Red Alert

Why do we favour foreign ownership in our tax system?

Posted by on January 28th, 2010

Before reading this, read the box to the top right of this blog. And then note that I accept that Labour made it worse. And I was Associate Minister of Finance. Then take a deep breath and read on.

For most Kiwis, the imputation system means that the tax their companies (or the companies they own shares in) pay is part and advance payment of their personal tax.  It is a matter of timing but unless they are involved in avoidance or rorts they end up paying a bit more at some stage.

Most countries don’t have imputation systems. Companies pay tax and then individuals pay tax on the dividends from the companies. They don’t get a credit for what the company has paid.

However, for overseas owners of NZ companies, the company tax rate is their final tax. And even then there is real doubt in some cases, for example banks, as to whether they properly declare their profits.

So my fairly simple proposition is; that because their final tax on NZ assets is less than a NZ owner of the same assets, and their net return is higher, they can afford to pay more than Kiwi-owned companies for a specific asset piece of land or whatever and get the same return.

What is the answer? Eliminate the margin between company and top personal rates. You can do this one of three ways:

First, reduce top tax rates down to meet company rates. Second, increase company tax to the top personal rate. Or third (my preference) be fiscally neutral about it and get them to meet at about 36c and while you are at it put the trust rate at that level too.

That means Kiwis can foot it on equal terms buying our assets – it also means we have a tax effect neutral system for choosing the form a business takes – and that is a good thing.


18 Responses to “Why do we favour foreign ownership in our tax system?”

  1. James says:

    Off topic James. But will post on that topic at appropriate time. Trevor

  2. James says:

    Still off topic Trevor

  3. George says:

    Tax not OIC please Trevor

  4. Rob Carr says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t those foreign owned companies go and pay even more tax than we are in their own countries after they get the profit here because they don’t have imputation systems?

  5. Trevor Mallard says:

    Only if they repatriate to their home country. Many multinationals don’t.

  6. George says:

    Don’t waste my time George. Trevor

  7. Rob says:

    The thing I’d most like to see in the NZ tax system is some consistency – why does it keep changing all the time? I’m trying to budget for paying my mortgage and saving for the future, and every 6 months or so the goalposts move. I can’t plan ahead because I don’t know how much $$ I’ll have in my back pocket at the end of the day.

    I know theres all this rubbish about “trying to align ourselves with Australia”, but people need to realise that NZ is a much smaller country than Australia, so if people want to live here then they have to accept that they’ll be paying more tax – period.

    If you choose your country to live in purely on a couple of bucks of tax saved then good for you – but no matter how low the tax rates in Australia, the place is still full of AUSSIES!

    Leave it as it is.

  8. Policy Parrot says:

    Even though it is just an individual MP’s perspective, it is good to see what could be the shaping of the Labour caucus reaction to the TWG report.

    Trevor’s suggestion that top personal, trust, and corporate rates be equalised at 36% follows one of the few sensible recommendations that the the TWG made, albeit perhaps in a mode they wouldn’t have thought of themselves.

    Certainly, MPs, like some in the TWG, who many of which have, pecuniary interests far and above that of the ordinary Kiwi, should not be allowed to make a decision which could benefit an interest they have a personal stake.

    I for one, would be happy with a slightly lower top personal rate, if we (the general public) could be reasonably assured that those with crafty tax accountants were in fact forced to meet their [Parliament] intended obligation.

    Any rise in the corporate rate, would have to met with tax credits for businesses which could prove a positive contribution to the economy.

  9. Idiot/Savant says:

    Why be fiscally neutral about it?

    We have bills to pay. Superannuation (plus catch-up payments ofr national’s laxity) to fund, hospitals and schools to improve, an inadequete welfare system, and an economy to transform. These are all good left-wing goals, and a left-wing party shouldn’t be afraid to push for higher taxes to fund the services the public wants.

  10. Jeremy says:

    Trevor, I was under the impression that the fluctions of the exchange rate had more influence on forigneds buying or selling assets in NZ and migrating for lifestyle (or backdoor to Aus). My preference would be for a far lower company rate as long as they ‘play ball’ and reinvest to increase productivity. In the short term this would leave a hole in revenues until the profits are paid out as dividends (for consumer spending).

    Does labor still support R&D tax credits?
    Any thoughts about expanding these to cover training would be positive.

  11. Bea says:

    My preference is for the top personal tax rate to be brought down to the company tax rate – as it once was. It simplifies and means taxpayers aren’t expending energy and accountants’ fees avoiding the top tax rate.

  12. Cactus Kate says:

    You have to of course read each countries double tax treaty/agreement with NZ in conjunction with this analysis.

    Also remember that one of the keys to growth is getting New Zealanders to own more of the rest of the world. To help them do that you have to realise they are competing against companies and countries with much less taxing regimes than NZ thanks to credits, loopholes and less strict returning regimes than NZ.

    Trevor has highlighted this on a NZ basis:

    “and that because their final tax on NZ assets is less than a NZ owner of the same assets, and their net return is higher, they can afford to pay more than Kiwi-owned companies for a specific asset piece of land or whatever and get the same return”.

    If you want NZ companies to pay 36 cents in the dollar they will be competing in the world against Asian based companies with tax rates of half or a third of that.

    So in essence you are basing an argument for tax equal treatment between foreign co and NZ co when NZ co doesn’t receive the same advantage with it from the NZ system when it invests overseas against foreign co in competition.

    I think it is a fabulous idea however for Labour to be pushing to equalise corporate, personal and trust tax rates at 36%. A real vote winner for National.

  13. Trevor Mallard says:

    Sorry Kate Tech problem meant I missed this last night, Thought you could do a bit better than this. I didn’t work on the assumption that companies doing major investments offshore didn’t pay their first round of tax in NZ. They don’t now and this wouldn’t make any difference.

  14. Mark says:

    Off topic Clare

  15. Ruth Laugesen says:

    I don’t quite understand Trevor – you say “their final tax on NZ assets is less than a NZ owner of the same asset” – why is that?

  16. J G Russell says:

    So Kate, you are endorsing loopholes to increase New Zealand Competitive Advantage ?

    I have a plan

Leave a Reply