Last week sometime I found myself in a Twitter discussion with PEPANZ – of all people – as they were saying the TWG had supported the recent extension of the tax exemption for oil rigs. It is an exemption that is theoretically timelimited for non-resident companies involved in exploration and development activities in an offshore permit area. Theoretically because it will have been in force for 20 years if it actually does expire this time.
Having been a little involved with the TWG – as well as the Treasury official on the last rollover – I was somewhat surprised by PEPANZ’s comment. But in the end they were referring to an Officials paper for the TWG rather than a TWG paper per se. A subtle and easily missed difference.
And one they unfortunately also made in their submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee (1). Although it was a little odd that they needed to make a submission as everyone has known for 5 years that the exemption was expiring.
But in that thread PEPANZ encouraged people to read the Cabinet paper and so for old time sake I did. The analysis was quite familiar to me but the thing that gave me pause was the fiscal consequences were said to be positive.
Implementing a tax exemption would increase the tax take. A veritable tax unicorn.
No wonder it had such support. I guess this exemption will now have to come off the tax expenditure statement.
Personally I am not a fan of this exemption or its extension. And although I accept the prevailing arguments – much like the difference between a paper for the TWG and a paper of the TWG – it is less clear cut than it seems.
International framework for taxing income from natural resources
Now followers of the digital tax debate will know all about how source countries can tax profits earned in their country if these profits are earned through a physical presence in their country aka permanent establishment. And because it is super easy to earn profits from digital services without a permanent establishment there is a problem.
However for land or natural resource based industries a physical presence is – by definition – super easy.
And if you properly read treaties there is a really strong vibe through the individual articles that source countries keep all profits from its physical environment (2) while returns from intellectual property belong to the residence or investor country.
So before tax fairness or stopping multinational tax evasion was a thing, there was source country taxing rights based on natural resources.
Then to make it super super clear Article 5(2)(f) of the model treaty makes a well or a mine a permanent establishment just in case there was any argument.
To be fair to our friends the visiting oil rigs, other than the physical environment vibe there is no actual mention of exploration in the model article. But the commentary says it is up to individual countries how they wish to handle this. (3)
What does New Zealand do?
The best one to look at is the US treaty. In that exploration is specifically included as creating a permanent establishment but periods of up to 6 months are also specifically excluded (4).
This is interesting for two reasons.
First the negotiators of the treaty clearly specifically wanted exploration to create a taxing right as this paragraph is not in the model treaty. Secondly it stayed in the treaty even after a protocol was negotiated in 2010. That is if this provision and the 6 month carve out were a ‘bad’ thing for New Zealand it would have made sense for it to have come out at that point. Either unilaterally or as a tradeoff for something else.
So in other words anything to do with the taxation of oil rigs involved in exploration cannot be considered to be a glitch with the treaty that could be fixed with renegotiation. Unless of course it was oversight in the 2010 negotiations.
What are the facts?
The optimal commercial period for these rigs to be in New Zealand seems to be about 8 months. That is two months or so too long to access the exemption. But rather than pay tax they will leave and another rig will come in with associated extra costs and environmental damage.
This is what was happening before the exemption came into place in 2004 and so does prima facie seem a reasonable case for just having an outright exemption. However:
The 2019 Regulatory Impact Statement says that the contracts have a tax indemnity clause meaning that any tax payable by the non-resident company must be paid by the New Zealand permit holder. (5)
This means that the outcomes would be broadly similar to this table. This is on the basis that rigs could be substituted albeit with delay at additional cost rather than exploration simply being deferred to another year. (6)
Why don’t I like the exemption?
Much like the difference between TWG reports and reports for the TWG it is all pretty nuanced.
Pre 2004, as there were tax indemnities, the only reason to have the rigs leave and another one come in was if the cost to the company of the churning was less than the cost – paying the tax – of the rig staying put.
However while that would be a completely reasonable business decision for the company it is highest cost for the country as a whole and the highest cost to the tax base of all the options.
And so the argument for an exemption was framed. An exemption lowers the cost to the Crown and also to the company. Win Win.
However the tax base does best in a world without the exemption but where the rigs stay put and the company pays the non-resident operators tax.
Now requiring that would be somewhat stalinist but it does feel that Government has had its hand forced when it wasn’t party to any of the original decisions. The Government has no control over the cost structure of the industry but:
- Needs to exempt income of a class of non-resident at a time when it is looking to expand taxing rights over other non-residents;
- Weakens its claim on the tax base associated with natural resources,
- Gets offside with a major stakeholder of its confidence and supply partner.
And all of this is before you get to the precedential risk associated with moving away from the otherwise broad base low rate framework. Which by definition involves winners and losers.
I am also not convinced by the revenue positive argument. The RIS states that as the exemption has been going on forever the forecasts have already factored in the exemption (7). This means an extension of the exemption has no fiscal effect.
However by the time it gets to the Cabinet Paper – albeit close to a year after the RIS was signed off – a $4 million cost of not extending the exemption has now been incorporated into the forecasts (8). And so – hey presto by extending the exemption – an equivalent revenue benefit arises that can go on the scorecard (9). From which other revenue negative tax policy changes can be funded.
Every Minister of Revenue’s dream.
So like I said – not a fan. There is a narrow supporting argument. Absolutely. But the whole thing makes me very uncomfortable. To make matters worse – it is only extended for 5 years. It hasn’t been made permanent. Even after 20 years. SMH.
Hope I am doing something else in 5 years time.
(1) Curiously officials write up of the submission in the Departmental report page 171 is far more fulsome than the written submission. I guess it must reflect an empassioned verbal submission from PEPANZ.
(2) Article 6 of the model treaty makes this explicit without any reference to a permanent establishment.
(3) Paragraph 48 Page 128
(4) Article 5(4)
(5) Paragraph 6. This comment isn’t the the recent RIS but as the analysis is based around the New Zealand permit holder wearing the additional costs associated changing the non-resident operator it is reasonable to assume that equivalent clauses are in the new contracts.
(6) Section 2.3 of RIS discusses the delays associated with changing operators.
(7) Page 11
(8) Paragraphs 21-23
(9) Section 4.6
Taking a break from TWG report proper stuff for a bit. Although very pleased to see that when the government said no further work on a Tax Advocate they actually meant no further work except for its inclusion in a soon discussion document.
Silly me and everyone else. Clearly misread the Government’s response. Recommendation 73 but getting over myself …
And there has just been a tax bill passed back in the (tax) real world.
R&D tax credits which seems largely to be a grants based system administered by IRD (1) and not anything I would recognise as a tax credit. But hey all the benefits of a grant while still calling it a tax thing. What’s not to love.
And coming up strongly behind is the GST and low value goods bill which also has the loss ring fencing for residential rental property.
Now the latter is pretty much loathed by the tax community. But as interest deductions in the face of untaxed capital gains is a bit of specialist subject/anguish for your correspondent I may write some more on that. As with no more capital gains being taxed I would say this is technology that should get a broader look.
But today I am going to have a bit of a chat about the GST stuff. Now as your correspondent’s taste in clothes tends toward vintage reproduction, she is a big online shopper from relatively obscure American and now Swedish suppliers. And my one piece of tax avoidance has always been keeping purchases below $225 so that no GST would be triggered. Often a struggle – albeit a financially useful one – when the NZ dollar is weak.
Now the $225 comes from the $60 de minimis Customs has where it won’t collect tax and duty up to that amount coz the admin to do so would be higher than the tax collected. So for clothes and shoes – another specialist subject but no anguish here – as there is a duty of 10% when you work it back this means $225 of clothes and shoes can be imported free of taxation and while for everything else it is $400.
And yeah it is not a total free ride as there is postage involved and if things don’t fit sending things back is probs not worth it.
Now this implicit tax exemption is only ever an administrative thing. It wasn’t like Parliament ever said ‘Off you go Andrea, have a foreign tax free dress, just keep it under $225 and only one at a time mind’. And so I have been expecting this loophole to be closed since forever.
And now there is a bill to do just that a select committee. The vibe is that offshore suppliers will collect GST for goods under $1000 and Customs over $1000. Cool. So far so good.
First it is the poster child for high trust tax collecting. It requires the offshore supplier to register with IRD, collect GST and then pay it to the department. Three steps where – just saying – something might go wrong. Would hate to think I pay GST and it isn’t passed on. But for the big guys at least they face ‘reputational risk’ if things go wrong.
Now yes we do have the bright, shiny, newish Convention of Mutual Administrative Assistance (2) that does include GST and yes the Department has tried hard to make the whole thing simple so yes the big people should get caught/ and or voluntarily comply.
2) Suppliers paying to GST registered buyers don’t have to charge coz that would be compliance without tax. Fair enough but I am now GST registered, how will the offshore supplier know my single dress isn’t just like a sample? Or will they even care so long as they have an IRD number?
3) Offshore suppliers only have to register if they are selling more than NZD 60k to people who aren’t GST registered. And yes this is self assessed by taxpayers outside out tax base.
But how will IRD know if the supplier or I am not compliant? There really will be limits to the whole Convention for Mutual Assistance. And anyway if they sell less than $60k no GST is totes legit.
But ultimately none of this should matter as any tax not collected by the offshore supplier will be picked up by Customs. Except …
4) De minimis raised to $1000 value of item for goods not GSTed by supplier. Sorry wot? So if GST is not charged – correctly by my new obscure foreign retailer – or incorrectly because reputational risk isn’t a thing for them – my GST free band has increased? Yup.
To be fair this is all sort of covered in the RIS (3) but I can’t find anything that discusses why the de minimis or threshold had to be increased.
Interestingly the Tax Working Group explicitly looked at these issues and concluded that the de minimis should only be NZD 400. And this is the right answer particularly when fairness is the lens. Although I would have thought there was now a case to bring the de minimis right down to incentivise collecting at source.
It is true that all the marketplaces and Youshops will get caught but anyone like me with any form of obscure foreign importing – which I am guessing is much like capital gains and a feature of a higher income/wealth profile – can now buy more tax free than before.
And why this is important is that the official primary reason for this policy change was to increase the fairness of the tax system. Not efficiency or even revenue but fairness.
And the thing about increasing fairness is that it might not reduce administrative costs. It might not improve the customer experience. But it says that tax is paid by everyone not just when it is easy to collect and people don’t get upset with you.
So a day or so after discovering I won’t be taxed on capital gains, surely I am not also up for more GST free shopping? Hope not.
Really hope this isn’t the beginning of fairness going back to Khloe or Pippa status.
(1) In year approval page 6.
(2) Article 2(b)(iii)(c)
(3) Page 5 Potential behavioural changes by consumers
Ok. So the story so far.
The international consensus on taxing business income when there is a foreign taxpayer is: physical presence – go nuts; otherwise – back off.
And all this was totally fine when a physical presence was needed to earn business income. After the internet – not so much. And with it went source countries rights to tax such income.
However none of this is say that if there is a physical presence, or investment through a New Zealand resident company, the foreign taxpayer necessarily is showering the crown accounts in gold.
As just because income is subject to tax, does not necessarily mean tax is paid.
And the difference dear readers is tax deductions. Also credits but they can stand down for this post.
Now the entry level tax deduction is interest. Intermediate and advanced include royalties, management fees and depreciation, but they can also stand down for this post.
The total wheeze about interest deductions – cross border – is that the deduction reduces tax at the company rate while the associated interest income is taxed at most at 10%. [And in my day, that didn’t always happen. So tax deduction for the payment and no tax on the income. Wizard.]
Now the Government is not a complete eejit and so in the mid 90’s thin capitalisation rules were brought in. Their gig is to limit the amount of interest deduction with reference to the financial arrangements or deductible debt compared to the assets of the company.
Originally 75% was ok but then Bill English brought that down to 60% at the same time he increased GST while decreasing the top personal rate and the company tax rate. And yes a bunch of other stuff too.
But as always there are details that don’t work out too well. And between Judith and Stuart – most got fixed. Michael Woodhouse also fixed the ‘not paying taxing on interest to foreigners’ wheeze.
There was also the most sublime way of not paying tax but in a way that had the potential for individual countries to smugly think they were ok and it was the counterparty country that was being ripped off. So good.
That is – my personal favourite – hybrids.
Until countries worked out that this meant that cross border investment paid less tax than domestic investment. Mmmm maybe not so good. So the OECD then came up with some eyewatering responses most of which were legislated for here. All quite hard. So I guess they won’t get used so much anymore. Trying not to have an adverse emotional reaction to that.
Now all of this stuff applies to foreign investment rather than multinationals per se. It most certainly affects investment from Australia to New Zealand which may be simply binational rather than multinational.
Diverted profits tax
As nature abhors a vacuum while this was being worked through at the OECD, the UK came up with its own innovation – the diverted profits tax. And at the time it galvanised the Left in a way that perplexed me. Now I see it was more of a rallying cry borne of frustration. But current Andrea is always so much smarter than past Andrea.
At the time I would often ask its advocates what that thought it was. The response I tended to get was a version of:
Inland Revenue can look at a multinational operating here and if they haven’t paid enough tax, they can work out how much income has been diverted away from New Zealand and impose the tax on that.
Ok – past Andrea would say – what you have described is a version of the general anti avoidance rule we have already – but that isn’t. What it actually is is a form of specific anti avoidance rule targetted at situations where companies are doing clever things to avoid having a physical taxable presence. [Or in the UK’s case profits to a tax haven. But dude seriously that is what CFC rules are for]
It is a pretty hard core anti avoidance rule as it imposes a tax – outside the scope of the tax treaties – far in excess of normal taxation.
And this ‘outside the scope of the tax treaties’ thing should not be underplayed. It is saying that the deals struck with other countries on taxing exactly this sort of income can be walked around. And while it is currently having a go at the US tech companies, this type of technology can easily become pointed at small vulnerable countries. All why trying for an new international consensus – and quickly – is so important.
In the end I decided explaining is losing and that I should just treat the campaign for a diverted profits tax as merely an expression of the tax fairness concern. Which in turn puts pressure on the OECD countries to do something more real.
Aka I got over myself.
In NZ we got a DPT lite. A specific anti avoidance rule inside the income tax system. I am still not sure why the general anti avoidance rule wouldn’t have picked up the clever stuff. But I am getting over myself.
Of course no form of diverted profits tax is of any use when there is no form of cleverness. It doesn’t work where there is a physical presence or when business income can be earned – totes legit – without a physical presence.
And isn’t this the real issue?
It is seriously odd being out of the country when seminal events occur.
On that Friday I was in London. Waking at 4.30 am and checking Facebook. Just coz.
My Christchurch based SIL posted that she was relieved now she had picked up her kids from school. Sorry what? Thinking there might have been another earthquake I checked the Herald app.
In the swirl of issues has come the suggestion Facebook and Google should be taxed into compliance. Of course a boycott could be equally effective. Except if users of Facebook are anything like your correspondent and there is inelastic demand. Possibly not at insulin levels but until demand changes I am not sure taxation would be that effective.
But the whole issue of tax and Facebook, Google and Apple has been a running sore for many years now and so I thought I’d take a bit of time to go through the background of it all. [Really keen readers though could search Cross border taxation on the panel on the right for more detail]. Future posts will look at what is being proposed as a solution in New Zealand and by the OECD.
Background to the background
The international tax framework since like forever aka League of Nations – before even I was born – has been that the country that the taxpayer lives in or is based in – residence country – can tax all the income of that taxpayer. Home and abroad – all in.
Where it gets tricky is the abroad part. As the foreign country, quite reasonably, will want to tax any income earned in its country – source country.
So the deal cut all those years ago – and is the basis of our double tax treaties – was:
For business income the source country gets first dibs if the income was earned through the foreign taxpayer physically being in their country – office, factory etc. Rights to tax were pretty open ended and the residence country of the taxpayer would give a credit for that tax or it would exempt the income.
So far so good.
Except if there were no physical presence then there was no taxing rights. But in League of Nations times – or even relatively recently like when I first went to work – the ability to earn business income in a country without an office or factory was pretty limited. So as constraints go – it kind of went.
For passive income like interest, dividends, and royalties the source country could tax but the rate of tax was limited. 10-15% was standard. And again the residence country gave a tax credit for that tax or exempted the income.
Looking now at our friends Apple, Google and Facebook. Apple provides consumer goods and Google and Facebook provide advertising services.
When your correspondent started work, foreign consumer goods arrived in a ship, were unloaded into a warehouse and then onsold around the country. Such an operation would have required a New Zealand company complete with a head office, chief executive and a management team. All before you got to getting the goods to shops to sell.
Such an operation would most likely have involved a New Zealand resident company. Even if it didn’t no one would be arguing about a physical presence of a foreign company as – to operate in New Zealand – it would have needed more physical presence than Arnold Schwarzenegger. And yes both creatures of the eighties.
For advertising services, no ships involved but people on the ground hawking classified and other ads for newspapers. Again more physical presence than Princess Di. [Getting to the point – promise – as am now running out of 80’s icons]
Now internet enter stage left.
For goods consumers now don’t need to go to a shop. iPads and iPhones bought on line. Physical presence non existent along with (income) taxing rights.
For services – more interesting. Still seems to be some presence but like – sales support – not like completing contracts. So no taxable presence and no (income) taxing rights.
Phew. So everything is ok now.
Next post. Promise.
Let’s talk about tax.
Or more particularly let’s talk about Facebook and their tax payments.
The methadone programme that is this blog is working pretty well and I now have an awful lot of non blog commitments these days. So until after the Budget I will just post when I can rather than every Monday. So those of you who haven’t already – you might like to sign up to email notifications on the right of the screen. Coz dear readers I would hate for you all to miss anything I had to say.
As a further aside I am also open to topic suggestions email@example.com altho I give no guarantee as to when they may turn up.
Now after dealing with Apple, family stuff and Sydney last week; dear readers I was and am a little tired. So as a bit of lite relief after all the nasty multinationals stuff I thought I’d finish off a post on GST I have had in the can for far too long. A reader asked for it last year but it keeps getting crowded out. Soz J.
But then this morning on my feed was a news item on Facebook and how they have very little income or tax paid in New Zealand. And how everyone who gets advertising in NZ contracts with Ireland. And they have very few staff here but earn all this money. But it’s not in their accounts.
Ok right. GST post down you go and Facebook here we come.
Now I have said a number of times there are many and varied ways of not paying tax. Apple uses a wheeze where they give the appearance of being a NZ company but because they are really an Australian company with no physical presence here they don’t pay tax here.
Looking at the 2014 accounts of Facebook New Zealand Limited and the news item Facebook’s wheeze seems to be separating out the income earning process so only some of it sticks in the New Zealand tax base.
Again once upon a time businesses advertised in newspapers or magazines that were physically based here. They would also have had a sales force that would have been a department of the newspaper or magazine probs also based in the same building as the publication.
The New Zealand company
Now the newspaper or website is in the cloud which just means a server somewhere. But there is still a sales force – or at least a sales support force – based in New Zealand. These guys are employed by Facebook New Zealand Limited a NZ incorporated company that earns fees from for its sales supporting.
Now a NZ incorporated company as you know dear readers this is prima facie taxable on all its income as it is tax resident in NZ. Ah you say but ‘what about the directors? Where is the control?’ Well done dear readers yes there are three foreign directors . Sigh. An Australian, an Irishman and a Singaporean. Beginnings of a bad joke. But good news is probs hard to show control in any one country.
So probably still resident under a treaty in New Zealand. And even if it isn’t as the sales support income is being earned from a physical presence here – note 7 shows office equipment – so probably fully taxable here. But expressions involving small mercies are coming to mind – it is only sales support income. But should be at armslength rates – usually done as a markup on cost. So there should always be taxable income here even if it is small.
The Irish company
And in the old days not only would the sales force be in NZ, the advertising contracts would be made with a NZ company. Not now. The Stuff article shows advertising agreements being made with a sister company in Ireland – Facebook Ireland Limited. This is also referenced in note 13 of the 2014 accounts so it must be true.
Now it is conceptually possible that Facebook Ireland Ltd is a NZ resident company if it had NZ directors – please stop laughing – but I am going to assume it isn’t. So let’s do the source rule thing.
Trading in v trading with
By now dear readers you will be quite expert on the whole trading in versus trading with thing. If there were no people here I would have said that this was trading with again. However the people on the ground – albeit employed by the NZ company – complicate the issue and what with the possibility that the contracts are partially completed in New Zealand. Hey I am going to give it a New Zealand source!
Limits of the permanent establishment rules
But then we go to the Irish treaty. Now the normal fixed place of business stuff can’t apply as it is Facebook NZ not Facebook Ireland that has the fixed place of business. However Article 5(5) provides that if another company – Facebook NZ – habitually enters into contracts for Facebook Ireland then game on – PE.
However your correspondent being the somewhat cynical – I have always preferred realist – individual she is is guessing the line is: ‘Dude they don’t conclude contracts for us – they are just like sales support – you know like preparatory and auxiliary. All the like real commercial work is done in Ireland not New Zealand – so bog off Mrs Commissioner.’
Yeah that is a bit clever and yeah that is what the tax avoidance provisons are for. And we can’t assume that the Department isn’t trying to use them.
Diverted Profits Tax – NZ style
Now PE avoidance is exactly how this all appears to your correspondent and that is what the government’s proposals are trying to counter. So lets see how that goes. Tests are:
Second point check – Facebook NZ does sales support;
Third point check – seems unlikely that only $1million was sales revenue in 2014
Fourth point – Ah.
The Irish treaty was concluded in 1988 long before BEPS; the international tax rules were only just coming in; and the Commissioner engaged in trench warfare that became the basis of the Winebox. Number 4 might be a bit of a struggle.
This struggle is alluded to in the discussion document’s technical appendix. Apple is example 1 and Facebook example 3. Example 3 discusses the application of the DPT NZ style and says it really is only any good if new treaties get new PE articles. And then says that maybe some countries won’t want them. Let’s all take an educated guess what Ireland will think.
But don’t panic. The OECD is doing some work on this which should come out in 2020. Awesome but wasn’t this exacly what Action point 1 was all about?
Changing the subject slightly last week Gareth Morgan put out his international tax policy. Most proposals were either the existing law – payments must be armslength or won’t get deduction – or government proposals – burden of proof should be on taxpayer. But his key point of difference is he wants all treaties ‘wound back’. I am not there yet but good on him for putting it on the table.
And given the public anger on all of this and OECD not reporting until 2020 when it was one of the original primary issues with the BEPS project – I would watch this space!
All this discussion on Facebook is only possible because until 2014 they had to file accounts with Companies Office. This changed in 2015 to large companies only. Because compliance costs. They still have to file accounts with IRD but rest of us don’t get to see them and their related party transactions anymore.
Let’s talk about tax.
Or more particularly let’s talk about Apple and their taxes.
Your correspondent is currently in Sydney – family stuff nothing glamorous or exciting – and had started to put together a post on Donald Trump and his 2005 tax return. Coz the Sydney Morning Herald had actually explained some stuff behind it and there were some issues that I thought – dear readers – you would find interesting.
But Saturday morning I opened my Herald app to find the latest on multinationals and tax. Apple this time. And yeah that is me. Apparently they have paid no tax in New Zealand. Whether that is 100% true only the Department would know but from looking at the accounts and how it has organised itself – looks pretty damn likely.
So let’s go!
Apple appears to sell products to New Zealand through a New Zealand incorporated company called Apple Sales New Zealand. Note no Ltd at the end. It is owned by an Australian company Apple Pty Ltd.
Now normally a New Zealand incorporated company means New Zealand has full taxing rights on all its income. No need to consider whether income has a NZ source or not . If it has earned income it is taxable. Well that is unless a tax treaty would take away some of those rights. And how could that happen dear readers? Yes that’s right – if it is managed or has directors control in another country.
And is Apple Sales New Zealand (not limited) controlled offshore? Yup the directors are Australian. Ok so then not a New Zealand company for tax purposes.
Now all the income comes from New Zealand so it should be taxed here – right? Well yeah if it has a New Zealand source. And remember that trading in v trading with thing again. Now once upon a time if you wanted to sell almost a billion dollars worth of consumer products you would kinda need to be here. But now http://www.apple.com/nz/ does the business. So thanks to the internet trading in can morph into trading with meaning bye bye income tax base.
Limits of diverted profits tax
Oh but the new things announced by Hon Judith should fix it? You know the diverted profits tax – NZ style? Well not really. The NZ diverted profits tax has some use if there really is stuff happening in New Zealand but clever things have happened to make it look like there isn’t. But here there isn’t stuff happening in NZ. Just people buying stuff from a website.
And remember how all the things a diverted profits tax would help with? Remember how trading with v trading in wasn’t one of them? Yeah this won’t save us.
But the pretending to be a New Zealand company when it is an Australian company. That is a bit cute isn’t it and doesn’t tax avoidance stop cute stuff. Yes it does so what are the facts?
- New Zealand incorporated company
- Australian directors with Australian control
- US website
- Shipping from Australia
- GST registered
- No presence or activity in New Zealand
So taking away any clever stuff. What is actually happening?
An Australian company is selling products to New Zealand via the internet shipping from a warehouse in Australia. What is the tax consequence of this? No tax – as Apple is only trading with New Zealanders not trading in New Zealand.
Compare to current outcome – no tax. Soz nothing for tax avoidance to bite on.
Could it be fixed?
Of course it is possible Apple will get shamed into paying tax here. Putting in New Zealand directors would do the trick. Not holding my breath though. There are also plans by the Government to strengthen our source rules – but nothing proposed tho that will bite on this issue.
What would need to happen is an extension of the ‘contracts made in New Zealand’ rule to say it is deemed to be made in the country of the purchaser for online sales.
So technically not hard.
But here’s the thing. If we do that for Apple – other countries might then do it to Fonterra; Zespri; Fisher and Paykel; Fletcher Building; and Rank when they trade without a footprint. And in this case Apple NZ seems to be paying some tax in Australia. So that will be an interesting discussion with the Australian Treasury.
And it won’t just be the nasty multinationals that get caught. Your correspondent has an extensive vintage reproduction wardrobe. All purchased online from the US and UK from relatively small companies. Risk is such suppliers would see NZ as not worth the effort and stop selling to us. But then now I live in active wear not such an issue for me.
Oh and the not limited thing? It will be a US check the box company as will the Australian Pty company meaning it is an entity hybrid and Apple Inc can choose how to treat it for tax. Cool – but don’t think it impacts on us. Phew.
Thanks to a comment below – I missed a point I really shouldn’t have.
Even if we do change our source rules every treaty we have requires there to be a permanent establishment or fixed place of business before business income can be taxed. So if our source rules were expanded to make income prima facie taxable in NZ the treaty would then allocate taxing rights to Australia.
So short of resinding our treaties – or shaming Apple into paying tax here – we have to suck it up.
There is also the issue of whether it is right to expect tax given Apple isn’t using anything that taxes have paid for. But currently that seems like an argument from another time given the public outrage.
So while taxes are inherently unilateral – this is something that has to be sorted multilaterally. Except I am not aware of any real work on it. And on that I would love to be proved wrong!
Let’s talk about tax.
Or more particularly let’s talk about tax residence for companies and trusts.
Following Mr Thiel’s post a reader asked about the non- resident purchaser stats that LINZ produces. And so I wrote a post on that. I really did. But as I was going through it it became clear to me that the LINZ stuff was actually super hard. Even for you dear readers. And – given I hadn’t taken yet taken you through the joys of tax residence for companies – super hard was actually super impossible.
So dear readers today you get company residence. And hang in there coz next week you get a discussion of the LINZ data where I try to clear the smoke and mirrors that is those stats. But that is next week. So back to tax residence and companies.
Ok now companies have separate legal personalities and so they can contract and do stuff independent of its shareholders. And the total wheeze is that if the company fails shareholders are not liable for its debts if their capital is fully paid. They do lose the dosh they put in as capital and of course if that was spent on deductible expenses and it is a closely held company those losses can be offset against other taxable income. But you know that already so you won’t get any more on that from me today.
So back to residence. As a company is its ‘own person’ the concepts of prescence or connections with New Zealand used for actual people make no sense with them. They need their own bespoke tests. And in New Zealand they are:
- Head Office
- Directors control
- High level management
If anyone of those is in New Zealand then game on – New Zealand resident – taxable on worldwide income. Or at least before a treaty comes in.
But looking at that list and thinking about how often in tax policy the statement ‘a company is a vehicle for its shareholders’ is used. What is not on that list?
Well done – shareholding. A company could have 100% foreign shareholders – hit one or all of those tests and still be prima facie taxable on its worldwide income in New Zealand. The opposite also applies. A company could have 100% New Zealand shareholders and meet none of those tests. It then would be non-resident and so not taxable on its worldwide income. Now because that is just too cute there are other – controlled foreign company – rules that then come in. But they are for another day.
So key message – residence does not equal shareholding or beneficial ownership. Now in practice there will be significant overlap coz NZ companies are really for NZ resident shareholders. But won’t be a complete set.
And joy of joys other countries have similar tests:
Australia – incorporation or directors control
Canada – Incorporation or directors control
US – incorporation
And yes dear readers – you’ve got it – two countries could claim a company. A NZ incorporated company with effective management offshore in UK or China or Australia or Canada could be claimed by those countries too. Similarly an Australian incorporated company with NZ high level management will get claimed by both Australia and New Zealand.
And then – as with Mr Thiel – the treaty will decide who gets the rose. With companies the test in the treaty is usually the place where the high level decisions aka place of effective management is. So as with Mr Thiel there is domestic law tax residence and residence for the purpose of a treaty. And the music finally stops with the treaty.
Ok well done. Now that wasn’t too hard. Now let’s try trusts. In a trust is a settlor that puts in stuff; a trustee that legally owns the stuff and manages it on behalf of the beneficiaries.
For those of you who followed the foreign trusts thing you may have heard something like ‘ NZ has a settlor based system for taxing trusts’. Now that is almost right. New Zealand has a settlor based system for the taxation of distributions. The residence of the trustee, however, is the starting point for the taxation of trusts.
And the tax residence of the trustee is the tax residence of the company or individual that is the trustee. So again the residence of the trustee could be completely different from the residence of the settlor or the residence of the beneficiaries.
Now why I am labouring this potential disconnect will make more sense next week. Feel free to pre read the LINZ reports in the first link.