Member log in

Bach tax grab threatens property values

The government’s tax grab from bach and boat owners is using a sledgehammer to hit a nail, a tax expert says.

Ernst & Young tax partner Joanna Doolan says there is concern that stricter limits on tax deductions on mixed-use assets – those used by their owners and rented out for income – could force some holiday home owners to sell up and see bach values dip.

It is estimated about 15,000 holiday homes are rented out for tax purposes.

If even half that number of owners sold these homes as a result of the income pressure, that could have a substantial impact on values.

“People are being stretched at the moment. Some have really borrowed to fund assets that are at the nice-to-have level.

“It will definitely force some into making decisions on this,” Ms Doolan says.

Budget 2012 confirmed luxury items such as holiday homes, boats and aircraft are one of the areas of the tax system to be tightened.

The changes are expected to claw back about $109 million over the next four years – higher than tax experts anticipated.

When the plan to review the way these assets are taxed made an under-the-radar appearance last year Budget, Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said it was estimated in the residential property area alone there could be about $20 million of revenue the government was not picking up.

Yesterday, he said the changes would help ensure tax deductions and tax credits were being targeted to areas where they were intended and needed.

“In the case of mixed-use assets, such as a holiday home, it is unfair that owners can claim a tax deduction for the majority of their costs because it is available for rent or hire, even if it is mainly used privately.

"In effect, they are getting a taxpayer subsidy for their private use of the asset,” he said.

The new rules will require mixed-used asset owners to apportion their deductions based on the actual income earned and private use of the asset.

For example, owners who rent out their holiday home for 30 days in a year and use it themselves for 30 days in a year will be able to claim a deduction for 50% of their general costs, instead of 90% now.

Ms Doolan said there was no question some people were pushing the boundaries with tax claims on the business-use component of their beach house, either by putting making the rental price so high that no one would want to rent it, or making it unavailable at the times people wanted to book it.

But the strict new rules were like taking a sledgehammer to hit a nail.

“I think they could have dealt with those who are definitely playing the system under existing anti-avoidance rules,” she says.

“The dollars involved are not substantial. They’re prepared to put people through a lot of change to squeeze the last amount of increase.”

Budget 2012: Tax change on mixed-use assets

Assets that are partly used for private purposes and partly for income producing purposes will be subject to tighter restrictions on the deductibility of costs.

The government says these measures are specifically targeted at taxpayers who are offsetting holding costs on assets such as holiday homes, planes, and boats.

Under current rules the costs associated with these assets are tax deductible against income derived from renting the assets out and often the net result is a tax loss which is offset against other income.

The change will limit the deductions available for these types of assets and these changes are expected to save $109m in revenue over four years.

More by Georgina Bond

Comments and questions
46

So what? High time reality sets in on the unsustainable over-inflated values of holiday homes and baches.

New Zealanders have been spending and borrowing up large on baches and boats, using this tax loophole to subsidize their extravagant lifestyles.

In the process, resources have been grossly misallocated and values over-inflated, pumping up overseas borrowings.

Time to take a cold shower, folks.

A bit rich for a tax expert to be sounding the warning about falling values when it is known that any tax loophole can be closed at anytime. Were clients warned when they borrowed to buy the bach and yacht that this tax loophole could be closed?

Why isnt there a tax on overseas bach owners half the places around our bach are foreign owned and sit empty for 10 months of the year and contrubute nothing to the local community except a bit of lawn mowing. Tthey arrive, use the infrastructure we have paid over the years via taxes then leave again.. The result is the pub has closed so has the gas station the butcher is nearly busted...Yet ordinary Kiwis who would use the place more during the year cant afford to buy the baches.

Because the overseas owners mostly buy with cold had cash rather than borrowings, dear Ian.

NZ developers, real estate agents and property speculators were making a mint from selling these baches overseas (mostly Europeans and overseas kiwis) and New Zealanders were dumb enough to get sucked into the hype, borrowing to the hilt.

Remember the "they don't build waterfront sections anymore" marketing pitch? "Enjoy the lifestyle in style while watching your value soar".

Well, day of reckoning is here.

Well, NZ is one big gigantic waterfront!

Not sure how the Gov can tax overseas Bach owners, but I am sure Len Brown would have some advise there, extra rates.

The Govt, by ensuring that bachs and pleasure boats can't be used to obtain tax refunds has effectively cut the value at the margin to all Bach owners. With very slow moving assets the price/value at the margin will flow through to all owners. Ie value drop, but because the actual $ value paid over time is significantly interest the benefit to the economy is great. Interest on non productive assets, especially Bach, is an overseas impost on the nz economy. The fact that we gave Bach owners a tax right off as well just made matters worse.

I for one am looking fwd to lower priced bachs in the future, and that would help to revitalize the communities around holiday spots.

Len Brown made my rates go down!

Do you not consider that payment of Rates contributes to infrastructure, or do foreign owners have an exemption for rates?

Nice call!

New rule is fair. Why should anyone be able to claim a tax benefit on private use?

SO are you saying that the bach i purchased for 200k twenty years ago and is now worth 1.6 million may go down in value.i had better sell now and make plenty seeing theres no capital gains tax
boo hoo hoo

Good on you.

Just hell of a pity for the thousands of New Zealanders sucjed into the hype ad who bought into the holiday homes boom 4 to 8 years ago. Some very sizable losses indeed, and it looks like more drops ahead.

Example, a luxury bach in Pauanui sold at a mortgagee sale recently for $650,000. Was bought for $1.25m 5 years ago.

Folks, wake up - you cannot keep borrowing and expect the pyramid game to continue.

Rich tycoons living abroad have been manupulating NZ properties for a long time...high time these speculators (with loopholes advised by their accountants) are properly taxed accordingly!

Get a life. if you have to rely on a tax offset to afford a holiday home, you are one hell of a try-hard. Government should limit any clam to 10% of actual costs as ceiling

Why no detail on how the tax will work in practice? The article is not clear.

there was a big discussion document released a few months ago. new rules will be based on what it outlined

Has anyone considered this may apply to regular rentals? What if your rental is a good few hours drive away, and between tenants you decide that it could do with a bit of a paint job. OK, let's drive down, stay over for the weekend and do the work. So the costs on that place are now only 50% claimable, b/c you've stayed there at least one night?

I think the 50% is just an illustrative example and that the proportion you'll be able to claim is based on (1 - (personal use nights/personal use nights + rental nights)). In other words, the case you describe will still allow to claim close to 100% of costs. But I'm not 100% sure on this - as somebody else has pointed out, the announcement is conspicuously lacking in detail.

Sorry, you do not understand tax law at all. Try talking to your accountant.

Gee, now if they would only apply the brakes to the inflated house prices. It seems we forget the property collapse in Japan and the US as if it will 'never happen here.'

I thin the next thing the government should do after they close all the rental property tax loopholes is implement rent control.

The sledgehammer was overdue as these owners have had too much of a good thing for far too long.

Thanks for the heads up on an opportunity to pick up a cheap batch when current owners decide to bail out because they may have to pay extra tax - yeah right!!!

This is yet another envy tax as shown by the moronic postings above. Small willie people who envy those who have worked hard to achieve. Politicans of all colours in NZ are just a bunch of negative thinkers. Rather than encourage those who want to achieve they attack them and reward the bludgers. The result is that now we have so many bludgers and so few achievers the pollies have to pander to the bludgers and punish the achievers such is the voting power of the bludgers. Why are 1000 plus moving to OZ every 7 days. Because the are sick and tied of the bludger and their pollie supporters.

Envy tax? Not at all.

I personally know of bach and boat owners who bought for personal use but uses the tax loophole to claim expenses by putting their baches and boats for rent/hire during the off seasons (i.e.. winters and non school holidays).

Great stuff that the gravy train is over.

Well one, John Key & Bill English!

How is it an envy tax? I have no issue at all with people who have worked hard to achieve true wealth - what I have an issue with is people rorting the system, claiming benefits/tax deductions that they would not require if they could truly afford the lifestyle that they are living, and then crying when a loophole is closed.

If you need to have a 90% rebate for the expenses of owning a bach, you can't afford it, and only have one so you can keep up with the Joneses.

My preffered option is that if you only rent the bach out for 30 days of the year, then you should only be able to claim 8.21% of the expenses as a deduction (30 days rented / 365.25 days available). And I am referring to true rental, not "rented to family", which is the obvious rort path that many will try.

Keep going. No personal benefit is the fairest method. Makes the rule clear. It is either rental or private no 50/50. If you rent out your private batch then you pay tax on the income and don't claim any deductions! If you stay in your rental (other than for maintenance – with a limit on the number of days) then you pay market rent.

Sounds like you measure success in $ terms? If so, enjoy spendig your life trying to get more and more.

This change seems fair!

We have a bach which we use over Xmas but currently have been claiming back (against our tax) the majority of the expenses as it is "available for rental" the majority of the year

I'm not sure sure, Bunter.

Moan! Moan! Whine! Whine! Never ever hear anyone complaining when they're on the pigs back, logic suggests the ride can get bumpy or go downhill....move to Aussie where as a kiwi you don't get things as easily as you still can here....ha! ha1

Amazing how tax dodges for the rich are perceived as acceptable - by the very same people who are quick to condemn welfare payments!

To those saying "this change seems fair", I'm not sure how you can tell. I'm struggling to find an answer as to how the mechanics of this tax policy change works. Closing unfair loopholes I have no problem with. However if a person uses their bach 1 night, and rents it out for 80 nights a year, if that 1 night of personal use equates to being able to claim 50% of per annum expenses (or less) then that is hardly - to use the catch cry of the socialists of this world - fair.

Why are you worried about staying in a batch that you purchased for renting out. You should not get any personal benefit! That is tax avoidance, before the law change.

batch? scones perhaps?

All this will do is inspire cash under the table.

Just more stripping of success, savings and enterprise and transfer to failure.

More envy appeasement.

Nope - just making sure the tax system does not get abused by the fat cats.

I think this is fair. Muldoon once said something along the lines of --" its OK to exploit a tax loophole now but don't moan to me when I close it." This is one of those situations.

So, Ross13, how is it closed? Can you explain how the tax works? Until that is known, we have no idea if it's closed a loophole, or if it's swung in the other direction and is now unfair to the bach owner.

I understand that the rules currently allow you to claim your expenses based on the percentage that the asset is "available to rent" versus private use, whereas the new rules are based on the proportion that the asset was actually rented (versus private use)

That seems to be the new rule, which is fair and reasonable. My family owns a beach house, which is never rented out, but we have never rorted the tax system by pretending it is available for rent and then claiming tax deductions for rates, maintenance etc. If you can't afford a beach house without tax deductions then you shouldn't buy one.

Cynical - that being the case, you'd also support landlords not being able to claim expenses during any gaps between tenants, correct?

Landlords of rental properties don't normally have the expectation that during the summer or over long public holidays they will be using the property.

Owners of baches normally are renting them out during times that they are not wanting to use it themselves, to cover some of the expenses involved in owning the bach.

I see the two as quite separate models, so landlords can claim expenses during gaps between tenants, as now, whereas I stand by my model for bach owners.

".........holiday home owners to sell up and see bach values dip."
SO, what is wrong with that may I ask??

Correction, bach: pronounced "batch", a type of beach holiday home found in New Zealand.

"Bach" owners make it sound like a $50,000 sleep out but in reality they are $1,000,000 beach houses - I think they can afford to pay up as I am sure the average kiwi probably still pays more in PAYE than than some of these owners ever will ever in tax....