The IRD has confirmed it will not be appealing the recent Court of Appeal decision in C of IR v Diamond  NZCA 613.
This is good news for taxpayers (and their advisers) as it provides a degree of clarity and certainty to the law on residency.
The Court of Appeal decision – which was a win for the taxpayer – explicitly rejected the notion that having a rental property “available” to the overseas-based taxpayer was sufficient to amount to having a permanent place of abode in New Zealand.
The Court also concluded by saying that the fact that a taxpayer provides a home for his family in New Zealand while living overseas would not necessarily be sufficient to establish that the taxpayer had a permanent place of abode in New Zealand.
Refer to James Coleman’s blog to read the background facts to the Diamond case.
Windows 7 Home ISO Download |
Windows 10 ISO Download |
Windows 7 Key Generator |
Windows 10 Product Key |
Office 2013 Download |
Office 2010 Download |
Windows 7 Product Key |
Windows 7 Home ISO |
Office 2016 Product Key |
Office 2013 ISO Download |
Office 2010 Key Generator |
Windows 7 Ultimate ISO |
Office 2010 Key Generator Download |
Windows 10 Activator Download |
Windows 7 Product Key Generator |
Windows 10 Activator |
Windows 7 Ultimate Key |
Windows 8/8.1 Key Activator |
Windows 7 ISO |
Windows 7 Enterprise ISO |
Windows 7 Ultimate Download ISO |
Windows 7 Home Key Generator |
Windows 7 Ultimate Product Key |
Windows 7 Ultimate Install |
office 2016 pro iso |
Windows 7 Ultimate Product Key |
Windows 10 Product Key Generator Download |
windows 10 enterprise key |
Windows 10 ISO Free Download |
Windows 10 Pro Keys |
Windows 7 Professional Free Download |
Windows 7 Pro Product Key |
Buy Windows 10 Key |
Buy Windows 10 Product Key |
Buy Windows 7 Key |
Widnows 7 Home Premium Key |
Office 2007 Key |
Buy Windows 8.1 Product Key |
Buy Cheap Windows 7 Product Key |
Windows 10 Activation Key |
Buy Windows 7 Activation Key |
The bridal set ring comes with eternity band ring showcases small round stones going half way around the band ring, crafted of 14k gold clad.
In the past, the Commissioner’s view has been that car parks provided to employees under a license agreement did not qualify for the on-premises exemption and were therefore subject to FBT. However, the question of whether or not FBT applies to a car park now focuses on whether the employer has a right over the car park which is substantially exclusive. So if the employer has a right which is in fact, or effect, substantially exclusive, then the car park will not be subject to FBT.
Il meglio delle maglie calciole puoi trovare su Maglia4outlets.com. Personalizzale a prezzi Imbattibili
In a nutshell, the higher the degree of control the employer has over the car park, the more likely it is that the right is substantially exclusive.
Going back a step, there is an FBT liability when an employer provides a free car park to an employee. However, there is an exemption for fringe benefits which are provided on the employer’s premises. This is sometimes referred to as the “on premises exemption”. The “premises” of an employer includes land which owned and leased by the employer.
A recent Inland Revenue ruling (BR Pub 15/11) states that when deciding on the question of FBT, employers will have to look closely at the nature of the car parking arrangement and whether it gives the employer a right to use the car park which is in fact, or effect, substantially exclusive. So a car park which is subject to a license can now be exempt from FBT if the employer has a substantially exclusive right to use it.
Just before Christmas, the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Diamond case: Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Diamond  NZCA 613. The result – which was a win for the taxpayer – once again strikes down the Inland Revenue’s interpretation of what is meant by a “permanent place of abode”. (Refer to James Coleman’s blog for a quick précis of the background facts to Diamond).
The Court of Appeal explicitly rejected the Commissioner’s argument that having a rental property “available” to the taxpayer was sufficient to amount to having a permanent place of abode in New Zealand. The Commissioner’s argument in court aligns with the position taken by Inland Revenue in Interpretation Statement IS 14/01.
Most tax professionals will be aware of the Diamond case (Diamond v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2014) 26 NZTC 21,093). It is the first High Court judgment on personal tax residency in New Zealand after the 1980 law change. It therefore affects all New Zealanders who move abroad.
The High Court had to rule on the question of whether a rental property owned and rented out by Mr Diamond (the taxpayer) could be considered his permanent place of abode in New Zealand. Clifford J stated that to have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand means to have a home in New Zealand with a sufficient degree of permanence. Read more
A new Government public consultation project on options for simplifying and modernising New Zealand’s tax administration has been launched.
The first two in a series of public consultation documents designed to modernise and simplify the tax system have been released.
The first paper, Making Tax Simpler — a Government green paper on tax administration aims to introduce New Zealand to the overall direction of the tax administration modernisation programme and seeks feedback on that direction. Consultation on this paper closes on 29 May 2015.
The paper, Better Digital Services outlines proposals for greater use of electronic and online processes allowing faster, more accurate, more convenient interactions with Inland Revenue. Consultation on this paper closes on 15 May 2015.
Inland Revenue has won a $367m judgement against 79 year old accountant, JG Russell for an unpaid tax debt. Even though the case has been won by Inland Revenue, it is unlikely that Inland Revenue will actually recover the money. One has to then ask, was this really a case about the money, or principle? Read more
Minister of Revenue Todd McClay has announced the Government’s intention to amend the GST Act to confirm that Body Corporates will not be required to register for GST and file returns. The Government’s view is that this will align Body Corporates with the rules for other residential property owners. For more information see http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/news/2014-06-06-govt-seeks-feedback-proposals-clarify-gst-treatment-bodies-corporate#statement.