepreneurship. Recognising there are judgments and trade-offs, taxes should, as far as possible: be simple in their application; provide certainty in their application; © Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand ABN 50 084 642 571 (CA ANZ).
    [Show full text]
  • Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence
    Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence Editor Dr Richard A Benton Editor: Dr Richard Benton The Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence is published annually by the University of Waikato, Te Piringa – Faculty of Law. Subscription to the Yearbook costs NZ$40 (incl gst) per year in New Zealand and US$45 (including postage) overseas. Advertising space is available at a cost of NZ$200 for a full page and NZ$100 for a half page. Communications should be addressed to: The Editor Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence School of Law The University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton 3240 New Zealand North American readers should obtain subscriptions directly from the North American agents: Gaunt Inc Gaunt Building 3011 Gulf Drive Holmes Beach, Florida 34217-2199 Telephone: 941-778-5211, Fax: 941-778-5252, Email: [email protected] This issue may be cited as (2010) Vol 13 Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence. All rights reserved ©. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1994, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission of the publisher. ISSN No. 1174-4243 Yearbook of New ZealaNd JurisprudeNce Volume 13 2010 Contents foreword The Hon Sir Anand Satyanand i preface – of The Hon Justice Sir David Baragwanath v editor’s iNtroductioN ix Dr Alex Frame, Wayne Rumbles and Dr Richard Benton 1 Dr Alex Frame 20 Wayne Rumbles 29 Dr Richard A Benton 38 Professor John Farrar 51 Helen Aikman QC 66 certaiNtY Dr Tamasailau Suaalii-Sauni 70 Dr Claire Slatter 89 Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie 112 The Hon Justice Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie 152 Robert Joseph 160 a uNitarY state The Hon Justice Paul Heath 194 Dr Grant Young 213 The Hon Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox 224 Dr Guy Powles 238 Notes oN coNtributors 254 foreword 1 University, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, I greet you in the Niuean, Tokelauan and Sign Language.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Submissions: Michael Littlewood
    Tax Working Group Public Submissions Information Release Release Document September 2018 taxworkingroup.govt.nz/key-documents Key to sections of the Official Information Act 1982 under which information has been withheld. Certain information in this document has been withheld under one or more of the following sections of the Official Information Act, as applicable: [1] 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons, including deceased people; [2] 9(2)(k) - to prevent the disclosure of official information for improper gain or improper advantage. Where information has been withheld, a numbered reference to the applicable section of the Official Information Act has been made, as listed above. For example, a [1] appearing where information has been withheld in a release document refers to section 9(2)(a). In preparing this Information Release, the Treasury has considered the public interest considerations in section 9(1) of the Official Information Act. SUBMISSIONS TO THE TAX WORKING GROUP 2018 MICHAEL LITTLEWOOD Contact details Professor Michael Littlewood University of Auckland Law School [1] 30 April 2018 INTRODUCTION 1. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Auckland Law School. My principal field of expertise is tax law and tax policy. I have published extensively in these areas both in New Zealand and in other countries. I am a fulltime academic but I have also from time to time provided advice to individuals, business interests and the governments of several countries. I make these submissions in my personal capacity. 2. On 14 March 2018 the Tax Working Group recently established by the government published a paper called Future of Tax: Submissions Background Paper.
    [Show full text]
  • IRRUIP15 – Income Tax – Trusts and the Australian-New Zealand Double Tax Agreement (PUB00339)
    26 March 2021 Public Consultation Inland Revenue Wellington By email: [email protected] Re: IRRUIP15 – Income tax – trusts and the Australian-New Zealand Double Tax Agreement (PUB00339) 1. Introduction 1.1 The New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa (Law Society) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Issues Paper: IRRUIP15 – Income tax – trusts and the Australian- New Zealand Double Tax Agreement (issues paper). The Law Society appreciates Inland Revenue’s willingness to consult with interested parties on these complex issues. The Law Society’s Tax Law Committee has reviewed the issues paper and comments are provided below. 2. References to complying trusts, foreign trusts and non-complying trusts 2.1 The issues paper takes the position that the trustee of a complying trust is “liable to tax as a resident”, and therefore entitled to treaty relief, but a trustee of a foreign trust or a non- complying trust is not. In this respect, the analysis in the issues paper is based on a fundamental misconception about how income derived by trustees is taxed in New Zealand. 2.2 Contrary to the position taken in the issues paper, whether a trustee is subject to comprehensive taxation in New Zealand (i.e. taxed in New Zealand on the trustee’s worldwide income) turns on whether a settlor of the trust is tax resident in New Zealand at any time during the income year, whether (if the trust is a foreign trust with a New Zealand tax resident trustee) the trustee has complied with its disclosure obligations under the Tax Administration Act 1994, and whether an election has been made to pay New Zealand income tax on the trustee’s worldwide income (including any non-resident withholding income).
    [Show full text]