• Skip to content
  • Skip to navigation
Global site
  • Global site
  • Algeria
  • Botswana
  • Cameroon
  • Egypt
  • Ethiopia
  • Gabon
  • Guinea
  • Kenya
  • Libya
  • Malawi
  • Mauritius
  • Morocco
  • Nigeria
  • Namibia
  • Senegal
  • South Africa
  • Togo
  • Tunisia
  • Uganda
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe
  • Anguilla
  • Antigua
  • Argentina
  • Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten
  • Barbados
  • Bolivia
  • Brazil
  • British Virgin Islands
  • Canada LLP
  • Canada RCGT
  • Cayman Islands
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Ecuador
  • El Salvador
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Honduras
  • Mexico
  • Montserrat
  • Nicaragua
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Puerto Rico
  • St Kitts
  • St Lucia
  • St Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Trinidad & Tobago
  • United States
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela
  • Turks & Caicos
  • Afghanistan
  • Australia
  • Bangladesh
  • Cambodia
  • China
  • Hong Kong
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Japan
  • Korea
  • Malaysia
  • Mongolia
  • Myanmar
  • New Zealand
  • Pakistan
  • Philippines
  • Singapore
  • Taiwan
  • Thailand
  • Vietnam
  • Albania
  • Armenia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Belarus
  • Belgium
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Bulgaria
  • Channel Islands
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Georgia
  • Germany
  • Gibraltar
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Isle of Man
  • Israel
  • Italy - Bernoni
  • Italy - Ria
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kosovo
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Latvia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Macedonia
  • Malta
  • Moldova
  • Monaco
  • Netherlands
  • Northern Ireland
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • Serbia
  • Slovak Republic
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Tajikistan
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • UK
  • Uzbekistan
  • Bahrain
  • Egypt
  • Jordan
  • Kuwait
  • Oman
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Yemen
  • Lebanon
Grant Thorton Logo

Grant Thornton Logo Grant Thornton logo

  • Meet our people
  • Insights
  • Services
  • Industries
  • Careers
  • Locations
  • Business advisory services
  • Financial advisory services
  • Tax
  • Audit
  • Operational advisory
Business advisory services Home
  • NZTE support for businesses impacted by COVID-19
Financial advisory services Home
  • Asia Services Group
  • Business valuations
  • Capital markets
  • Complex and international services
  • Corporate insolvency
  • Debt advisory
  • Expert witness
  • Financial models
  • Forensic and investigation services
  • Independent business review
  • IT forensics
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Raising finance
  • Relationship property services
  • Restructuring and turnaround
  • Transaction advisory
Tax Home
  • Corporate tax
  • Employment tax
  • Global mobility services
  • GST
  • International tax
  • Research and Development
  • Tax compliance
  • Transfer pricing
Audit Home
  • Audit methodology
  • Audit technology
  • Financial reporting advisory
Operational advisory Home
  • Business architecture
  • Internal audit
  • IT advisory
  • IT privacy and security
  • PCI DSS
  • Process improvement
  • Procurement/supply chain
  • Project assurance
  • Risk management
  • Robotic process automation (RPA)
  • Energy and resources
  • Financial services
  • Food and beverage
  • Health and aged care
  • Media and entertainment
  • Not for profit
  • Professional services
  • Public sector
  • Real estate and construction
  1. Grant Thornton New Zealand
  2. Press releases
  3. 2012
  4. Budget 2012: An opportunity missed

Budget 2012: An opportunity missed

24 May 2012
  • Press releases
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012

An opportunity missed

With focus on a zero budget, there was little room for movement on fundamental policy changes. Changes to tax policy were no different. The headline change was an increase in tax excise on tobacco products. Other changes included reinforcement of prior announced loophole closures on livestock valuation elections, and a denial of deductions on certain mixed use assets, principally holiday homes, yachts and  aircraft.

No surprises, there will be an increase in funding for Inland Revenue to provide a focus on greater revenue  collection. The key areas of focus: the hidden economy, debt collection and unfiled tax returns.

This budget presented a missed opportunity to make further changes to the tax system to facilitate the structural policy adjustments commenced in the 2010 budget.

The reason for this may be simply one of pragmatism rather than any deliberate policy decision, given the problems with the Inland Revenue computer systems. The Minister of Finance, in the pre-Budget briefing for journalists, confirmed that with those problems it was unlikely there would be tax changes in any event.  In fact some of the tax changes made, namely the removal of certain tax credits, were for simplification of  Inland Revenue systems more than any real revenue gain or policy shift.

So what could the Government have done?

There has been much speculation over the last 12 months on the merits of capital gains tax and the anomaly that its absence presents from a tax policy perspective. New Zealand is unique among OECD countries in this regard. Everyone accepts that it is not a revenue earner in the short term, given most CGT regimes move to a realised basis to avoid the difficulty of funding tax payments when funds are locked up in the assets.

However, if there was ever a time to introduce a CGT it was now. Public understanding of a CGT, with its scope limited to certain assets and value, means their acceptance of such a regime was more likely to be acceptable, rather than encountering the political death knell its mention used to be. There is also a greater political acceptance across the spectrum, albeit differences in opinion on the detail. And in an environment of getting the structural integrity of policy landscape in place, a CGT had a logical niche. Recent examples of significant capital gains on IPO floats reinforced the need for a CGT, particularly when the government intends to float significant state assets in the near future.

Another opportunity missed related to remedying the ambiguity around the Penny and Hooper decision. That decision related to the use of company structures to divert what was essentially personal services income through family trusts. The Inland Revenue is in audit mode of a significant number of taxpayers following its Supreme Court win. While the reduction in personal tax rates to match the trustee rate means the incentive for such arrangements has been seriously diminished, the uncertainty about when and how the new principles should apply could have been alleviated through a bright line test on the extent of income to be attributed in such situations. For example, an 80% rule currently exists for income attribution in certain circumstances. That rule could have been extended to all personal services income situations, with some ability to modify the rule for specific circumstances. While there would be winners and losers from such an approach, certainty and a reduction in audit requirements would have outweighed this.

Earthquake strengthening of buildings is also a growing area of concern, brought about by the changing landscape following the Christchurch earthquakes. Currently rules mean that such expenditure is non-deducible. However as a result of recent changes to tax depreciation, the capitalisation of such expenditure will not result in any depreciation deduction. With an increased focus by insurers and city councils, the necessity for strengthening is becoming paramount, and would add much needed stimulus to the economy at the same time. However, the cost for most landlords is prohibitive, and could be eased through targeted deductibility of strengthening expenditure for tax purposes.

Finally, the recent tax simplification paper for SMEs presented by NZICA has gained recognition by the government, but the timing of its release just prior to the Budget mean its merits could not be considered in time for the Budget. Principally those changes revolve around tying small businesses income tax liability to their GST returns, as a final tax, thus removing their need for filing income tax returns.

Out of all the changes mentioned above, it stands the greatest change of success, provided policy officials can overcome the quantum shift away from historical tax principals to one of simplicity.

But returning to the fundamental problem that any tax policy change represents, until the Inland Revenue systems are modified, it is unlikely that any real policy change can be made, which seriously limits the government’s ability to react and make necessary policy shifts as the economy rebounds, as it must inevitably do.

Further enquiries, please contact:

Greg Thompson          
Partner, Tax
T +64 (0)4 495 3775
M+64 (0)21 281 7332
E greg.thompson@nz.gt.com

  • Follow us on Instagram
  • LinkedIn icon
  • Twitter icon
  • Facebook icon
CONNECTclose
  • Contact us
  • Make an enquiry/submit an RFP
  • Meet our people
  • Careers
  • Alumni
  • Locations
ABOUTclose
  • About Grant Thornton
  • Insights
  • Press
LEGALclose
  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Sitemap

© 2021 Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL) - All rights reserved. "Grant Thornton” refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions.

    • EN