, , , , , , ,

GST for schools – consultation

Inland Revenue has released a draft Public Ruling on the GST treatment of payments by parents to state schools.

This is a re-issue of previous rulings with just a few changes to reflect recent developments in GST law.

If you want to comment on the draft ruling you have until 8 August.

The draft is pretty much in line with what you’d expect. It essentially distinguishes between payments which are true “donations” (not subject to GST) and payments for extra goods and services not covered by compulsory State funded education (subject to GST).

Schools won’t always find it easy to work out exactly where the line is drawn so caution is required particularly if changes to payment structures are being considered. There are some subtle complexities to come to grips with.

You need to read it yourselves but here’s a taste:

1. Not subject to GST:
– General donations intended to be used for general school costs i.e. not earmarked for a particular purpose.
– Payments for materials necessary for delivering the statutory curriculum (eg materials in a clothing class) unless the payment is for ownership of the completed item which the student can then take home.
– Photocopying charges for material which is necessary for teaching the statutory curriculum unless the payment is for the purchase of an additional item such as a school magazine.
– School camp payments where the camp is a compulsory part of the statutory curriculum.
– Charges for reading recovery programmes and special education services mandated as part of the school’s charter.

2. Subject to GST
– Stationery packs and optional workbooks students are entitled to keep.
– A fee to attend a performance by a visiting group for which attendance is optional.
– Goods supplied where there is a clear (and optional) take home component.
– Charges to attend or participate in activities which are optional.

There is a lot of detail in the ruling which anyone handling GST for a school should study.

And, in case you thought you had it all covered, Labour has just announced that if elected they will end “voluntary” school donations. That could mean schools account for GST on a much greater propoertion of the payments they receive from parents, and potentially all payments depending on how exactly the policy is implemented.

Cheers

Iain

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Bodies corporate and GST

Last week the Revenue Minister issued another Discussion Document on the GST treatment of bodies corporate.

The IRD seems to have come full circle on this one. See here:

Bodies corporate and GST.

It is proposed our GST legislation will exempt a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act from having to register for GST. In fact they won’t even have the option of registering for GST.

I think this is dangerous ground.

The key background is:

– for years the IRD didn’t allow or require residential bodies corporate to register for GST.
– consequently the IRD says most bodies corporate are not registered for GST.
– IRD lawyers reviewed the position and decided this approach was probably wrong.
– the IRD consulted and received submissions expressing concerns about any change to align with the IRD lawyers’ view.
– accordingly, the IRD now proposes legislation to validate their original interpretation that bodies corporate cannot register for GST.
– the reasons given for the law change are the potential compliance costs if bodies corporate have to register and the apparent inconsistency that would arise between bodies corporate and other residential propoerty owners.

1. Compliance costs. Well I don’t buy this argument. If it’s valid then it’s also a legitimate basis for exempting all businesses from GST and that’s not likely to happen is it?

2. Inconsistent treatment. The apparent concern is that ordinary home owners cannot register for GST in relation to their residential property ownership. It is therefore wrong to require a body corporate under the Unit Titles Act to register for GST in relation to the services it supplies to its residential property owners because they are essentially one and the same entity.

This argument doesn’t appear to be based on GST principle.

Bodies corporate would not have to register under existing law if all they did was provide residential accommodation. But, they actually don’t do that. They in fact provide a wide range of other services to their owners including maintenance, administration and representation. They are no different from a third party entity providing similar services to a group of residential property owners. The third party entity would be required and able to register for GST.

The distinction argued for is that a body corporate is owned by the unit title owners to whom it supplies services, i.e. they are in substance the alter ego of one another.

Do we really want a principle in our GST law that the corporate veil should be looked through, a company cannot as a matter of law supply services to its owners?

Where does that stop?

Nice as it might be to relieve a group of small taxpayers from their obligations under the law to me this is just not what our GST legislation should be doing. It creates a pretty difficult precedent.

Reading between the lines this seems also to be about a perceived advantage for some GST registered bodies corporate which received leaky building settlements (not subject to GST), using those funds to repair their owners’ properties and claiming GST input tax credits for the repair costs. If an ordinary home owner received a leaky home settlement (not subject to GST) they would not be able to claim GST credits on their repair costs.

The IRD sees this as a mismatch needing a legislative cure. I don’t think that’s correct. The difference is simply a question of quantification of loss, i.e. how much the leaky home compensation amount should be. For one party, GST is a cost and the compensation covers it. For the other it is not a cost and that would presumably be reflected in the settlement amount. So they are equalised.

Further, depending on how the settlement occurs, it’s possible a GST registered body corporate could well have an obligation to account for GST on the receipt of the payment so there is ultimately no difference between the parties.

This proposed change just doesn’t stack up in my view.

Iain

, , , ,

Bahamas VAT

The Bahamas will have a new VAT from 1 January 2015: 7.5% (0% for exports) on a broad range of goods and services, few exemptions, small business concessions, “inclusive” pricing and an extensive public education programme.

Confirmed by the PM and Minister for Finance, The Rt Hon Perry G. Christie on 28 May in his Budget Communication to the House of Assembly.

More details to come when new VAT Bill is available.

Iain

, , , , , , , ,

NZ GST legislation inadequate

The NZ GST Act inadequately deals with online supplies of services and should be fixed immediately.

I’m referring to how the Act treats those selling products online such as e-books, movies, professional advice, teaching materials, photographs and lots of other digital information.

For businesses selling directly to private consumers the issues are more significant.

In certain situations the legislation requires the supplier to determine where their sales are “physically performed”. This affects how GST applies to them.

The concept of “physical performance” does not sit well with how these products are delivered. Is it the place where the supplier is located, where a server in the delivery chain is located, where the consumer is when they download the relevant product, where the consumer resides or some other place? Is there any “physical performance” at all?

I know these issues are being looked at and no doubt we’ll see some reform at some stage.

However, businesses are having to work out how the law applies to them now and it’s just not clear at all.

Iain

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

VAT and online sales

This is a very good item on the wider business implications of proposed changes in Europe to the VAT treatment of online digital media sales.

http://performance.ey.com/2014/02/20/vat-change-online-sales-just-tax-concern/

Cheers

Iain

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Global VAT alignment edges closer

At the Global Forum on VAT in Tokyo last week 86 countries signed up to the first agreed framework for applying VAT to internationally traded services and intangibles. The new guidelines set out core VAT principles to be applied when taxing services and intangibles, will ensure more consistency between countries, will reduce double taxation and will protect the neutrality of business to business (“B2B”) transactions.

While an important step in the right direction, the more vexing question of how to tax internationally traded business to consumer (“B2C”)services and intangibles has been left for another time.

The Global Forum on VAT occurs under the umbrella of the OECD and provides a platform for global discussions on VAT. The first session took place in November 2012. Last week was the second occasion academics, tax administrators. business representatives and others were invited to discuss VAT policy trends and developments.

The main output from this latest session was a set of new OECD Guidelines on applying VAT across borders.

The Guidelines can be downloaded from the the OECD website – here: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/international-vat-gst-guidelines.htm

The focus of the Guidelines is B2B transactions. They discuss place of supply rules, the well known “destination principle” (B2B services should be taxed in the country where the customer is located) and mechanisms available to countries to allow non established foreign businesses to recover VAT incurred there.

None of this is startling news for New Zealand. We’re already ahead of this stuff thanks to our super charged GST system. Just this month we’ve seen a new streamlined registration and GST recovery system come into place for overseas businesses incurring GST here.

The really challenging question for New Zealand, and every other country with a VAT, is how do you tax B2C services and intangibles traded across borders? Unlike goods there’s no border control in place to capture internationally traded services and there’s no existing registration system to collect the tax from the customer/consumer.

This really is the more urgent question in my view. Countries are attempting to deal with the issue on their own (eg South Africa and the EU) but global cooperation and alignment are critical. Some States in the USA have implemented mechanisms to apply state taxes to inter-state B2C online sales (such as e-books) and the latest evidence suggests these measures are improving the sales of local bricks and mortar retailers at the expense of online retailers such as Amazon.

Last week’s Forum in Tokyo urged the OECD to finalise work on the VAT treatment of B2C services in time for the next Global Forum on VAT in November 2015. That seems like a long time to wait, but as we all know, achieving global consensus on anything is a slow process.

Cheers

Iain

, , , , , , , , ,

“Australia should follow NZ GST”?

NZ’s GST is certainly the most efficient form of VAT in the world.

The “VAT Revenue Ratio” is used by the OECD as a measure of VAT efficiency. The average in the OECD is about 50%.

The least efficient is Turkey’s VAT at about 30%. NZ ranks top at a little more than 95%, followed closely by Luxembourg.

Australia’s VAT Revenue Ratio is around 45%.

The Australian Treasury Secretary thinks they can learn from NZ’s GST and argues for a further shift in Australia from income taxes to GST. See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/9900014/Aussies-should-follow-our-GST-lead

If efficiency is the goal then the evidence seems compellingly in favour of the Secretary’s argument.

However, political realities seem to pull most countries in the opposite direction.

Yes VAT is spreading around the world as the tax of choice for governments but, increasingly those governments are voting for multiple rates, exemptions and zero rating when designing their version of VAT.

When the GFC hit we saw governments making greater use of reduced rates to stimulate activitiy. There is now a growing trend to use penal VAT rates as policy tools to discourage certain “undesirable” consumption (e.g for environmental reasons). Policies like these make a VAT system less efficient but they also make it more politically acceptable and relevant.

Perhaps the questions are: how long can NZ resist these political pressures and is it more likely we will follow the Aussie lead?

Iain

, , , , , , , ,

At least it’s a start – UPDATE on E-commerce in South Africa

At least it's a start.

An update on the South African proposal to require non-resident e-services suppliers to register for VAT.

The effective date for the new rules has been stretched out to 1 June 2014 (an extension of 2 months) to allow businesses more time to get ready. Registration is open however from 7 April for those wishing to beat the rush.

Following consultation the scope of services caught by the new registration requirement has been narrowed in an attempt to exclude some common business to business transactions. This should eliminate some unnecessary compliance obligations for businesses and the South African tax authority.

This is clearly a work in progress for the South African government, as it is for every other country, so more changes to the detail are expected (such as to the registration threshold for example). They intend to continue with a wider review on the taxation of electronic services, particularly in the financial services sector.

You can read more about this here: http://www.treasury.gov.za/comm_media/press/2014/2014032801%20-%20Press%20Release%20-%20Electronic%20Services%20Regulations.pdf

Iain

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bodies corporate and GST

Brian Fallow’s opinion piece in today’s Herald on residential bodies corporate and GST is timely.

See here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11231055

This issue baffles me. Why is it so complicated and why is it taking so long for the IRD to reach a settled position?

Maybe I’m missing something, but like Fallow, I think the legal analysis isn’t that complex. Bodies corporate are separate entities from the apartment owners and they provide services to the owners in return for levies. Even if those services are mandated by legislation it seems to me, there is a supply and it is for consideration.

You wouldn’t have to look far to find examples where the IRD has insisted on a company registering for GST because it was supplying goods and services to related shareholders. If no charge was made for the supplies the IRD is entitled to deem consideration to be provided at market value if the shareholder is not GST registered.

This issue isn’t without a downside for the bodies corporate and the apartment owners though. Leaving aside the issue of leaky home settlements (and I agree with Fallow on that), those deriving fees of more than the registration threshold are required to register for GST in my view and that could mean a net GST cost to the owners, especially if the body corporate employs staff.

Our GST system is applauded for being broad based and here we have the IRD arguing for a narrowing of the base. An unusual situation in my view.

Comments most welcome on this one.

Iain

, , , , , , , ,

Are you ready for the 1st of April 2014?

Change to tax law is as certain as tax itself.

The 1st of April is a favourite of governments around the world for ushering in tax changes.

Here’s a snippet of some changes that are coming into force in GST, VAT and other indirect taxes on 1 April:

Albania – Supplies of medical services and medicines will be exempt from VAT, alcohol and tobacco excise taxes will rise and energy drinks will become subject to excise tax.

Cook Islands – The standard VAT rate will increase from 12.5% to 15% and import charges on some foodstuffs will reduce to zero.

France – CO2 content will become the basis for calculating excise taxes on energy products.

Japan – The rate of Consumption Tax will increase from 5% to 8%.

Lithuania – Excise duty on alcohol products will increase.

New Zealand – Non-residents will be able to claim refunds of GST for New Zealand business expenses under an enhanced registration system.

South Africa – Foreign suppliers of electronic services to residents in South Africa will have to register for VAT and charge South African VAT.

So, a busy day for indirect tax changes. Don’t be fooled!

The South African measure is especially interesting and deserves more comment in a separate post.

Iain