The great tax debate

March 12th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Two taxation issues have been getting some publicity of late. They are about fringe benefit on company car parks and taxation on long-stay accommodation.

As I have said many times the best tax system is low rate, broad base and as few loopholes as possible.

At this stage, I find the the proposed tax treatment of car parks quite reasonable, but the new tax rules on long-stay accommodation quite troubling. Let’s look at both in turn.

3 News reports:

Finance Minister Bill English is backing a controversial move to make company carparks subject to fringe benefit tax. That’s despite strong opposition from an unlikely coalition of trade unionists and employers.

It’s an unusual union of convenience. New Zealand’s most left-leaning trade union is working with the country’s biggest business association to topple a Government tax bill, with bumper stickers.

“Sometimes we have common causes,” says Unite Union secretary Matt McCarten. “To fight an obnoxious tax like that is one of them. We are united in hating the Government on this one, I’m very pleased to say!”

The Government wants to tax company carparks. Revenue Minister Peter Dunne is proposing a 50 percent hike on the perk, but only in central Wellington and Auckland. He’s got support from the top. 

“It’s going to not raise any money,” says Employers and Manufacturers assistant chief executive Kim Campbell. “It’s picking on Auckland and Wellington. It’s picking on CBD workers, not everybody.”

The proposed law change was announced by the Government on 11 December 2012.

He said public submissions on the proposed salary trade-off changes resulted in adjusted proposals to focus mainly on employer-provided car parks.

A wider set of car parks provided to employees (predominantly in Auckland and Wellington CBDs) will be taxed, through the fringe benefit tax () rules.

“These changes enhance the integrity of the tax and social assistance systems by providing a fairer, more equal, way of treating those who receive non-cash benefits as part of their remuneration and those who receive only cash remuneration,” Mr Dunne said.

The SOP is here.

Fringe Benefit Tax is designed to remove the incentive for employees to reduce their taxable income by having part of their remuneration in non cash terms.

Rather than (for example) pay someone a $100,000 salary on which they pay $33,000 tax, the employer used to be able to say we’ll give you $90,000 salary and $10,000 of fringe benefits (say medical insurance, superannuation contribution etc). That reduces the tax bill to $30,000 and advantages that employee over someone who is just on $100,000 with no fringe benefits.

Hence without an FBT, you’d get a huge number of employers and employees agreeing on as many fringe benefits as possible to reduce their tax liability. Which is why FBT was introduced in (off memory) the early 1990s.

So now the issue is whether car parks are a fringe benefit. It seems hard to me to argue they’re not. Not all employees travel to work by car, but those who do need to park it of course. There are dozens of private car parks available for hire, but they of course save money if the employer provides one.

The biggest argument against FBT on car parks is that the value is so low, that the administrative cost of doing so is greater than the revenue. But the value of car parking in the two main CBDs (the Christchurch CBD is now basically one big carpark!) is now quite significant, say $3,000 a year. This is why the FBT will only apply to the two big cities – because elsewhere the value of car parking is not great enough to bother.

But $3,000 a year is enough for employers to say we’ll either pay you $100,000 a year and no car park or $97,000 a year and a car park.

So I don’t have a huge issue with the principle of FBT on car parks. I want lower taxes, but you get those by lowering rates – not by having loopholes.

However it may be that the cost of extending FBT is not worth the revenue. Those against would be better focusing on that issue, rather than trying to argue in favour of tax loopholes which are in their self-interest.

The issue of taxing long-stay accommodation I find much more troubling. It is worth noting that this doesn’t come from a law change initiated by the Government, but from the IRD changing its position on what the lawful treatment is.

On 6 December 2012 the IRD Commissioner said:

Under section CE 1(1B), the market value of accommodation provided by an employer to an employee is income of the employee. Equally, the market value of an accommodation allowance paid by an employer to an employee is income of the employee. The employer must account for PAYE.

Issues arise most often in the situation of relocation or temporary accommodation arrangements.

Taxpayers have argued that where the employee is still maintaining a home in another location, employer-provided accommodation or accommodation allowances are not taxable. Taxpayers argue this is because there is no net benefit provided to the employee; the value of any accommodation or allowance received by the employee is nil as the employee continues to pay the cost of their own house.

This is a view I agree with. If you live in Wellington and maintain a house there and your employer says we need you to go to Christchurch for three months, then it is their responsibility to provide accommodation for you and it should not be regarded as taxable income as you are not receiving a benefit from it. It is no different (in my view) from having your employer pay for a hotel room when you stay overnight somewhere on their business. But the Commissioner says:

The Commissioner does not agree with this view. The law does not support a net-benefit approach.

If that is the case, then I think the law needs changing.

The Commissioner acknowledges there has been some uncertainty and inconsistent practice, by both Inland Revenue and taxpayers, regarding the taxation of employer-provided accommodation and accommodation allowances. The Inland Revenue Technical Rulings Manual paragraph 57.11 reflected a net- benefit approach to determining the value of employer-provided accommodation and accommodation allowances. However, taxpayers were advised in September 19981 that the Technical Rulings Manual was being discontinued and that Technical Rulings should not be relied upon as representing Inland Revenue’s views or practice. In addition, the legislation has changed considerably since the relevant Technical Rulings chapter was written.

This is a polite way of saying we’ve changed our mind.

This ruling has been much criticised. David Cunliffe has said:

The Government’s plan to tax accommodation for earthquake rebuild workers is more akin to the actions of a vulture picking over a carcass for every last morsel than it is to sensible fiscal management,  Labour’s Revenue spokesperson David Cunliffe says.

“The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has ruled that employers who send workers away from their usual homes must pay tax on provided accommodation. The ruling seemingly ignores how little remuneration benefit there is to the worker, who must still maintain their family home even though they can’t use it.

I agree with the criticism of the ruling, but would point out the Government (in the sense of Ministers) have no say on this issue. Once a law is passed, the IRD Commissioner decides how IRD will interpret it – not Ministers (thank God). An issue can be litigated in court of course – or Parliament can change the law.

The decision was criticised at the time:

The rule change requiring employers to pay PAYE on any accommodation provision an employee gets when working in another location – particularly the decision to make it retrospective – has taken the tax fraternity by surprise.

Hooft said the move was in contrast to recommendations made by the IRD’s own policy advice division last month.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA) said it was “deeply concerned” about the new tax.

It would have a significant impact on industries which relied on itinerant workers, such as agriculture, the film industry, and the Christchurch rebuild effort, the accounting industry body said.

Acting general manager tax, Jolayne Trim, said it was a retrospective law change “of the worst kind”. 

The Herald editorial has been critical:

Auckland firms that send engineers and construction staff to Christchurch for the rebuild have just learned their projects are going to be much more expensive. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has ruled that employers who send people to work away from their usual home for a period must pay tax on the value of accommodation provided for them.

The decision, which is not confined to the earthquake recovery operation, of course, has astonished tax advisers and no wonder. It defies reason and common sense.

Accommodation provided by an employer is quite properly treated as taxable income when it is a benefit to the employee. But a worker who is provided with free or subsidised accommo-dation away from home is not getting a benefit; he or she still faces the normal costs of maintaining a home without the benefit of being able to live in it.

The commissioner in her ruling last week readily acknowledged that reasoning but “the law,” she said, “does not support a net-benefit approach”. She has not explained why the law does not support it. This appears to be another of those arbitrary decisions that is based on a literal and unreasonable reading of tax law.

Also NBR reported:

However, KPMG tax partner Murray Sarelius accused IRD of rewriting the rules in order to deal with what appeared to be “a few extreme cases on audit”.

The new position was contrary to common practice and “is stretching to justify its position in a way that applies much too broadly. The result penalises the majority of situations where there should not be an issue”.

Now IRD does appear to be backing down somewhat. Last week they said:

“Generally, accommodation payments made by an employer, or the value of accommodation provided by an employer are taxable. However, when an employee temporarily shifts to a new location for work, the payments or the value of the accommodation provided is not taxable.”

Mr Tubb said that this approach will not apply if the person has relocated to take up a new job with a new employer.

“There are a number of factors that the Commissioner will consider in determining the tax treatment of accommodation and whether a person has made a temporary shift.”

“This includes whether they have retained their substantive employment position in the original location or have relocated to take up new employment, for the duration of the transfer, and if their original location has remained the centre of their domestic life.”

What they seem to be saying is that if (for example) your family still live back in (say) Wellington, and that is still your primary home, then providing you accomodation in (say) Christchurch is not taxable. But if you have actually taken up a long-term position in (say) Christchurch and that is now effectively where you live, that may be taxable.

That sounds like an improvement over their original position in December, but is still very uncertain (and tax law should be clear). I think the best solution is for the Government to amend the tax law to say that the “net-benefit” approach should apply.

 

Tags: ,

42 Responses to “The great tax debate”

  1. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    National, the party of low taxes…….What a fucking joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. gazzmaniac (2,270 comments) says:

    In both cases they are being nit-picky fucks.
    If a business has carparks then of course its employees should be able to use them. And they should not be taxed for doing so – carparking is a cost of doing business.
    Ditto for accommodation – if somebody has to work away from home their employer should pay for their accommodation and that is a cost of doing business.

    IRD should fuck off and leave businesses to get on with their job of running their business, not having to worry about a tax office that changes its mind more than its underpants/

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. campit (438 comments) says:

    I’m surprised that carparks aren’t subject to FBT already. The amount raised isn’t really the issue – there is an equity issue for employees that don’t drive to work. In the Auckland CBD that is over 50% of all commuters. Not paying FBT amounts to an employer subsidy for those that drive. If the carpark isn’t subject to FBT then employers should be compelled to offer a “cash out” clause (some do already) so that those who walk, bike, or take public transport aren’t disadvantaged and can take the cash instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Without commenting on the direct issues at hand, you are quite right on principle to point out that untaxed substantial fringe benefits can be quite distortionary and bad for the economy.

    A case in point is healthcare in the United States. We sometimes think of Obamacare as replacing a free-market system with a government based system, but the reality is that it is just further distorting an already distorted market. It is an interesting story, and one that explains why the United States has persisted with the bizarre employer oriented healthcare market that left so many people uninsured and which was terrible at controlling costs.

    Basically, FDR froze wages, which led to employers offering healthcare as an alternative to salary increases. Because the IRS was lax in taxing employee healthcare as a fringe benefit, it became very set in. By the time the IRS got round to it, it was the norm and increasingly popular – so Congress prevented the IRS from treating it like any other fringe benefit.

    The result, inevitable in hindsight, was that the US healthcare market (roughly 1/6th of the economy) became completely distorted. Obamacare distorts it more by adding in mandates and removing the insurance aspects of the system.

    The weird thing is that John McCain actually had a really great plan for an alternative reform that would have removed some of the distortions from the market while maintaining overall market disciplines. It was a pity he was such an ineffectual campaigner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    This type of policy is the domain of Green/Labour Socialists. I think Helen/Cullen were notorius for 27 such innovations how they missed this one is a mystery. If the Commissioner isn’t worried about ‘net benefits’ then the Commissioner should be replaced.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    To me it isn’t about the relativity between how much it costs and how much it raises. It’s about distortions. Currently people get more car parking than they’d otherwise want, and even potentially drive to work more than they would if they paid what it actually costs for car parks.

    Put the tax on it, fewer employers will provide car parking. So the compliance cost will smaller than people think, since it will take us back to where we should be – people get cash income, they spend it on what they want, rather than their employers buying things on their behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The banks are rigged

    Exposing the Truth of Our Devious Financial System

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    “As I have said many times the best tax system is low rate, broad base and as few loopholes as possible.”

    So, you’d support a capital gains tax based on these criteria. Why should a plumber make 90k a year and pay 20k tax — but ,someone sells their home and makes 500k and pay no tax. That is hardly a broadbase.

    I completely disagree with you. A tax system should also be simple — which it cannot be if you close off all possible loopholes and want a broad base.

    eg, today I used my business cellphone to call the mechanic. Using your criteria, I should add up all of my phone calls, figure out the personal use and then pro-rate my fixed cellphone costs accordingly.

    This might net the inland revenue 50c perhaps, but, i’d waste an hour going through my phone bills .

    [DPF: I have said many times I support a capital gains tax if income tax rates drop to compensate and the CGT is broad base with no exemptions.

    With the cellphone issue you provide your own answer - the compliance cost is greater than the revenue. It is unreasonable to expect people to itemise every call.

    But whether a car park is essential to a job (as for a salesperson) or whether it is just a useful perk is easy to determine and only has to be calculated once per year]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    The Christchurch City CEO lives in Hamilton

    He flys from Hamilton to Chch every week.
    He stays in rented accommodation in Chch during the week.

    The Chch ratepayers pays for this extravagance. If Marryat (sp?) wants to work in Chch, then he should move. If not its his expense and he should be taxed on it. Even if the Chch CC include the cost in the pay rate then it should also be taxed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. JeffW (303 comments) says:

    This is just rubbish. If only there were as much focus on spending as there seems to be on raising every last cent.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    So is National trying to outflank Labour by going further to the left than they are?

    One report I read said this would apply to car parks on an employers own premises as well, FFS it’s their concrete to do with as they please or has National decided property rights are to be nationalized as well.

    National has lost it’s way. This is disappointing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    Shame on these rapacious pinkos. Out with Labour lite!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Bloody hell
    Manolo is starting to make sense

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Warren Murray (239 comments) says:

    DF, I think you have misstated the issue wrt car parking and over-looked the administrative mess that employers will have to navigate their way through.

    The minister’s statement that it effectively equalises the tax for employees who receive a mix of cash and other benefits “as part of their remuneration and those who receive only cash remuneration” is OK. That is how it should be and anyone who is employed on a total rem approach that involves cash and other expressly stated benefits would be taxed accordingly. This group of employees can adjust their take home pay at almost no cost to the employer by changing the mix. However there are a number of people whose access to car parks is not an entitlement. It is this group who risk losing the privilege and having lost it will not be in a strong position to ask for an increase in their remuneration to match the value of the assumed benefit.

    The new tax will only be applied in two places (Wellington and Auckland cbds) so doesn’t treat all employees equally. I think it is a rather crude congestion tax. When Christchurch is rebuilt, and their aren’t as many cheap car parks in the cbd as there are now, it can be added too. although Labour has been quite critical, silence from the Greens suggest that they are in favour of it.

    Finally, as an employer, assessing the tax due might involve some investment in equipment (for no return) to monitor vehicle movements and is generally quite confusing. IRD seems to favour overpayment if employers have any doubts on what the tax should be.

    There is a disconnect between the minister’s statement and the department’s steps to implement a new tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ed Snack (1,540 comments) says:

    I reckon that David has it about right in this case. But why discriminate against CBD’s explicitly, make the provision of a carpark that cost, say, more than $1,000 (or chose your figure) a year subject to FBT. Whereas temporary accommodation as it seems did apply was sensible, net benefit is a reasonable standard to apply.

    Of course there have been people who try and rort this sort of common sense approach and it may be hard to make rules for every circumstance that people can draw up, but keep to a good practice whack abusive behaviour. That is of course, if you support taxation as a general good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    @barry :

    Marryat is a leech on society.

    Christchurch were bonkers hiring him after his performance in Hamilton .

    And to let him live in Hamilton and work in Chch is just nuts – a council CEO should live in the region they work.

    I’m sure christchurch have plenty of people who can do a better job that him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Imagine the joy of sorting out a personal proportion of cellphone calls when your company has you on a plan of 200 minutes free per month and 2500 free texts with 3GB data free. And you don’t exceed the free limit.
    This would move well into oxymoron territory.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,684 comments) says:

    Why all the froth and bother?

    Having been there and done that, the simple remedy for long term accommodation is for the employer to rent the employee’s chosen house for three months or whatever and for the rental derived from the employee’s own home to be passed to the employer.

    No tax issues. Rent received by the employer is offset by rent paid by the employer for the employee’s home in the temporary location.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Why single out Ak/Wgtn. That is a clear discrimination. Taxes must be certain and even handed.

    Either all are taxed or none are taxed. Cherry picking taxes are bad policy.

    I work from home and my car is parked in my garage. So should I pay FBT on my carpark being the garage in the home I own.

    Dumb tax thought up by dumb pollies and dumb IRD.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    Well I reckon DPF is in the minority on this issue.

    When people who are not even affected by this tax are against it , that is saying something!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jim (385 comments) says:

    CX 20B enefits to enable performance of duties
    The taxable value of a benefit that an employer provides to an employee by way of subsidised transport, or in the form of expenditure that an employer incurs on accommodation or transport provided to an employee, is zero if the expenditure—
    (a) relates to travel by the employee in order for them to perform their employment duties; and
    (b) does not relate to the providing or taking of leave or a vacation; and
    (c) is not increased as a result of the benefit.

    IRD’s take on the law is aways skewed.

    I still recall that happy year when I escaped the clutches of the NZ tax system and newly introduced 39% rate. At the time the law on tax residency seemed pretty clear. That was until IRD wrote to me about their loose interpretation of the very clear term “permanent place of abode” as written in the income tax act. Somehow the IRD take that to mean an “enduring relationship” with friends, family, etc.

    Foreigners watch out. If you have family in NZ then you just might be a resident for tax purposes according to IRD.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (21,830 comments) says:

    There seems to be some people conflicted between simple tax (lack of loopholes and distortionary effects) and self interest.

    To me it isn’t about the relativity between how much it costs and how much it raises. It’s about distortions. Currently people get more car parking than they’d otherwise want, and even potentially drive to work more than they would if they paid what it actually costs for car parks.

    Put the tax on it, fewer employers will provide car parking. So the compliance cost will smaller than people think, since it will take us back to where we should be – people get cash income, they spend it on what they want, rather than their employers buying things on their behalf.

    This is the most sensible comment on the carpark issue so far.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. freethinker (648 comments) says:

    Lets look at some arithmetic – business rents building $20,000 plus 2 car parks at $3000 total cost $26,000 pa all tax deductible with FBT at 50% costs increase to the business by $1500 so IRD gets less corporation tax on any profit. Sensible employer decides employees may not use car parks so no FBT but employees now either clutter the streets or perhaps car share or better Cycle to work both which reduce taxes on fuel but improved health of employees but potentially more ACC payments due to accidents. Typical of Possum head and IRD waste of resources and creators of aggravation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Another though.
    So a company has lots ‘visitor carparks’. and the naughty staff park in them.
    Who is going to supervise this. The new IRD parking police demanding random proof of ID etc.

    Lunacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html

    A person on $100000 does not pay $33000 in tax.

    [DPF: I know. I used a flat 33% rate as an example]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. indie (17 comments) says:

    It’s ironic that its the Nats who want to implement this carpark tax – ridiculous. Have just seen they’ve launched a facebook group as well – http://www.facebook.com/nocarparktax

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    Next the “business premises” exemption will go

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MD (60 comments) says:

    Car parks are already subject to FBT. This was an existing inequitable situation that predominately penalised small businesses. The exemption for FBT applied to parking provided on your own premises, so in the CBD that meant large firms who leased floors in a building with car parking could also lease car parks and provide them FBT free to staff, but a small firm leasing small premises with no car parking couldn’t pay for a monthly car park in a nearby car parking building without having to pay FBT. For the large firm they could negotiate a lease of a portion of a nearby car park building and because they leased it and so it was their premises they were not obliged to pay FBT, but for the small firm wanting 3 car parks such a lease was almost impossible to obtain and a monthly park or ‘right to occupy’ didn’t count as the company’s premises and as such was subject to FBT. Yes, I think the tax is unreasonable, but at least this change makes it more consistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OTGO (457 comments) says:

    The revenue to pay for the bloated welfare system has to come from somewhere. As the revenue minister he has a job to do and although I disagree with more taxes Peter Dunne is just doing his job.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Ah, interesting information thanks @MD. So basically this is closing a loophole as has been stated – most companies already had to pay the tax, those who had car parks on the own “premises” didn’t have to. And now that rort has grown big enough that the IRD can be bothered chasing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I guess a free car park is a perk. It is a tax you can avoid paying if you bike or walk to work, or take public transport to get close.
    But the company will pay it anyway so no-one will need to do anything. It will just end up being an additional expense. It won’t be deducted from any employees pay. Same as with company cars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just have carparks as a non-deductible expense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Viking2 (10,744 comments) says:

    Who collects the taxes here then?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8413778/Busking-familys-unexpected-treat

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (12,386 comments) says:

    I beg the good people of Ohariu to kick out the political slut Dunne at the next election. Hold your nose and vote for the waste of space that is Katrina Shanks (or who ever the Nat’s put up), tell Neville Key that you will no longer do as you are told and rid us of the wanker that is Dunne.

    The man has done nothing for the people of the Western suburbs of Wellington, he has simply whored himself out to who ever is willing to give him the baubles of office.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Viking2 (10,744 comments) says:

    Big Tick Bruv.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (13,439 comments) says:

    As long as Bill isn’t living in Dipton and commuting at his employers tax free expense who really gives a shit! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    What drives this socialist Government to keep wanting to bite the hand that feeds it? This type of inanity really pisses the people off and will only drive them to seek ways to keep more of their own money hidden, and away from the taxman

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. slijmbal (1,134 comments) says:

    As we all know taxation has an enormous ability to distort behaviour leading to economically inefficient actions. This is arguably a worse consequence than some minority may game the system a little.

    The intense focus on supposed benefits provided to employees is one of those.

    If I look at several of the companies I work with or for around Auckland we see car parks have a cost and are generally provided when it has a benefit to the employer. Many employees have roles that involve reasonably common travel, sometimes several times a day, around Auckland.

    For instance, if I’m charging someone out at $150 an hour I can lose an awful lot of chargeable time (and cost) waiting for taxis or having that person having to go off and get their car from their personally paid parking space. Not only that – their parking costs go through the roof the moment it’s not ‘once in once out a day’. Arguably, I should pay for these costs as I generated them but probably would not be allowed to if I understand the new rules correctly. It is surprisingly easy to pay $30 for a couple of hours in Auckland CBD for parking. It benefits me to have a car park for them if I can save about 20 hours in time over a year in the CBD – not that difficult to do. The fact it can benefit them is an accidental consequence.

    I was co-owner/director of a services company. We employed lots of expensive, experienced employees but gave car parks to those for whom the convenience to us, the employer justified the cost. As an employer I was making an economic choice. If I was still in that business, I just incurred an extra cost as the employee is now about to get punished by the IRD for a decision I made for my benefit as his employer. I will now need to compensate him for his reduction in take home pay.

    This also potentially distorted an economically efficient decision as now the cost is $4,500 per annum approx (for a typical car park) as I now need to save 30 hours a year to justify the car park.

    All this crap about those who use public transport vs those who don’t is pretty much bollocks. Employees who can use public transport do so. Their decisions are based on availability, requirement to use a car and cost. In Auckland, people sit in their cars for 1-2 hours a day because the public transport system is shit (It needs lots of buses and not rail byt the way) I have a sneaking suspicion that these types of decisions are made by bureaucrats in Wellington who made sure it had a vaguely decent public transport system and have no idea about how the real, commercial world works in Auckland.

    I can see lots of other potential distortions – all in the witch hunt around closing off potential tax avoidance that will probably generate no noticeable net extra revenue but will add costs to businesses.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    Where is P.G. to defend his political boss?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    @ sjlimbal well said. Public transport – every one of us who doesn’t use it is already massively subsidising those who do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Camryn (549 comments) says:

    I don’t want to go to work in the Auckland CBD, but my employer requires that I do. So, how is the carpark they provide a benefit to me? Surely to fall under FBT it’d have to be a benefit you actually want? Half the time I actually do take public transport, so I’m not even using this carpark I’m going to get taxed for.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Oh yea
    And this new tax will only ever cover the Auckland and Wellington CBD…………………… HONEST

    Tui ad

    So the choice at the next election will be between ‘tax a lot’ or ‘tax excessively’, like a choice between being hung or shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.