A Product Ruling (BR Prd 14/08) published by IRD on 28 July is fascinating as much for what it doesn’t say as the conclusions reached.
– Unit title building in Christchurch.
– Mostly commercial property.
– Destroyed in earthquake.
– Body corporate insured building and paid the premiums (including GST). The Body Corporate was the named “insured” not the individual unit owners.
– Claim made. Settlement reached. Insurer paid out in full and final settlement.
– Rather than reinstate the building the Body Corporate resolved to distribute the settlement funds to all unit owners in proportion to their interests.
– The majority of unit owners are registered for GST but the Body Corporate is not.
– CERA purchased the unit owners’ interests at current market value (on an “as repaired” basis) less the amount of the insurance settlement distributed to each Owner.
The IRD have ruled –
1. GST registered owners do not have to account for GST on the receipt of their share of the insurance settlement distributed to them by the Body Corporate.
2. The distribution of the insurance settlement proceeds by the Body Corporate to each GST registered owner is not subject to GST.
This Ruling is fascinating. I don’t necessarily disagree with it but I am intrigued.
It’s a Product Ruling, which means it’s public. Surely it could have been a private ruling?
An entire paragraph is repeated. It’s very unusual for the IRD to have typos that big in rulings. They are generally checked and re-checked.
If the insurer gets to claim an input tax deduction for the settlement payment to the Body Corporate (which it seems to me could be the case) and if the GST registered Owners had used the funds to repair the building isn’t there a potential for a double claim of input tax deductions? They could claim input credits on the repair costs and yet according to the Ruling no one has an output tax liability on the receipt of the settlement. Now, I know that’s not what happened because the building wasn’t repairable. However, if that were not the case would the GST result have been any different?
Also, the Body Corporate paid the insurance premiums and wasn’t registered for GST. That seems odd. So, the GST registered Owners were not able to claim GST input tax deductions for the insurance premiums (because it seems the Ruling has concluded there was no agency relationship between the Body Corporate and the Owners). I wonder how many commercial unit title buildings in New Zealand arrange their insurance this way? I wonder if some Owners are in fact claiming GST input tax deductions whereas this Ruling seems to suggest they wouldn’t be entitled to. Seems like a pretty strange state of affairs.
I’ve got to be missing something here. Can someone help me out?
http://iainblakeley.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/name-1-300x72.png00Iain Blakeleyhttp://iainblakeley.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/name-1-300x72.pngIain Blakeley2014-08-12 09:03:472014-08-12 09:03:47Surprise in body corporate treatment?
Barrister, Director and Consultant specialising in tax, family enterprise governance and succession, helping start ups and entrepreneurial enterprises grow safely and international expert on value added tax policy and implementation.