Coz everyone else pays their taxes

Now the most logical next post would be a discussion of the OECD digital proposals as that is the international consensus thing I am so keen on and also fits nicely into the thread of these posts.

The slight difficulty is that this requires me to do some work which is always a bit of a drag and when I am suffering badly from jetlag – an insurmountable hurdle.

So as a bit of light relief I thought I’d have a bit of a pick into the narrative around multinationals and why their non-taxpaying is particularly egregious.

You know the whole small business pays tax so large business should too thing.

Now because of the tax secrecy thing, we can never know for def whether this is the case. But there is some stuff in the public domain, so let’s see what we can do as a bit of an incomplete records exercise.

In one of the early papers for the TWG, officials had a look at tax paying of certain industries. Now while the punchline – industries with high levels of capital gains pay less tax – is well known, there are some other factoids that are worth considering.

Factoid 1 The majority of small businesses are in loss (1). Ok wow. But that could be fine if all the income was being paid out to shareholders.

Factoid 2 Spike of incomes at $70k. Ok suspicious I’ll give you that. But maybe there are lots of tax paid trust distributions.

Factoid 3 Shareholder borrowings from the company (2) – aka overdrawn current account balances – have been climbing since the reduction in the company tax rate in 2010. Oh and the imputation credit balances have been climbing over that period too (3). But that could be fine if interest and/or fringe benefit tax is paid on the balances.

Factoid 4 Consumption by the self employed is 20% higher than by the employed for the same taxable income levels. But this could be fine if the self employed have tax paid or correctly un-tax paid – like capital gains – sources of wealth that the employed don’t have.

Factoid 5 In 2014 high wealth individuals had $60 million in losses (4) in their own name. But that could be ok because if companies and trusts have been paying tax and they have been receiving tax paid distributions from their trusts.

Factoid 6 Directors with an economic ownership in their company are rarely personally liable for any tax their company doesn’t pay. Because corporate veil. And that even includes PAYE and Kiwisaver they have deducted from their employees.

Now all of this is before you get to the ability small business has to structure their personal equity so that any debt they take on is tax deductible. Not to mention the whole accidentally putting personal expenditure through the business accounts thing.

And of course I am sure none of this has any relevance to the Productivity Commission’s concern that New Zealand has long tail of low productivity firms [without] an “up or out” dynamic. (5)

But is it all ok?

  • Are there lots of taxpaid trust distributions? We know the absolute level (6) but not whether it is ‘enough’.
  • Is interest or FBT being paid on overdrawn current accounts?
  • Do the self employed have sources of taxpaid wealth that the employed don’t have?
  • Why have some of our richest people still got losses?
  • How much tax do directors of companies in which they have an economic interest walk away from?
  • What is the level of personal expenditure being claimed against business income? Or at least what is the level that IRD counters?

Dunno.

Combination of tax secrecy and information not currently collected. But IRD are working towards an information plan and the TWG have called for greater transparency.

Awesome.

Coz most of this is currently totes legit. In much the same way as the multinationals structures are.

Just saying.

Andrea


(1) Footnote 9

(2) Page 11

(3) Page 10

(4) Page 15

(5) Page 19

(6) Page 9

4 responses

  1. “Coz most of this is currently totes legit. In much the same way as the multinationals structures are.”

    Yes. An historical analysis on the NZ tax and trust framework would be interesting to assist in understanding just why/when/how this sort of “totes legit” arose. Given we have one of the highest number of trusts per capita in the world, there must be a reason.

    I recall a discussion I once had with a conveyancing lawyer urging us to set up a family trust – the key reasons being:
    – our children studying would be able to access government assistance for the cost of their accommodation and living expenses during the period of study.
    – our ability to get government assistance to pay for our residential care in our later years if needed.
    – protection of our assets beyond the limited liability afforded to us/our company in the event we totally screw something up in our business.

    And the cost of setting up the “totes legit” swindle was $1,000. I wonder what that set up cost is now?

    Like

    1. I am not sure it is trusts that are the ‘tax issue’ anymore though as they are taxed at 33% same as top personal rate. More it is now the 28% company tax rate plus any other opportunities like interest deductions, cash jobs, corporate veil for debt and personal exps finding their way into the tax return.

      Like

  2. Based on your gut instinct, which group is ‘dodging’ (through mostly legal practices) more tax – multinationals or smes?

    I’ve always thought smes/contractors etc (when comparing to an employee for example).

    Like

    1. To be honest I think everyone is just using what is available to them.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: