tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post6871859741633701325..comments2024-03-28T15:05:33.781+13:00Comments on Economics New Zealand: Two minds with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one...Donal Curtinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03687495556590450225noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post-3975023648968919962014-05-28T15:24:12.658+12:002014-05-28T15:24:12.658+12:00Thank you Bryce. I am sorry not to have been clea...Thank you Bryce. I am sorry not to have been clearer (to Donal) as to what I was actually asking. The point I quoted was one that was made by another respondent in the debate on interest.co.nz. It's one that seems to get traction whenever they discuss foreign ownership of NZ assets and I'm no kind of tax expert, so I hoped to get a better informed view as to whether there is substance to itMs de Meanournoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post-60602208203016847962014-05-05T12:53:12.908+12:002014-05-05T12:53:12.908+12:00Snap Paul, greatly appreciate your blog.
Ms de Mea...Snap Paul, greatly appreciate your blog.<br />Ms de Meanour, you weren't outnumbered for quality. Ad hominem attacks by critics effectively concede the argument.<br />The tax argument (ii) you ask about above ignores the income tax the New Zealand vendor will be liable for on the asset that the purchaser paid as consideration. As such it is a variant on the fallacious mantra that it is madness to sell an asset because the vendor loses the future income/benefit stream. Yet a rational vendor only sells an asset because the consideration received provides a superior benefit. So case (ii), ignores the tax the NZ vendor will owe the NZ IRD on the income received from the replacement asset.<br />Bryce WilkinsonBryce Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08178230212402587154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post-37288413510199329842014-05-02T20:23:26.562+12:002014-05-02T20:23:26.562+12:00If you could point me towards the previous discuss...If you could point me towards the previous discussion (interest.co.nz?) I might be able to add a bit moreDonal Curtinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687495556590450225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post-21099848738438344982014-05-02T20:17:13.022+12:002014-05-02T20:17:13.022+12:00Let me say first of all that my eyes generally gla...Let me say first of all that my eyes generally glaze over when it comes to tax (despite being the son of a dad who spent 40 years in the Irish IRD) so maybe I'm not the best person to ask. But my first reaction, with respect, is that your point (2) may not be right. The way I understand double tax treaties is this: the overseas owner still pays tax in NZ, but can offset the tax already paid in NZ against their own domestic tax bill. So no, NZ doesn't lose out. Happy to be put straight. Donal Curtinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687495556590450225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342528022617501525.post-12461496663126504272014-05-02T16:55:01.500+12:002014-05-02T16:55:01.500+12:00I did my best in the discussion of the NZI report ...I did my best in the discussion of the NZI report over on interest, but was heavily outnumbered! <br /><br />Is this true?<br /><br />"(1) NZer sells asset to NZer for $1million.....that asset generates income tax of $100k paid to NZ IRD.<br /> (2) NZer sells asset to Off-shore investor for $1million.....that asset generates no income tax for NZ because a tax treaty exists in the off-shore investors country of residence so no $100k contributed to NZ."Ms de Meanournoreply@blogger.com