Inland Revenue has now released more details about the requirements for receiving the Cost of Living Payment and how it will be administered.
Firstly, there is no need to apply for the payment. It will be made automated automatically if a person is eligible. The key thing is to make sure that Inland Revenue does have your correct bank account into which the payments can be made. Apparently, Inland Revenue only has records for just over 79% of potentially eligible people
As previously advised, they were going to be three payments, which we made on the 1st of August, 1st of September, on the 3rd of October, the first working day of that month. Each payment will be made after a check of a person's eligibility.
To summarise, a person is going to be eligible to receive this payment if:
- they earned $70,000 or less for the year ended 31 March 2022;
- are not eligible to receive the winter energy payment which means they are either receiving New Zealand super or a qualifying benefit;
- they're aged 18 or over;
- are both a New Zealand tax resident and present here and are not in prison or deceased.
People receiving student allowances will get the payment if they meet the other eligibility requirements.
So the key thing is, as previously advised, is to have had your income tax assessment made for the year to March 2022. So that means either Inland Revenue has auto-assessed it or you have filed an individual tax return which has been processed.
Eligibility is measured before each payment, so it's quite possible that a person may not be eligible for one payment, but becomes eligible for a subsequent payment. For example, the person turns 18 after 1st of August, so will be eligible to receive the second and third payments. Alternatively, the person receives one payment but then starts receiving New Zealand Super, in which case they're no longer eligible to receive the second and third payments.
The payment is not taxed and does not count as income for:
- child support
- Working for Families
- student loans
- benefits and payments from Work and Income.
Inland Revenue has also said it will not use the payment to pay off any debt a person may have with it, which is a welcome step.
Inland Revenue will keep checking eligibility until 31st of March 2023, although you will have until 31st March 2024 to provide bank account details to Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue website has some useful examples of when persons are eligible and how they will administer it.
Travel claims by car
Briefly, Inland Revenue have also published the kilometer reimbursement rates for the 2021-2022 income year for business motor vehicle expenditure claims.
These rates may be used by businesses and self-employed to calculate the available tax deductions for the business use of a vehicle. They’re also often used by employers to reimburse employees for use of their own car for work purposes.
As you might expect rates have been increased but not significantly from previous years the tier one rate is now $0.83 per kilometer for the business portion of the first 14,000 kilometres traveled by the car including private use travel (an often-overlooked point).
Incidentally, the difference between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rates is because the Tier 1 rate is a combination of the vehicle's fixed and running costs and the Tier 2 rate is for running costs only.
Windfall profits taxes? Wealth taxes?
Talking about cost of living payments, over in the UK the government there has also announced some cost of living support measures. The interesting thing is that to pay for the £15 billion package it’s announced a 25% energy profits levy on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the UK and on the UK continental shelf.
This windfall tax will apply to profits arising on or after 26th May this year. It’s a temporary levy which will be phased out when oil and gas prices return to “historically more normal levels” with the expectation that the tax will lapse after 31st December 2025.
The UK actually has a history of windfall taxes: that well-known tax cutter Margaret Thatcher imposed one on banks back in 1981 (I dare say a similar tax here would be popular) and in 1997 Tony Blair’s newly elected Labour government raised £5.2 billion on the increased values of previously privatised companies to fund a welfare-to-work scheme.
The idea of a windfall tax here in New Zealand has never been seriously discussed in recent years but it crossed my mind when the issue of the taxation of billionaires came up following the release of the NBR rich list earlier this week. There are now 14 billionaires in New Zealand with an estimated aggregate wealth of around $38 billion. Inevitably the question of how much tax they pay was raised. I repeated my longstanding view that some change to our tax mix to include greater taxation of capital is both necessary and inevitable.
Talking about it with The Panel on RNZ, Max Harris asked about a wealth tax. My favoured response is the Fair Economic Return Professor Susan St John and I have suggested. But there’s possibly an argument for a one-off wealth tax to capture the huge largely untaxed growth in property values over the past two years as a result of the Government’s initiatives around COVID.
If something like that happened, my belief is that any funds raised there should be used to speed up the transition to a low emissions economy, for example, by providing greater subsidies for lower emission vehicles and assisting communities to relocate from areas threatened by climate change. This is something I think we were going to see a lot more of, and particularly once (not if) insurers start withdrawing cover.
In the UK, a Wealth Tax Commission suggested in December 2020 that a one-off wealth tax was feasible. That proposal was for a one-off wealth tax payable on all individual wealth above £500,000, which at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion. The tax by the way, was to help restore the UK government’s finances in the wake of the COVID 19 pandemic. The proposal hasn't gone anywhere at the moment, but it is an example of some of the current thinking we're seeing around the topic of taxing wealth.
As I’ve said before the debate around taxing wealth will continue to run. In my view when you examine Treasury’s 2021 He Tirohanga Mokopuna statement on the long term fiscal position, tax increases of some sort seem inevitable.
The perils of tax short cuts
And finally, this week, another reminder about the perils of taking short cuts around tax. I got a call from a somewhat alarmed tax agent trying to unwind a GST scenario. This appears to have arisen because someone tried to avoid being GST registered in relation to a lease of land to a related party. At the same time that related party claimed GST in respect of a school building from which it runs a school. The issue has now boiled over because the school business is up for sale and it’s not clear who owns the building the school will operate out of, whether a proper lease is in place for those buildings and if so, what is the annual value of that lease? The result is that the potential sale of the business may not proceed.
I’ve seen similar impacts where a business hasn’t booked cash sales to evade GST & income tax, only to find that either when the business is up for sale, purchasers don’t have a true picture and the sale price disappoints. Alternatively, the owner applies for lending but because they have been suppressing their income, they haven’t got the necessary level of income. The lesson in all these cases is the same. Short term decisions to avoid tax consequences can often have longer term and much more adverse implications.
And on that note, that's all for this week. ’m Terry Baucher and you can find this podcast on my website www.baucher.tax or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for listening and please send me your feedback and tell your friends and clients.
Until next time kia pai te wiki, have a great week!
*Terry Baucher is an Auckland-based tax specialist with 25 years experience. He works with individuals and entities who have complex tax issues. Prior to starting his own business, he spent six years with one of the "Big Four' accountancy firms including a period advising Australian businesses how to do business in New Zealand. You can contact him here.
28 Comments
“one off wealth tax to capture the hugely untaxed growth in property values over the past two years as a result of the government’s initiatives around covid.” Ah hum, what about those that neither sought nor expected such growth. That is the simple household that now has a home worth $1 mill or so more than two years ago, solely because of the government. And an outcome completely beyond the control of the household. As it is just their home why should they have to pay tax to live in it, and especially when it provides no actual additional income, beyond the local body rates which in themselves are a quasi wealth tax anyway. Could it therefore be suggested this government has embarked on a policy to create a lucrative sector for a potential tax grab which dovetails nicely with the avowed and not negotiable Greens Party wealth tax policy, for which of course, the IRD have recently been given unprecedented powers of enquiry in order to provide the necessary mechanisms?
... I think the issue of a wealth tax needs clarification , or it'll go the same way as CGT has ...
A simple land value tax is the obvious answer to our need to tax some wealth , without crippling homeowners & private business ....
... as such , I very much doubt that this government will look at it ... much as Micheal Cullen previously did , when he dismissed it out of hand ... sadly ...
Yeah. I don't know why Labour has a problem with a land value tax - but it does. Cullen and now Robertson have never been keen. Not sure why?
Land taxes could help Labour's constituents by switching tax from work(PAYE) to land wealth. The productive part of the business community should support it too - so there would be some left/right crossover political support.
Yet somehow the unproductive land speculators are the most influential political force on both Labour and National.
Ah hum, what about those that neither sought nor expected such growth.
Anyone that bank leverages existing property or a deposit to buy residential property is a speculator seeking a return to justify the interest expense.
“Ultimately there’s no natural income streams to be able to service and repay loans. What you have is capital gains which are contingent on the game continuing. So it’s a Ponzi scheme. says Werner. - https://wire.insiderfinance.io/richard-werner-qe-infinity-707e2c627e03
Market capitalization isn’t “wealth.” It’s the latest price, times shares outstanding. Blotches of ink on paper. Flashing pixels on a screen. If a dentist in Poughkeepsie buys a single share of Apple at a price that’s 10 cents higher than the previous trade, $1.6 billion in market capitalization emerges from thin air. If a single share trades 10 cents lower, $1.6 billion evaporates just as quickly. Whatever happens, every security in existence has to be held by someone until it is retired. Ultimately, the wealth inherent in a security is the future stream of cash flows it will deliver to its holder(s) over time. Price fluctuations don’t change those underlying cash flows. They just provide opportunities for the transfer of savings between investors. High valuations favor the sellers. Low valuations favor the buyers. Investors have never paid higher prices for those future cash flows, or accepted prospective returns so low.
Put simply, the bubble hasn’t changed the wealth, and a collapse won’t change the wealth. What will change is the market cap. I suspect that the erasure of market cap in the coming years, and possibly the coming quarters, may be brutal. Still, no forecasts are required, and our own attention will remain on observable valuations, market internals, and other factors. Meanwhile, even if an investor sells at these extremes, the only thing that will change is who holds the bag. Link
My comment was about the average family home, no more than that. There are here in New Zealand, whether you want to admit it or not, ordinary folk living simply in a household with or without a mortgage and if the former, meeting the requisite financial obligations. The fact that the government, as this article attests, has increased the value of their family home mightily, does not justify distorting the basic facts of their status, for it would seem your own peculiar agenda, to include and then exaggerate such folk as rampant speculators.
Good for once again. Explains then your uncalled for sarcasm some days ago, from such undoubted august & arrogant status, and hence your own question for yourself , “ a life enhancing income stream or an unexpected speculators capital gain.” With all your proven analytical skill in research and finance, it is a shame that you cannot seem to cast off personal & political bias and present more often from a neutral position. Perhaps it might be that you would be happier residing in Moscow?
Cannot imagine many would disagree with Paul Hunt, Human Rights Commissioner, in his article in The Herald December 2019 that it is a human right and a foremost duty of any government to ensure the population has adequate shelter. It would be more than incongruous for a government to subsequently distort and corrupt that feature by expanding that basic responsibility into a facility to enhance their tax take.
I can Foxglove. There is a difference between having the right to adequate shelter and forcing someone else to pay for it. So best you do "imagine", because I won't be the only one out there that thinks that it is not the responsibility of Government to house the population. We aren't communist yet.
Terry : Sugar Tax ! ... we need to improve the nations health , ease the burden on our stretched healthcare services ... obesity is a weighty issue ... as is type 2 diabetes ... stop the rot , kids teeth ! ... a sugar tax , kick the freaking snot out of those peddlers of ill health , Coca fricking Cola ...
... you're welcome ... a simple knighthood for my service to Kiwi health outcomes will suffice ...
I for one am not a fan of paying any more tax. The tax take over the last 4 years has gone into the stratosphere. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to matter to Mr Robertson how much tax is taken in, he simply spends more. I hate to think how he would blow the additional money generated through a wealth tax/land tax/ inheritance tax etc
... absolutely ... the $NZ Trillions tied up in land are a veritable goldmine for any government ... take a tiny % of that each year , and offset it against income & business taxes ...
Except , we can't introduce a LVT whilst Robbo's is the Finance Minister ... he'll spend it all , and some more ... OMG , that man , he's lavish , over the top , spraying the credit cards around ... worse than the Khardashians on a spree in Tiffany's ...
... I wouldnt mind so much if we saw some tangible improvements... extra hospital beds & nurses , a new expressway , a better teacher to pupils ratio , a beefed up military ..
But no ... all we're witnessing is many things going backwards ... money in the millions & billions wasted on consultants & non necessary feelgood projects ... there's no accountability ... no one asks if the money spent had any result ...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.