cheap lenses australia

Name: Lee

Bio: Lee Treadaway leads the tax team at Wolters Kluwer, CCH New Zealand and works from the company’s head office in Takapuna, Auckland. She has specialised in tax since 1995 and has contributed to many CCH tax publications over the years. Prior to joining Wolters Kluwer, Lee was a solicitor with a national law firm.

Posts by Lee:

    What would a “tax working group” look like under a coalition government?

    September 27th, 2017

    If Winston Peters decides to team up with Labour and the Greens to form a coalition government, the establishment of a  tax working group remains a distinct possibility. Terry Baucher* discusses what the agenda for a tax working group might look like. 

    I believe the terms of reference for any tax working group should include:

    • reviewing the under-taxation of capital and the over-taxation of savings;
    • the interaction of tax and social assistance such as working for families’ tax credits and the issue of high effective marginal tax rates;
    • the taxation of multinationals; and
    • the role of “environmental” taxes such as the Green Party’s mooted Carbon Tax and the Labour Party’s controversial Water Tax.

     

    Coincidentally, these topics are similar to those covered by the terms of reference of the McLeod Review in 2001. Its terms of reference Read the rest of this entry “

    No Comments "

    Supreme Court: disclosure denied to beneficiary in billion-dollar Erceg case

    March 8th, 2017

    The Supreme Court has dismissed Ivan Erceg’s appeal, refusing his application for an order to disclose trust documents.

    Background

    The case is the culmination of a long-standing family feud involving two trusts set up by Michael Erceg, a wealthy businessman who died 10 years ago in a helicopter accident. Ivan Erceg, the brother of the deceased, was a beneficiary of both trusts, but received nothing when the trusts were wound up in 2010. Analysts had put the value of the trusts at $1.2 billion in 2006. Read the rest of this entry “

    No Comments "

    IRD chalks up another win: Supreme Court rejects Trustpower’s appeal

    July 27th, 2016

    The deductibility of feasibility expenditure on capital projects got knocked back by the Supreme Court in its decision released today (27/07/16). The court said:

    “ On a purist view of the capital/revenue distinction, any expenditure (feasibility in nature or otherwise) addressed to a capital project … is necessarily on capital account. On this approach – which has been espoused by Professor John Prebble QC and Hamish McIntosh – the feasibility expenditure in issue was necessarily not deductible.

    The approach which we adopt is broadly similar to that proposed by Professor Prebble and Mr McIntosh but, for reasons which we explain, allows for some flexibility, for instance, in respect of initial stages of feasibility work … [W]e consider that some feasibility expenditure referable to proposed capital projects might sometimes be deducted. We do not, however, see such deductibility as extending to external costs incurred in respects which do, or were intended to, materially advance the capital project in question.”

      Read the rest of this entry “

    No Comments "

    Government response to Shewan inquiry: she’s all go!

    July 13th, 2016

    A new tax bill in August will see the government adopting all of the key recommendations made in the Shewan Inquiry on foreign trusts. Expect to see these initiatives in the draft legislation:

    • information on foreign trusts to be maintained in a register overseen by Inland Revenue
    • foreign trusts to file an annual tax return
    • disclosure of tax information and personal information about the settlors, non-resident trustees and classes of beneficiaries
    • exemption on foreign source income removed if registration and disclosure obligations not met
    • new registration fee ($270) and annual filing fees ($50) to apply to foreign trusts.

    Increased Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements for lawyers and accountants are also signalled with effect from 2017.

    Read the full summary of the government’s response here.

    Wolters Kluwer CCH New Zealand

    Linked In

    Twitter

    No Comments "

    NZ’s foreign trust regime: John Shewan’s report in a nutshell

    June 28th, 2016

    The Government Inquiry into Foreign Trust Disclosure Rules was released yesterday (Monday 27 June). In a nutshell, John Shewan’s report concluded that the current disclosure requirements were “light handed” and reasonably likely to be facilitating the hiding of funds or evasion of tax in some instances. Against this backdrop, governments around the world have a legitimate expectation that the New Zealand government will step in and take action to change the rules.

    Read the rest of this entry “

    No Comments "

    IRD confirms: no appeal pending on Diamond residency case

    February 16th, 2016

    The IRD has confirmed it will not be appealing the recent Court of Appeal decision in C of IR v Diamond [2015] 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.

    No Comments "

    Strike two! Taxpayer wins in Court of Appeal tax residency case

    January 18th, 2016

    Just before Christmas, the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Diamond case:  Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Diamond [2015] 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.

    Read the rest of this entry “

    No Comments "

Recent comments

  • Joanne Martin: Hi Would you be able to email me to discuss a small company that is an LTC which I need some advice on...
  • Rizwana Saheed: You are on the right track that there is an exemption when employees work overtime but whether or not...
  • bryan: as a group of employees we get paid meal money if we exceed 11hrs on any day. Employer says he wants to tax...
  • linda: My mother is 94 and has dementia. With govt assisted carers she is still living in a home gifted within the...
  • Sharon: Hi Daniel, Can you please advise how owners of a profit-making LTC pay themselves? The owners used to pay...
  • Another Anne: My Dad is in care on full subsidy. I am EPOA. Are we able to gift some money to my brother in UK so...
  • Twagilayesu Isaya: I agree with the author of this article that Inland Revenue Department need to provide clear...
  • Quinn: Hi. I would like some clarification regarding the valuation of the investments component of the owners basis...
  • QROPS Pensions: Interesting piece of writing, you always write the most useful content & TalkTax is no exception...
  • Davo: Jo, quite likely is that the transition to an LTC was not done in time and the company became a normal company...

Upcoming Events

  • No events.

Poll

In the past 12 months, do you think the amount of IRD investigations being undertaken has?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...