Video | Agriculture | Confidence | Economy | Energy | Employment | Finance | Media | Property | RBNZ | Science | SOEs | Tax | Technology | Telecoms | Tourism | Transport | Search

 


Kiwi expat tax ruling

Kiwi expat tax ruling

10 years living outside New Zealand not enough to lose tax residence for Kiwi expats


At first glance, this is the key message of a recent Taxation Review Authority (TRA) case, says Rebecca Armour, head of KPMG’s International Expatriate Services tax team. It has the potential to undermine the non-resident tax status of a number of expatriate New Zealanders who may otherwise have considered themselves well and truly outside Inland Revenue’s reach.

The case involved a former soldier who left New Zealand permanently in 2003 to work in overseas hotspots as a security consultant. He was separated from his wife at the time of leaving (and later divorced) and had children, who remained in New Zealand. Financial support was provided and he held some New Zealand property investments (including some jointly with his ex-wife). The security consultant (taxpayer) also visited New Zealand every 5-6 months, including to see his immediate and extended family.

The tax residency rules are complex, and a high level of judgement is generally required in applying the rules, says Armour. Broadly, a person is deemed to be a New Zealand tax resident if they have a “permanent place of abode” here. Permanent place of abode tests the relationships or connections a person has with New Zealand, and their durability. A key part of the test is having a home or other property (“dwelling”) in which to live.

The TRA found that one of the taxpayer’s rental property investments constituted an available dwelling. Because the property was let on a periodic, rather than fixed term basis, the TRA considered it theoretically could be made available at short notice to the taxpayer. Its location in the same area as the taxpayer’s ex-wife and his children were living was also considered a relevant factor. This was notwithstanding the taxpayer never having lived in the property and arguing that he could not simply evict the tenants due to the way the property was owned.

This is a worrying development according to Armour, as it potentially puts expatriates’ New Zealand property investments directly in Inland Revenue’s crosshairs, even if they have purchased solely with the intention of renting.

The other link to New Zealand emphasised by the TRA was family connections. Namely the taxpayer’s continuing relationship with his children, including providing financial support and regular visits. The taxpayer’s close business relationship with his ex-wife was also noted.

While some emphasis can be placed on family ties, in the residence context, Armour says that in the present case the taxpayer argued that his relationship with his former spouse and children had actually broken down while he was overseas.

The lack of economic, social or family ties to another country (or countries) also did not help the taxpayer. While the Judge accepted that the overseas locations in which the taxpayer was based were not conducive to putting down roots, he considered that this made it difficult to place any weight on ties to countries other than New Zealand.

The decision also highlights the importance of (1) evidencing the intention to leave New Zealand permanently, and (2) doing this contemporaneously, says Armour. The failure to do this resulted in the TRA placing little weight on what may have otherwise been a very important factor in the taxpayer’s favour.

Overall, the decision is surprising says Armour, as most would expect 10 years away is long enough to sever tax residency ties with New Zealand, regardless of visits, investments, and family connections here. Certainly, past Inland Revenue guidance on this issue would suggest this is the case.

Very disappointing is how Armour describes the TRA’s finding that the taxpayer’s position, if viewed objectively, failed to meet the standard of being about as likely as not to be correct, and as a result penalties for taxing an unacceptable tax position were justified. While each residence case must be considered on its facts, it is very difficult to see how the taxpayer’s fact pattern and arguments did not support at least a 50% probability of success.

A pessimistic view is that New Zealanders now need to break all ties with New Zealand to be confident they no longer retain New Zealand tax residence when they leave to work and live overseas. Bluntly, this suggests no investment properties or close family connections. This is particularly relevant for expatriates working in countries not covered by New Zealand’s network of Double Tax Agreements, such as the Middle East, Africa, South America and parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. (DTAs offer some protection in situations like these by limiting New Zealand’s rights to tax.) Taking a contra position could result not just in additional tax to pay but also shortfall penalties.

However, there is a ray of hope that Inland Revenue’s upcoming statement on tax residence may provide some workable and practical guidance in this area. In light of this recent decision, this will be more important than ever.

Ends

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Business Headlines | Sci-Tech Headlines

 

Sky City : Auckland Convention Centre Cost Jumps By A Fifth

SkyCity Entertainment Group, the casino and hotel operator, is in talks with the government on how to fund the increased cost of as much as $130 million to build an international convention centre in downtown Auckland, with further gambling concessions ruled out. The Auckland-based company has increased its estimate to build the centre to between $470 million and $530 million as the construction boom across the country drives up building costs and design changes add to the bill.
More>>

ALSO:

RMTU: Mediation Between Lyttelton Port And Union Fails

The Rail and Maritime Union (RMTU) has opted to continue its overtime ban indefinitely after mediation with the Lyttelton Port of Christchurch (LPC) failed to progress collective bargaining. More>>

Earlier:

Science Policy: Callaghan, NSC Funding Knocked In Submissions

Callaghan Innovation, which was last year allocated a budget of $566 million over four years to dish out research and development grants, and the National Science Challenges attracted criticism in submissions on the government’s draft national statement of science investment, with science funding largely seen as too fragmented. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Business: Spark, Voda And Telstra To Lay New Trans-Tasman Cable

Spark New Zealand and Vodafone, New Zealand’s two dominant telecommunications providers, in partnership with Australian provider Telstra, will spend US$70 million building a trans-Tasman submarine cable to bolster broadband traffic between the neighbouring countries and the rest of the world. More>>

ALSO:

More:

Statistics: Current Account Deficit Widens

New Zealand's annual current account deficit was $6.1 billion (2.6 percent of GDP) for the year ended September 2014. This compares with a deficit of $5.8 billion (2.5 percent of GDP) for the year ended June 2014. More>>

ALSO:

Still In The Red: NZ Govt Shunts Out Surplus To 2016

The New Zealand government has pushed out its targeted return to surplus for a year as falling dairy prices and a low inflation environment has kept a lid on its rising tax take, but is still dangling a possible tax cut in 2017, the next election year and promising to try and achieve the surplus pledge on which it campaigned for election in September. More>>

ALSO:

Job Insecurity: Time For Jobs That Count In The Meat Industry

“Meat Workers face it all”, says Graham Cooke, Meat Workers Union National Secretary. “Seasonal work, dangerous jobs, casual and zero hours contracts, and increasing pressure on workers to join non-union individual agreements. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 
 
Standards New Zealand

Standards New Zealand
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Business
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news