A Week in Review

Richard AshbyPartner, Gilligan Sheppard

AML Changes on the Doorstep…

While not in the nature of tax, I thought it would be useful to mention the latest AML update as you should be aware by now that effective from 1st October 2018, accountants will be subject to the same compliance obligations under the AML regime, as those presently in place for the likes of financial institutions and casino’s.

Accounting Practices will be required to:

  • determine which activities of their practice are caught by the AML Act
  • appoint an AML Compliance Officer
  • complete an AML risk assessment on the firm’s business and clients
  • develop and maintain an AML compliance programme
  • conduct customer due diligence (asking for and verifying customer identification)
  • retain records of documents associated with transactions (including the nature, amount, currency, date and parties involved) for not less than five years
  • meet audit and annual reporting requirements
  • report to Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) where there is suspicious activity and where prescribed transactions are undertaken.

If you are looking for more comprehensive guidelines with respect to your forthcoming obligations, refer to the following, which has been released by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the Government supervisor of accountants for AML compliance – Guideline: Accountants — Complying with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (March 2018).

GST on Low Value Goods…

Following on in the footsteps of the so-called “Netflix” tax, is the proposed “Amazon” tax – the requirement for non-resident suppliers to charge GST on the supply of goods valued at or below $400 to NZ consumers (determined by delivery to a NZ address).

Modelled principally on the same basis as the remote services regime which came into effect on 1st October 2016, from 1st October 2019, non-resident suppliers whose annual value of supplies to NZ consumers of goods valued at or below $400 (excluding supplies of alcohol and tobacco) exceed $60,000, will be required to register for NZ GST and to charge GST on the supply.

Goods supplied to NZ GST registered businesses (who have identified themselves as such by providing their registration number or NZ Business Number for example) will not be subject to GST, although a reverse charge mechanism will be in place to deal with situations where the business then applied the goods to a non-taxable purpose.

Where goods are being supplied via an offshore marketplace or a re-deliverer (goods initially sent to an offshore address because supplier does not deliver to NZ), these parties will have the same GST obligations as if they are the supplier of the goods themselves.

A simplified “pay only” GST return will be available where the non-resident was not looking to claim back any NZ GST costs incurred, and filing will occur on a quarterly basis.

Where non-resident suppliers fail to comply with their NZ obligations, use of the “Assistance in Collection” provisions contained in many of our present double tax treaty agreements will be utilised to request the relevant foreign tax authority to help with enforcement of the new rules.

GST on goods with a value of more than $400, will still be assessed and collected directly by NZ Customs. In this respect, the new regime will also see the existing potential tariffs and border cost recovery charges removed from goods valued at or below $400.

Should you wish to have your say on the new proposals, the closing date for submissions is 29th June 2018.

Failing to pay attention to detail can be costly…

A recent TRA decision is a curt reminder to us all to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative requirements in the form specified, even where there may be clear intent present to have wanted to comply.

The case concerned a taxpayer who had received notice from the Disputes Review Unit that they had decided in favour of the Commissioner, which was then followed up by the issue of a notice of assessment from the IR investigator. The taxpayer was required to then file a notice of claim with the TRA or High Court within two months of the date of issue of the assessment notice.

A completed notice of claim was emailed to the Tribunals Unit two days before the expiry of the two month window, to which the authority replied by email on the same day, advising that email was not an acceptable medium for filing and that either courier or post must be used instead. The taxpayer responded by email on the following day, that he was still awaiting some additional information from his accountant who was presently overseas, and that he would file an amended notice of claim accordingly when it was obtained. Regardless of this issue, the taxpayer proceeded to courier the initial claim notice along with a form providing for payment of the filing fees by creditcard, to the authority on the final day of the response period. Some three months later an amended claim notice was filed, which IR then applied to the TRA to have struck-out on the basis the claim notice was out of time and there were no “exceptional circumstance” with respect to the late filing.

The TRA found in favour of the Commissioner and struck out the claim. Why you may ask, when it would appear clear that the taxpayer was trying to challenge within the relevant timeframe? In essence because:

  • The legislation was mandatory and specific in its requirement for filing and service of a notice of claim. The taxpayer could not produce evidence of the courier on the due date or of any filing fee charge against his creditcard, and he had been advised that his initial emailing of the notice of claim was defective.
  • The initial notice of claim was never served on the Commissioner as required.
  • The taxpayer could not demonstrate any “exceptional circumstances” were involved.

To most of us the decision would appear harsh and clearly raise questions of fairness and justice, however unfortunately the devil is in the detail, and it was all there in black and white for the taxpayer to educate himself with and ensure that he was following correct procedure.

Let it be a lesson to all of us….

Pre-Budget Speech…

Next Thursday (17th) will see the first Budget by the new Coalition Government.

In a recent pre-budget speech hosted by Westpac, the Hon Grant Robertson has promised a surplus, with a commitment to also reduce the level of net core Crown debt to 20% of GDP within 5 years and to maintain Government expenditure within the range of 30% of GDP. To pay for these various commitments, it is proposed to:

  • Slow down the debt repayment track of the previous government by two years in order to free up resources (this is already in process).
  • Use the Tax revenue which has tracked higher than forecast in recent months because of a strong economy which gives the Government more choices.
  • Increase Government revenue through initiatives that were clearly flagged during the election campaign –
    • by investing in the Inland Revenue’s compliance capability, a greater return will be generated by ensuring tax dodgers are caught and made to contribute (didn’t they just make a whole lot of people redundant – that was the inside word from several investigators recently??);
    • by cracking down on property speculators by extending the bright-line test on the sale of investment properties (already done – now 5 years) and by ending the practice of negative gearing for those with an investment property portfolio (residential investment property ring-fencing proposals recently released for public consultation); and,
    • by aggressively pursuing those foreign and multi-national companies which do not pay their fair share of tax in New Zealand (legislative changes already made or proposed based on OECD work).

Hmmmm….seems like everything is already underway so I might not be running to switch on the telly at 2pm on the 17th in eager anticipation of what is to come….

New Rates for Standard-Cost Household Services…

The latest round of annual CPI adjusted rates for both boarding service and childcare providers has been released –

  • Applying for the March 2018 year (standard balance date providers), weekly variable standard-cost rates of $266 each (1 – 2 boarders) and $218 each (3rd & subsequent).
  • Applying for the March 2018 year (standard balance date providers), variable standard-cost component of $3.55 per hour per child and fixed standard-cost component for admin/record keeping of $347p.a. for full 52 weeks of childcare services provided.

Richard Ashby BBus, CA, CPA PARTNER

Em: [email protected]

Ph: +64 9 365 5532 Fx: +64 9 309 5260 Mb: +64 21 823 464