Court of Appeal gives IRD another big tax win
Inland Revenue's run of judicial wins continues with the Court of Appeal finding in favour of the taxman against trans-Tasman building products company Alesco.
The case is important as it involves the use of optional convertible notes (OCNs), instruments used by a number of offshore companies to finance developments in New Zealand.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Rhys Harrison, appears to take the anti-avoidance regime in New Zealand a step further than previous judgments: Justice Harrison says that even if there is a commercial rationale for the method of financing its investment used by Alesco, that is not enough to get the company off the tax avoidance hook.
Even so, Justice Harrison says that in this case there is no convincing underlying commercial rationale for the arrangement.
The company’s lawyer, Lindsay McKay, argued in court that it “adopted this structure as a mechanism to fund existing financial obligations. This feature contrasts with other tax avoidance cases where the transactions would not have been entered into but for the tax benefits to be achieved,” the court's ruling says.
“However, this distinctive factor does not protect Alesco NZ. The question is whether the particular arrangement, regardless of whether it was the originating or intermediate step, had the purpose or effect of tax avoidance. A structure whereby the parent provided funding to its subsidiary of $78 million for 10 years on an interest free basis, in exchange for the subsidiary issuing to it optional convertible notes, cannot possibly have been chosen for a predominantly commercial purpose.”
“Mr McKay has not identified one, and nor could he.”
The company had adopted the OCN method “solely in pursuit of the goal of tax avoidance, to obtain a taxation benefit whereby the advantage of interest deductions was totally disproportionate to the economic burden.
“The benefit did not naturally attach to or was not subordinate or subsidiary to an identifiable concurrent commercial purpose or effect. Nor was the benefit merely incidental to an underlying commercial purpose or effect; it was the only identifiable purpose and effect of adopting the OCN structure.
“We are satisfied that, but for that benefit, the OCN structure would not have been chosen.”
Alesco, an Australian based firm, used the OCN method in 2003 to finance a $28.6 million buyout of kitchen and laundry goods manufacturer Robinson Industries.
Other firms which have used the OCN method, but which settled earlier disputes with IRD, included Telstra, Toll Holdings and Media Works.























Comments and questions10
This is ridiculous.
I had some exposure to this case and remember Alesco did everything by the book and did exactly what the Commissioner had previously declared legitimate through a previous determination, and now IRD turns around, backtracks on their own prior ruling (?!?!?) and slams Alesco.
It is the exact definition of 'moving the goal posts' and 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Alesco followed the rules, and got slammed. If the tax system works, that cannot happen.
I agree - they need to say definitively what is and what isn't tax avoidance and what is simple efficient structuring and then stick with it. Not say that you can do something, change their minds due to too many people doing it and then going back and saying that it was avoidance all along.
For all I know they'll decide in 5 years time that investing through a PIE is tax avoidance and I'm liable for 5% additional tax on returns, interest and penalties! Even though they currently say that it isn't!
but was the determination for alesco or someone else? This is what caught the banks out wasn't it? One got binding ruling but then departed from terms and others sought to use ruling, but not one they had got, to justify structures
Tax avoidance has become a complex area with Inland Revenue's wins to date. This places considerable difficulties for taxpayers structuring or restructuring their affairs in a legit manner.
Makes it very difficult for taxpayers. If you choose any option other than the most expensive tax wise, there is a risk it is avoidance.
I'm calling you out on this. OCNs for a 100% owned subsidiary is a complete fiction. This is nothing more than rorting the tax system. So many companies steer clear of this strategy because it isn't morally or economically "legit".
Agree, but the comment was more on wider implications for other legit clients.
Excellent let these multinationals pay their fair share
Just stop trying to avoid tax and you'll be fine!
We have here 2 issues at hand. Firstly, whether the use of these convertible notes is a legit expense and a tax deduction can be taken for the interest expense. The answer the Court delivered was "No" and that was possibly the correct answer.
The second, more important issue is whether IRD can give a determination that a particular arrangement is ok, then subsequnently turn around, say it isn't and claim tax avoidance. Well, they not only can, they have done it. This does not bode well. And may also have the effect of scaring off overseas businesses wishing to come into the country.