Budget 2011 - IndividualsPlease click the bookmarks below for further information.
|
|
20/05/11 Tinkering around the tax edgesBy Greg ThompsonFollowing the significant tax changes arising out of the 2010 budget, including a GST rate increase and broad income tax cuts, this years budget was always going to be about consolidation of the policy initiatives, sustainability and tinkering around the edges. The Government signalled well in advance its intention to modify the three key platforms administered by the Inland Revenue, being Working for Families, Student Loans, and the KiwiSaver schemes. All have been modified, essentially to make them sustainable in the long term. Significant growth over the past few years in costs associated with all three schemes, meant changes had to be made to ensure they could remain viable. Any fundamental change, however, was never on the cards given how entrenched all three regimes are in the New Zealand psyche and the political suicide resulting from any major change. Working For Families is being amended at the “wealthy” end of the scheme. There is a modest reduction in the abatement threshold from $36,827 to $35,000, and an increase in rate of abatement from 25% to 20%. There is also a temporary halt in the inflation indexation for payments relating to children aged 16 and over until they align with those for children aged 13 to 15. All these changes will be drip fed at the time of the next four CPI inflation adjustments, which are expected biannually. Student loan changes are intended to reduce the cost of the scheme by focussing on the areas where a greater loss to Government arises. Changes include restricting access to further loans to those who are in arrears with their payments, limiting access to the scheme for those aged 55 and older to tuition fees only, denying access for part-time full year students, shortening a repayment holiday for students going overseas from three years to one and widening the definition of income for student loan repayment purposes. The most significant changes to the KiwiSaver regime effective 1 April 2012 are the removal of the exemption from Employer Superannuation Contribution Tax, where the tax liability will be at the marginal tax rate applying to the member, and a halving of the Member Tax Credit to a maximum of approximately $10 per week. These reductions to a member’s scheme contributions will be offset by increasing the minimum employee contribution rate from 2% to 3% from 1 April 2013 with an equal rise in the compulsory employer contribution rate. The initial kick-start payment of $1,000 will remain. In addition to its existing tax work programme, the Government has also indicated an intention to generally tinker through new rules for mixed-use assets (targeting yachts and holiday homes), a new approach to livestock valuation elections for farmers (to stop flip flopping between regimes), and to capture as taxable more non-cash benefits to employees. The banks are not exempt from the tinkering either, with a change in the thin capitalisation ratio for foreign owned banks, with the minimum prescribed equity percentage increasing from 4% to 6%. Importantly, the Government has indicated a continued focus on audit activity and debt enforcement action meaning taxpayers will continue to feel the direct hand of Inland Revenue in their affairs. After one of the heaviest year of tax changes in recent history, a tinkering was not unexpected and a welcome relief from that pace of change.
|
Greg ThompsonNational Director, Tax ProfessionalGreg is the National Director, Tax based in Wellington. Greg also represents New Zealand on the Asia Pacific Tax Advisory Committee for Grant Thornton International and chairs the Grant Thornton International Asia Pacific Direct Taxation Committee. He joined the firm as a partner in March 2004, having significant "Big 4" chartered accountancy experience prior to this. Greg has a wide range of experience in domestic and international taxation, including mergers and acquisitions, inbound and outbound structuring and planning, tax policy advice, and corporate taxation. His clients cover a broad spectrum of businesses including those in the manufacturing, distribution, utilities, primary sector and film industries. Greg is a regular contributor of comment on matters of tax principle, and provides advice and makes submissions on matters of tax policy. His previous experience with Inland Revenue provides a sound basis for dealing with Inland Revenue, including the management of Inland Revenue audits. Greg has presented at numerous seminars, including NZICA, Grant Thornton International, and the New Zealand Law Society most recently on the ability for lawyers to incorporate their businesses. Contact details:D +64 (0)4 495 3775 |
20/05/11 Working Around Social AssistanceBy Greg ThompsonWhen the Working for Families regime was first introduced by the Labour Government, it was heralded as a landmark initiative to address the poverty levels of New Zealanders, guarantee a minimum standard of living, and incentivise people to be in the workforce. The Labour Government of the day has to be commended for it political ingenuity for the design of the scheme, which have been proven through only minor tinkering by the National Government in its budget released today. Firstly, the Government maintains a firm control in the redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Interestingly, at the time most people regarded that the scheme was introduced so those at the upper end of entitlement didn’t really seem to be the have-nots, a view still expressed today. A side benefit is the positive view of the Government by those who receive an ongoing hand out. Secondly, the decision to have an entitlement calculation tagged to tax return filing and an interim payment regime, creates a bureaucracy to administer and significant job creation within the Inland Revenue. Thirdly, the scheme is almost impossible to unwind, without a direct compensation in another form. Given the significant reliance a large number of New Zealanders place on the scheme, the economic environment would need to be sufficiently positive to provide a trade-off of equal proportions, generally through tax rate reductions. Those economic conditions are not easy to come by. The Government has made minor changes in this budget to the Working For Families regime to address the relentless growth in the cost of the scheme to the Government. Working For Families is being amended at the “wealthy” end of the scheme. There is a modest reduction in the abatement threshold from $36,827 to $35,000, and an increase in rate of abatement from 25% to 20%. There is also a temporary halt in the inflation indexation for payments relating to children aged 16 and over until they align with those for children aged 13 to 15. All these changes will be drip fed at the time of the next four CPI inflation adjustments, which are expected biannually. This is simply tinkering around the edges, but the fundamental cost of the scheme remains. It is the design aspects of the scheme that continue to remain of real concern. The design requires a high degree of administration and bureaucracy. In terms of tax system integrity, it creates complexity, a lack of understanding, and inequality ─ all of which are poor design characteristics in a system where the Government has a stated intention to simplify and cut red tape. The potential for interim payments made being in excess of entitlement for the end of year wash-up, may leave the recipient with a debt due to the Inland Revenue ─ a real and unwelcome outcome. As a result a number of people choose not to receive regular payments, but instead get a lump sum at the end of the year. This questions the credibility of the scheme intended to make day to day life easier, rather than a creating a windfall gain or artificial savings scheme. The scheme is to be commended for focussing on those in the work force providing an incentive to work. However, its key design fault rests with the social implications of creating reliance on the state, moving away from self-reliance and personal responsibility. Importantly, in these times of higher unemployment, a person can be out of work through no fault of their own, and suffer the additional financial loss of access to Working For Families. If the family has come to rely on those payments, then through no fault of their own they are significantly impacted. The Government has shown through its very modest changes that Working For Families has become embedded in the New Zealand psyche, and significant change without direct compensating offset would be political suicide. The good and the bad that is Working For families is here to stay.
|
Greg ThompsonNational Director, Tax ProfessionalGreg is the National Director, Tax based in Wellington. Greg also represents New Zealand on the Asia Pacific Tax Advisory Committee for Grant Thornton International and chairs the Grant Thornton International Asia Pacific Direct Taxation Committee. He joined the firm as a partner in March 2004, having significant "Big 4" chartered accountancy experience prior to this. Greg has a wide range of experience in domestic and international taxation, including mergers and acquisitions, inbound and outbound structuring and planning, tax policy advice, and corporate taxation. His clients cover a broad spectrum of businesses including those in the manufacturing, distribution, utilities, primary sector and film industries. Greg is a regular contributor of comment on matters of tax principle, and provides advice and makes submissions on matters of tax policy. His previous experience with Inland Revenue provides a sound basis for dealing with Inland Revenue, including the management of Inland Revenue audits. Greg has presented at numerous seminars, including NZICA, Grant Thornton International, and the New Zealand Law Society most recently on the ability for lawyers to incorporate their businesses. Contact details:D +64 (0)4 495 3775 |
17/05/11 Why four beats three – election termBy Paul KaneAs Budget time rolls around, the Government once more has to walk the tight rope…short-term popular policies vs less popular policies but greater long-term benefit to the country. Adding another complication in 2011, is that this is an election year. Does the Government take the easy path – don’t rock the boat, hold on to the present significant majority, set themselves up for another three years, or does it put its political safety at risk by making some tough calls that could endanger it in the short term, but will bring about the desired re-engineering of the New Zealand economy in the long term? In fact, the Government should never be put in this position. Trying to effectively change a country’s economy in three years is incredibly difficult. Year one the Government is feeling their way, year two they might get a bit more bold, year three they are looking to secure your vote for another term in office. So why not a four-year term? Why not put some trust in those you have elected to consolidate and introduce policies that can help the country by giving them the time necessary to effect such change? There are distinct advantages, among which are:
However, will a four-year term provide the opportunity for more effective economic and other management by the Government? And should we care, especially when governments are often re-elected and on that basis the length of term is not as important as it might appear. We have only ever had two one-term governments since the 1900s. The detractors of going to a four-year term state:
A change will take courage from the electorate. The electoral term does require a majority in a referendum or a 75% vote of all members of Parliament. New Zealand has completed two referendums in the last 50 years, one in 1967 when only 32% voted for a four-year term and one in 1990 where 31% voted in favour. However, I believe New Zealand as a nation has matured since these past referendums and we no longer distrust politicians to the same extent back in 1967 and 1990. The British Government has brought in a fixed four-year term, now is the time for New Zealand to follow
|
Paul KanePartner, Privately Held Business ProfessionalPaul launched his career as an auditor in 1984, transferred to London and spent time working on corporate finance engagements and as a Group Financial Controller in Brussels. Upon returning to New Zealand he has spent many years as CFO for several companies in venture capital, import distribution, telecommunications and healthcare. During his career Paul has had experience in audit, financial management, business restructuring and business planning, debt and equity raising, due diligence and systems review. Paul’s extensive experience and business acumen has enabled him to provide practical and expert advice to Grant Thornton New Zealand’s Privately Held Business clients since January 2008. Contact details:T +64 9 308 2576 |
09/05/11 What are the ‘In-Laws’ planning in this year’s Budget?By Dan LoweThis year hasn’t produced a great tax take for the Government, so expect a few indicators in the Budget on how the Government expects to increase its revenue in this area. With more specific audit activity likely to be on the agenda, what can you do to reduce the risk of the taxman from knocking at your door? Or if he invites himself in, is your business prepared to manage the audit activity to ensure the least amount of disruption? Dan Lowe, tax associate at Grant Thornton New Zealand Ltd, looks at how the Government has upped the ante on the audit front and provides suggestions for IRD management. Someone once told me that interaction with the Inland Revenue was comparable with putting up with your ‘in-laws’, no one particularly enjoys the process, everyone talks through fake smiles, but in order to get on with life you do what you can to make the relationship work. Although the majority of businesses do their best to comply, it is inevitable that discrepancies will occur and the ‘in-laws’ will be there to point out the error of your ways when this happens. Obviously no one enjoys the ‘in-laws’ snooping around, but it is a fact of life. How this exposure is dealt with will determine the timeliness of the audit process, costs involved in reaching an appropriate conclusion as well as the nature of the relationship with the ‘in-laws’ going forward. Like most things, prevention is the best cure. But how can you prevent something when you have no control over it? Audit risk cannot be avoided entirely, but it is possible to eliminate some risk by:
In addition to the above, each year the Inland Revenue releases a document detailing its Compliance Focus for the coming year. This document identifies patterns of non-compliant behaviour in various groups and focuses on those themes. For example, some of the areas targeted in the 2010/11 include:
So each year our “in-laws’ publicly tell us what they don’t like about us, and where they are going to focus their efforts. So why do they do this? Well it definitely focuses everyone’s attention on those sectors named, but primarily it is due to the limited resources that they have at their disposal, the advancement of technology which enables a greater refinement of large amounts of information and an increased pressure that the Inland Revenue generates a return on investment. That’s right, even the taxman has KPIs that they must strive to achieve. Inland Revenue has agreed in its Output Plan with the Minister of Revenue that during the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 it will conduct 1.088 million hours of audit activity. The level of return that has been agreed upon as an ‘output delivery target’ for this activity is $875 per hour. That is a staggering $952 million that our local taxman is expected to extract from the tax-base from audit activity. So does this mean if you are not on the list you are safe for that year – of course not! Inland Revenue continues to have standard criteria that may trigger audit activity such as receiving regular refunds, continually generating tax losses, deviations from industry standard benchmarks and poor compliance – or if you are really unlucky it may just be a random selection. In fact, only last month we were made aware that the ‘in-laws’ were turning up unannounced at various hospitality venues asking probing questions about stock control, till systems and how tips were dealt with. This type of approach can be very intimidating for the staff that are approached – in such instances the ‘in-laws’ details should be obtained and the business owner (after a discussion with their adviser) should make contact on their terms. This approach is interesting from the ‘in-laws’, but it highlights the desperate nature of wanting to increase the tax take. So if your number is up, what is the best way to manage the process? Audits are all about people management, establishing and meeting expectations…or to put it another way, communication. Here are five recommendations to assist in the process:
Like all business costs, tax must be actively managed. A poorly managed audit will cause disruption to your business, additional stress, a drain on your time and resources and it will increase your overall costs. Nobody enjoys probing questions from the ‘in-laws’ (why would you), but it is just part of life. Approaching the audit front-on will ensure that the length and costs will be kept to a minimum while allowing you to maintain an amicable relationship with the ‘in-laws’.
|
Dan LoweAssociate, Tax ProfessionalChartered Accountant (CA) of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Dan has been with the firm since the beginning of the 2000. Prior to working for Grant Thornton Dan worked for the Inland Revenue, as technical support in the business call centre. Dan also carried out the role of facilitator for new employees, training them on the various tax types, the penalty regime and general tax issues. Dan works with a wide range of clients, ranging from SMEs to multinational firms. His particular areas of expertise include managing the interface between Inland Revenue and our clients; the extensive tax implications that arise from land transactions (and associated structuring considerations) and the area of indirect taxes. “Understanding what the client is trying to achieve, analysing the tax legislation and arriving at a workable answer is always my main objective” says Dan – “it is more than tax advice, it is business planning”. His experience provides an excellent grounding from which he is able to provide effective tax planning and advice to meet the needs of our clients at all levels. Contact details:D +64 (0)9 308 2531 |
29/04/11 Only subtle tax changes expectedBy Colin DeFreyneFollowing the raft of GST changes that the Government announced last year, many of which only came into force on 1 April 2011, the Government has already signalled that it is unlikely to touch GST again − this time round anyway. The Government’s macro economic policy includes encouraging people to spend less in order to reduce debt and encouraging productivity by increasing take home pay via tax reductions. These objectives could be achieved by further increasing the rate of GST to fund tax cuts, but where should this policy stop? Some years ago in the UK it was estimated that income tax could be abolished if VAT was increased to 25%. UK VAT is now perilously close to this threshold but there is no sign of income tax being abolished. Do we really want to follow the same path as the UK? The recent London riots would suggest that we clearly do not. However, there are some pressure groups who are still calling for GST changes. Some groups have been calling for an elimination of GST on basic foods, especially fruit and vegetables, generally for social equity reasons. Whilst, on the face of it, this proposal may appear appealing, it would create another GST boundary between food which attracts GST and that which does not. Wherever a GST boundary occurs, complication is never too far away. Complexity is often the result of political compromise and this is true for both Australian and UK GST/VAT regimes. The New Zealand Government, on the other hand, introduced GST in 1985 virtually unopposed due to its large majority and consequently our regime remains relatively efficient and uncomplicated. Examples of the complexity seen overseas include a cherry on the top of a UK cake tipping the VAT scales as well as chocolate on a biscuit tipping the balance between basic and a luxury food. Similarly, in Australia, a plain chicken is a basic food until it becomes cooked, when it becomes a luxury, subject to GST. So who wins when these complexities seep in? Possibly not the intended consumer at the end of the food chain, and certainly not the businesses. No, alas it’s the accountants. We will be the only ones to prosper from the introduction of complex GST rules. Given business is screaming out “keep it simple” on the compliance front, the Government may have little appetite for GST compromise on food. Social equality can instead be targeted in other ways rather than creating unnecessary complexity to an already efficient tax system. When you consider the changes that were introduced on 1 April, you will see just how wide sweeping current changes are, let alone any new proposals. Consider these:
We need time to digest not only these most recent changes, but also the ramifications of the Christchurch earthquake, the Japanese tsunami and trouble in the Middle East. New Zealand has some significant economic issues at present and a further GST rise would be a complicating factor at this time. However, as normality returns to both the world economy and also New Zealand’s, further tinkering with GST will be a matter of when, not if.
|
Geordie HooftPartner, Tax ProfessionalChartered Accountant (CA) of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Geordie commenced his career with Grant Thornton in 2000 becoming a Partner in 2007. His career includes a period as Financial Controller of a successful nationwide fast-food franchise and several years in chartered accountancy with both large and small practices in Christchurch. Geordie has considerable experience dealing with a wide range of taxation issues. “I enjoy the opportunity to provide constructive and pro-active advice to clients.” Geordie is noted for communicating complex taxation issues to clients in a way that they can understand. Valuable advice has been provided by Geordie to Grant Thornton’s clients, resulting in significant savings and clarity of obligations. Geordie has developed expertise in many areas of taxation, including:
Contact details:T +64 (0)3 379 9580 |
06/05/11 Reduce debt. Save more. Widen investment horizonsBy Roger SutherlandThere are some important messages in the Savings Working Group (SWG) report of which all New Zealanders should take notice. Three of the key messages for me are:
Ironically it is that love affair with property and a belief that values could only ever go up, that has left us with private sector debt at 166% of GDP as at June 2010, housing alone contributing to 90% of that figure. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. With bankers now talking of low lending demand, is this the time for the focus on lending on housing to become part of a National Economic Strategy so that fiscal incentives (tax breaks, etc) are well designed and appropriate and that the level of lending is also appropriate for New Zealand’s economic strategy? Surely the need is to avoid excessive credit and house price bubbles and to weigh lending on housing against the need for investment in directly productive capital, which in turn will boost production and exports. We do need to get a lot smarter with our lending practices, there is no doubt. The Government has already made some changes to the tax advantages property investment has enjoyed over most other forms of investment in the past, but have they gone far enough? It may still take an investment property capital gains tax to really change the habits of a lifetime, but politically I can’t see that happening. As the SWG has suggested, without a capital gains tax, another way to reduce the tax distortion on property prices would be at the very least to reduce taxes on other forms of financial investment such as fixed interest returns and dividends from shares In this area, the SWG has made some interesting suggestions including rate reductions on Portfolio Investment Entity (PIE) rates closer to 5% – 10 % below an investor’s own marginal rate, and the application of PIE rates to interest and dividends currently subject to Resident Withholding tax (RWT). As with PIEs, RWT could then be treated as a final tax, unless an investor had declared a wrong rate. Kiwisaver has also attracted some attention with a suggested deferral to just one low-cost default provider, in an effort to reduce fees and put more of an investor’s own savings into their own accounts. Superannuation and anything to do with property both become ‘hot property’ at Budget time. Expect some heated debate from several parties on these two topics.
|
Roger SutherlandDirector, Grant Thornton Wealth Management Ltd ProfessionalRoger is a Director of Grant Thornton Wealth Management Ltd based in Auckland, providing a complete range of financial services. With over 32 years experience in the financial services industry, including time with the Public Trust Office, Perpetual Trustees and AMP, where he was a Senior Technical Adviser specialising in investment and business risk management advice, Roger leads a team that provides a full range of personal financial advice and investment planning services to our clients. He works together with clients to develop financial strategies that complement their lifestyle and retirement goals. As a basis for this he examines clients' individual situations to uncover unique issues and tailors solutions to meet their personal needs. Roger also draws upon the specialist knowledge and skills both from within Grant Thornton as well our external networks, to deliver a comprehensive range of services that puts our clients in control of their financial future. Our integrated services allow us to provide a level of advice and service well above that of many stand-alone financial planners. Roger also has a special interest in Socially Responsible Investing (SRI). SRI concerns itself with integrating personal values and societal concerns with investment decisions. It strives to consider both the investor's financial needs and an investment's impact on society. Wealth Management Services:
Contact details:D +64 (0)9 308 2974 |
01/04/11 So what does it take to live happily ever after?By Mark HucklesbyEveryone knows that to start a fairy tale you begin with the words “once upon a time”. And while no Budget speech has ever started with these four words, given that the Government has just announced that this year’s document will report the largest deficit ever, perhaps this year it should because the Government faces a huge challenge if it is to produce a happy ending for everyone, no matter what part of the country they live in. In the 10 months since the last Budget, New Zealand has faced some momentous events, the most vivid one in everyone’s memory - the earthquakes in Christchurch. While 4 September might be a date that eventually gets lost in the history books, few will ever forget how an earthquake that struck at 12.51pm on 22 February 2011 changed the nation. No longer were the earthquakes Christchurch’s problem, they became New Zealand’s problem. And what a complex problem it is to solve when current health and education resources are already stretched to capacity, the country is haemorrhaging approximately $300 million every week to service current debt obligations, and on top of all this, there’s now the need to substantially rebuild New Zealand’s second largest city. So what defines a really good Budget?Is it one where revenue targets are achieved, and planned expenditure comes in according to plan? Or is it one that drives new behaviours that will ultimately produce results all stakeholders end up feeling comfortable with? I would suggest it’s the latter. So in anticipation of what might be released on Thursday, 20 May 2011, I will consider some of the announcements made in last year’s Budget and whether or not they changed behaviours to help make New Zealand a better place to live and work in. Removal of property tax depreciationThe decision to remove the tax depreciation deductions around property initially created a huge outcry, and to many accountants, particularly those struggling to stay on top of International Financial Reporting Standards, an even bigger headache. But indirectly what this policy decision did was force people to critically look at their investment portfolios to decide whether this was an asset class appropriate for them. For some it resulted in no change; for others, when the decision to no longer allow a tax deduction for depreciation on rental property was linked with the decision to change the rules surrounding loss attributing qualifying companies (LAQCs), it became a trigger for change. At a macro level did last year’s Budget change perceptions and instigate an analysis of the level of investment in this sector? Most definitely, and while the jury is still out as to the eventual success of this policy decision, the Budget certainly prompted the need to consider change. Increase in GSTThe initial Christchurch earthquake on 4 September diverted attention away from another significant policy decision that came into effect on 1 October 2010. It was, of course, the Budget decision to increase GST from the 12.5% to 15%. Few can dispute the fairness of an across the board consumption tax. The more you spend, the more tax you pay so if you do end up buying a sports car or a super yacht you will end up paying more to the Government. However, for those at the other end of the wealth spectrum, there were calls for exemptions around healthy foods so that those struggling to make ends meet would not be impacted by the change. As many expected, no changes to the principle behind GST were made, but to compensate those on lower incomes, from 1 October 2010 there was a 2.02% increase in payments of superannuation, various benefits, family tax credits and student allowances. However, what this rate change also did was force all types of businesses to consider whether their billing processes and understanding of GST was still accurate and complete. Surprise, surprise – spurred along by the Inland Revenue reminders of the need to get things right or face the consequences (coupled with a 2010 $119 million Budget allocation over the next four years to expand its compliance function), many discovered that their systems and processes to account for GST were not up to scratch and that changes were needed. Tax rate changesLast year’s Budget generated another healthy change – eliminating the need to arbitrage tax rates between companies, individuals, partnerships and trusts. Although a great deal of tax policy is generated from the principle that those who earn more, should pay more to the Government in tax, the reality is that unless one is a wage and salary earner, this outcome is rarely achieved. This is not to say that no tax is being paid by individuals who earn significant incomes from their businesses, but with good advice from tax professionals, steps could be taken to reduce tax by channelling income into different entity types. But with last year’s top tax rate on individuals being reduced from 39% to 33% and a signalled rate change to reduce company tax rates from 30% to 28%, one year ahead of the Australians, attitudes to paying tax changed somewhat. This year’s Budget will no doubt see Treasury officials carefully assessing the trade-off associated with increasing tax rates with the need of the country to remain internationally competitive in terms of its overall tax burden on both individuals and body corporates. No capital gains taxAnd last, but by no means least, was last year’s Budget decision not to introduce a “comprehensive” capital gains tax (CGT). That decision produced a sigh of relief for many. But let’s not forget that not all property transaction gains are currently tax free. Take for example the decision in the 2009 Budget to target various taxpayers (and their associates) in some way involved in the business of land (eg builders). Is this decision likely to change in 2011? I doubt it, notwithstanding a projected shortfall in housing stock that will inevitably lead house prices to increase more rapidly than inflation. By not introducing a comprehensive CGT last year we saw a Budget reinforcing the need for New Zealanders to continue to pursue a broad spectrum investment policy in not only rental property, but also shares and fixed interest investments as well. For the Government, living happily every after simply means…staying in power. While current polls might suggest that John Key and Bill English have little to worry about at this stage, the reality is that if the 2011 Budget, and the ones that follow, are not bold and fail to change behaviour and attitudes, it’s highly likely nobody in the country is going to end up living happily ever after.
|
Mark HucklesbyNational Technical Director, Audit ProfessionalHaving worked for two of the Big 4 (PWC & EY) prior to joining Grant Thornton new Zealand, Mark has more than 15 years experience creating, interpreting and commenting on internationally recognised standards in three financial reporting domains: IFRS, XBRL and audit. Hands-on experience working with clients operating in many industries, particularly insurance, to help them efficiently and effectively resolve complex business reporting issues in areas such as revenue recognition, business combinations, financial instruments and tax. Mark has designed and then globally deployed software tools to ensure that IFRS disclosure requirements are fully complied with as well as created IFRS and corporate governance training programmes to help improve the productivity of partners and staff undertaking audits both in New Zealand and around the world. Mark has been the Deputy Chair of the Financial Reporting Standards Board of NZICA and also the Chairman of XBRL New Zealand, representing the country on the International Steering Committee of XBRL International. Contact details:D +64 (0)9 308 2730 |
