Closing the loopholes
December 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarKate Chapman in the Dom Post reports:
A family whose company was making more than $700,000 a year used loopholes in the Working for Families tax credit system to claim $12,000 in government payouts.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne revealed details yesterday of the lengths some well-off people went to to get the tax credits after he announced the Government was looking to tighten up access to the entitlement.
Mr Dunne said one family, whose trust-owned company made more than $700,000 a year in taxable income, were able to claim $12,000 a year in Working for Families tax credits.
In another case, investments were listed under children’s names. While the parents were shown to earn $36,000 annually, and therefore qualified for $13,000 in tax credits, their children had a combined investment income of nearly $90,000 a year.
“Another family’s children earned over $150,000 a year in investment income, yet that family was still able to claim more than $4000 in Working for Families tax credits,” Mr Dunne told Parliament.
Thank goodness that Labour’s loopholes are being plugged.
Under proposed new rules the definition of income for Working for Families, student allowances and Community Services Cards would be broadened and loopholes around loss-attributing qualifying companies, or LAQCs, closed to prevent people claiming losses against their personal income.
The changes were expected to save $32 million a year in Working for Families payouts alone.
That’s a lot of rorting.
Labour leader Phil Goff said he supported any changes that would prevent people rorting the Working for Families scheme, but he wanted to see more detail. “It’s important to clamp down on those who may be abusing the system.”
If it was important to clamp down, why didn’t Labour do it? Very easy to talk the talk in opposition, but did they walk the walk in Government?
Tags: working for families
December 8th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Hang on wasn’t ‘tough man’ Dunne the Revenue Minister under Labour as well? Don’t get me wrong, Labour are monstrous arseholes but shouldn’t the blame for this be laid at the feet our very own political collabarateur.
He should of been shot against a wall a long time ago.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Yes, the bankrupt Working For Families that socialist Labour created and an emasculated Labour-lite refuses to close, despite of Key stating WFF was “socialism by stealth“, infamous words that have come back to haunt him.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Completely negligent on Labour’s part
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Get rid of working for families for good.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:39 am
The whole WFF was just another vote buying exercise from Labour and should have been canned as soon as National came in.
Vote:(Happy 1000 Michaels)
December 8th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Why should Labour bear the brunt of criticism for rorting WFF? Those that have manipulated their income, and those who help them do it (I presume a few accountants could be involved) are surely to blame. They chose to get benefits that clearly weren’t intended to go to people in their financial situation – I think that stinks.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Labour ??
This bullshit has been happening since the early nineties you muppet
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:44 am
people that rort the system like that are just pieces of shit.
which reminds me – rat, i dont wanna pay any tax this year. make it so
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:44 am
I suppose we all support closing the loopholes, but I think in the long term it would be better to look at the sort of Guaranteed Minimum Income that economists like Gareth Morgan talk about. By giving around $12000 a year to everybody, regardless of income, you would ensure that the loopholes in (e.g.) student allowances, the dole and working for familes were all closed. It would also mean that people wouldn’t be disincentivised to work, for fear of losing a benefit.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I agree with La Grand Fromage on this one. That sidler Dunne has been Revenue Minister for both Governments now, and the rorts continue. His self-interested one-man-band party, that purposely sits on the fence, adds no value to NZ.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I fail to see how adjusting your financial situation to fit a model developed by the government in order to minimise your tax is rorting. I think those people who do it as long as it is legal shouldn’t be labelled as such. If you want to pay more tax, please do so. I don’t and do as much as I can to minimise my (already very generous) contribution.
WFF is daft and should be scrapped and replaced by tax cuts for those at the bottom or better still a far higher tax free threshold. Although I accept that this will ‘cost’ too much as we’re going to continue to pay millionaire boomers a full pension and provie free travel to all retirees.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 10:51 am
It’s theft as they didn’t need it but within the rules so it isn’t illegal.
People will always refer to “it’s not against the law so whats wrong with it” as a position.
Look at parliament the so called highest court in the land.
Maybe if we had a simple easy to understand tax system and no middle class benefits but lower taxes this wouldn’t be an issue.
John Key knows he has to stay in power to effect change and having to is dice with staying in power and changing the apparatus nibble by nibble.
The problem is the mindset of the majority of Kiwis and until we change that it is one step forward and 2 backwards or a sideways hop.
This just shows that possibly Labour and their supporters should not have the vote and probably not have children to boot.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:05 am
The bloody socialists must be pissing themselves while rolling around the ground in fits of laughter. WFF was their scorched earth policy. The pricks knew that they were up shit creek and the people were seeing them for the total tossers they were. WFF was socialism by stealth but it was also the poison chalice that would tie the hands of any in coming government.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Labour ??
This bullshit has been happening since the early nineties you muppet
Moron! WFF was not around in the 90′s
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:06 am
If people are following the rules, then blame the rules.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:08 am
“petulantpacifist (9) Says:
December 8th, 2010 at 10:44 am
I suppose we all support closing the loopholes, but I think in the long term it would be better to look at the sort of Guaranteed Minimum Income that economists like Gareth Morgan talk about. By giving around $12000 a year to everybody, regardless of income, you would ensure that the loopholes in (e.g.) student allowances, the dole and working for familes were all closed. It would also mean that people wouldn’t be disincentivised to work, for fear of losing a benefit.”
I think it’s a great idea too, but I don’t think it would work in New Zealand because we already have too much of a “why should I work when I can live off the state” mentality. I think a lot of people would simply choose to drop out and never bother with working ever.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
dime>which reminds me – rat, i dont wanna pay any tax this year. make it so
Sure thing! Here’s your application form: http://www.unite.org.nz/unitemembershipform.pdf
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am
i suspect they have probably hit it with too blunt a sword as well.
while i appreciate that people out there earning very high incomes were getting WFF (i know of someone earning 250K a year but because of property depreciation was able to get WFF) there are also going to be some self employed people legitamately claiming a lower income who get stung.
They key issue is taxable income. WFF originally based it on your taxable income and exlcuded LAQC deductions (even though people did it). People then chose to own properties in their own name, gettign aroudn the lAQC issue. deductions reduced their taxable income.
so if i own a Limited l;iability company that turns over 100K a year, but has 40K of deductible expenses and i pay myself all the profit is WFF calculated on the 60K or the 100K?
its why examples like the one in the article worry me, becuase i have no idea of knowing whether the amount they say is ‘earned’ is turnover or profit.
btw, i still think WFF is a crock, but i understand that if the govt says you can get this money if you do X, then people will find all the legitimate ways of becoming X. for some reason lefties (and all politicians) forget about incentivising people (cf, interest free student loans).
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
So long term unemployment, sickness and DP beneficiaries are ok to adjust their work intentions to maximise getting something for nothing? It’s not illegal.
There will always be loopholes if looked for enough. It depends on morals versus selfish greed and not caring about ripping off other taxpayers.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Yeti – so your morals are defined by NZ Statute?
That’s nearly as lame as having your morals determined by whichever version of whichever holy book of a religion that you happened to be born into.
Fine if you don’t do thinking, I guess.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Thank goodness that Labour’s loopholes are being plugged.
HMM well I’m old enough to remember similar rorts that were in operation years ago. Rorts setup by the Natsional Party to keep their supporters happy. Rorts over income versus education funding. Probably still exist.
Can’t blame Labour for everything.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
And no different to large corporationsadjusting their funding base to remove income from their balancesheets for repatriation over seas’s. Refer to the current court cases.
Vote:Who do you pay when you pay Google?
December 8th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Bevan
WWF was the old Family Assistance introduced when Family Support and the Family Benefit were merged in 1991.
A Rose is still a Rose by any other name, however the same Trust rort was evident when it was introduced.
Vote:Shame on Labour for not closing the loophole when they were elected.
December 8th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Grendall
WWF will be calculated on the 60K profit,
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Rick – what’s morality got to do with it? Do you pay more tax than you have to? I think Herman Poole summed it up quite nicely – blame the rules.
I’d rather prefer to avoid posting a reponse to your ad hominem attack, but I am intrigued. Please tell us why it is morally wrong to adjust your financial situation to fit a model developed by the government in order to minimise your tax?
If it is then surely thousands of Kiwi’s are immoral. Something that I think is somewhat unlikely.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
When it comes to tax and benefit abuse there are many immoral Kiwis. “Blame the rules” is a moral cop out.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
minimising income to avoid taxes has been happening forever.
Farmers are shockers at this.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Get rid of WFF by simple tax changes – it can be achieved easily – but to those “in need” shall relief be given.
After all it was only an election bribe, along with interest free student loans (which also get rid of).
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
$32 million is really chicken feed compared to $10 billion in welfare.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“Farmers are shockers at this”, bloody oath.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Rich pricks found minimising their tax liability. what a surprise!! Not.
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
davidp (1,547) Says:
December 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
dime>which reminds me – rat, i dont wanna pay any tax this year. make it so
Sure thing! Here’s your application form: http://www.unite.org.nz/unitemembershipform.pdf
davidp, thats not a tax form,
dime, same rates as last year ?
I have a scheme that gets hookers from 50% (exclusive GST) to fully deductible
Vote:December 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Working For Families was the name change for what used to be called Family Support Tax Credit. FSTC was introduced in about 1987 and there were several anti avoidance rules. An example; for farmers all livestock had to be valued under the Herd Scheme, even if the herd scheme was not used. National got rid of that in about 1991. FSTC was not worth the trouble of avoiding, except in unusual circumstances where the taxpayer had a tribe of kids or there was scope under the Guaranteed Minimum Family Tax Credit. I recall paying a solo mother $7 per hour and giving her a company car. With the impact of the GMFI and FSTC, child care subsidies, community services card et al, she found that she needed a salary of $37,800 to be better off if she left my employment. She found a job like that which was a pity as she was a damned fine person.
Vote:Once the WFF was substantially increased it became worthwhile to search for ways to adjust one’s self to that world. And remember; a reasonable man adjusts himself to the world; an unreasonable man tries to adjust the world to himself. That is what the reasonable people in Telecom’s head office do for their employer. That is why that company could declare a nett profit after tax of $553,000,000 and the company’s total income tax paid during the last financial year was $1,000,000. Telecom’s people were not as proficient as those at Fonterra; Fonterra paid zip, that is zero income tax while posting a nett profit of $660,000,000. Pete George argues that that sort of behaviour is immoral. I think that the tax accountants might have very good morals. But that is only because of what tax accountants use for contraception – their personalities.
December 8th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Well said Tauhei Notts. I love the moral outrage when you play by the rules and win. I pay my accountant well for his advice, it would be irresponsible and costly to ignore that advice
Vote:December 9th, 2010 at 7:37 am
There is no morality in taxation. You can’t develop a tax system around perceptions of morality because everyone has a different perception of morality and, human nature being what it is, those perceptions often accord with the individual’s own circumstances. That’s why rules are required to stop the structuring of personal affairs in such a way that is not consistent with the policy objectives of these lurks.
In one sense, WFF is an example of the worst type of policy implementation because it was inevitable that people would drive a bus through it and behave entirely predictably, as they did. If the rules had been robust, this wouldn’t have happened.
The rules were in fact so badly framed that it is easy to conclude that it was in fact quite deliberate with the objective of making as many people as possible beneficiaries of the state and thereby extending the life of that government.
Vote: