


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
The budget announcements last week had a focus on reducing our borrowing and getting the bank balance back in the black. Pun intended the ‘Key’ points were:
In the May 2010 budget, the government announced it was going to make changes to LAQC’s. On the 15th of October, the government finally released the draft legislation for those changes.This article outlines those changes.
(1) There is a new tax entity called a Look-through company (LTC)
Rather than making lots of changes to the existing LAQC companies, the government has instead created a new company called a Look-through company.
(2) The end of the LAQC
The one and only major change to the LAQC rules is that any loss will no longer be attributed to the shareholders from 1 April 2011. This change means it will no longer be suitable to have a rental property that makes a loss owned by an LAQC.
If you have a rental property that makes a profit, you could leave your property in the LAQC to take advantage of the 28% company tax rate. However, the government is still reviewing the dividend rules so this may not be a good idea if the ability to pay any future capital gain as a tax-free dividend without liquidation is removed.
(3) Transition from a LAQC to a LTC
While LAQC’s will no longer be suitable for the vast majority of investors, there will be an easy transition to change an LAQC into a LTC. An election will be required to be signed by all shareholders by 30 September 2011.
(4) Transition from LAQC to Partnership or Sole Tradership
There are rules allowing an LAQC to be changed into a Partnership or Sole Tradership. However, a liquidation or legal transfer of the property is required to do this making this type of transition expensive.
(5)Loss Limitation Rule
Under a LTC, any loss allocated to the shareholders is now limited to the amount of that shareholders contributions. There’s no need to worry about this for the vast majority of property investors as the definition of shareholders contributions includes a share of the company debt to the extent to which it is personally guaranteed. So, the amount of the shareholders contributions should be vastly greater than any loss in most situations.
(6) Sale of Shares
Under an LAQC, shares could be sold to another person such as a spouse relatively easily. Sometimes an LAQC re-election was required and that was all. There was no impact on the underlying property owned by the LAQC.
Under a LTC, a sale of shares means a transfer of that portion of the underlying property owned by the LTC. So, if a person that owned 50% of the shares in a LTC sold their shares, they may also have to pay tax on 50% of any depreciation recovered at the same time.
There are two application exemptions for this:
(1) If the company owns a property that has a cost price of $200,000 or less; or
(2) If the sale proceeds do not exceed the shareholders share of the tax book value of the property less liabilities (net assets) by more than $50,000
So, the second exemption will apply where there hasn’t been a lot of unrealised capital growth in the properties owned by the LTC.
Let’s take a typical example of a LTC with a property with a tax book value of $350,000 and a bank loan of $320,000. A 50% shareholder’s net assets would be $15,000 ($350k – $320k x 50%). So, if the sale proceeds for the shares was less than $65,000, then there were be no tax implications for the existing shareholder.
While it has always been important to transfer shares between family members at an accurate market value to ensure the IRD couldn’t charge you with gift duty, it’s even more important now as you will need to calculate whether the exemption above applies to your sale of shares.
(7) Working Owners
Under an LAQC, if one shareholder earned significantly less than the other and that person managed the properties, the LAQC could pay them a shareholders salary to compensate them for their time. The benefit was that tax would be paid at the lower personal tax rate which would increase the other shareholders refund at a higher personal tax rate.
Doing the same thing under a LTC is much more difficult as there is no automatic deduction if the company engages in holding property, even if a written contract is present.
Thanks to Tony Thorne and the NZ Property Investors website.