Member log in

IRD to target Rich Listers

NBR Rich Listers are to be ranked according to their risk of dodging the taxman, as IRD steps up its scrutiny of tax compliance.

Taxpayers who control more than $50 million of assets will be ranked according to their likelihood for tax evasion or avoidance to help channel the IRD’s efforts in tax audit cases.

The risk profiling is detailed in the IRD’s new compliance focus for 2010-2011, outlining IRD’s spotlight on the hidden economy and debt and in the year ahead.

The 2010 NBR Rich List is published on Friday (July 30).

Tax director at financial services company Ernst & Young Aaron Quintal said those deemed high risk could expect to face a lot more scrutiny from the IRD.

“While you can’t fault that logic, the important point will be how fair and robust that ranking process will be and what rights the taxpayer has to object to their rating as a high risk individual.”

Mr Quintal said Ernst & Young was concerned about how the IRD would conduct the ranking – typically based off the National Business Review’s annual Rich List.

Some of the firm’s high wealth clients had, in the past, felt unfairly targeted by the IRD for tax audits when they believed they had done nothing wrong and were therefore punished for being publically wealthy, he said.

“We don’t think Rich Listers should have to engage in audits every year to prove they are not as risky as the IRD said they were,” he said.

Although fewer audits would mean Ernst & Young would potentially earn less in audit fees from these high-wealth clients, Mr Quintal said it was good they would no longer be subject to random selection.

“Tax audits are an expensive, time consuming and a stressful experience for any taxpayer. I wouldn’t like to see increased scrutiny simply because an individual’s tax return doesn’t match their supposed wealth reported in a newspaper story.”

The IRD’s compliance focus was also helpful in giving taxpayers and auditors clarity about what IRD considers inappropriate tax planning and where the department will focus its audit activity.

IRD said it worked with more than 160 high-wealth individuals - each averaging 36 associated entities such as companies, trusts and partnerships

While these individuals did register, file and pay on time, their business structure and entities were often complex and accurate reporting could be an issue

Stems from problems those in this wealth bracket often pay little tax in their own name and general concern about paying tax in trust, people with reported wealth returning little or nothing in their tax return.

Off the back of the Penny & Hooper Court of Appeal decision, IRD will also be targeting income diversion through companies, trusts and PIEs.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Robert Russell, said the new compliance focus would help ensure everyone paid their fair share of tax.

“It’s about making sure people are fully aware of their tax obligations as well as understanding what their social entitlements are,” he said.

“We aim to help people know how to get it right and most do. On the other hand, a small number of people are not compliant and we have to respond to them.

“Some people avoid paying the top tax rate by diverting personal income to companies or trusts or using other techniques. We are aware some high-wealth and high-income individuals use internal restructuring and business shelters with no underlying commercial benefit to get a tax advantage. Also there are people doing jobs for cash without paying any tax. We’re increasingly using a range of tools to provide intelligence to detect those kinds of behaviours.”

Mr Russell said the hidden economy, debt and enhanced online services were among areas Inland Revenue will place additional focus on over the next year.

More by Georgina Bond

Comments and questions
5

Professionals advising taxpayers in the area of income tax have been warned.Audits can be expensive,stressful and time consuming.

Red Dog - advisors don't care. Drawn out expensive battles mean lots of fees.

Advisors do and should care because they are responsible for giving advice on structuring to their clients,and if it all goes wrong,the advisers are the ones who get the fingers pointed at them.
In addition,you will find that Insurers will look at any way they can to escape liability.
If you get a couple of decent sized claims lodged against your policy,there is a good chance that you will be unable to find a PI insurer to take you on.
I would not like to be in the position of the advisors to Penny and Hooper,and other health professionals whom IRD may have in their sights.
I am aware of previous cases involving restructuring into trading trusts,these cases ranging from those where the advisor had recommended the quantum of salary to be put through the books,to those where the advisor has requested the taxpayer to conduct investigations on the quantum of a fair market salary,and IRD contends that in both cases,the selected salary has been inadequate.
In both sets of circumstances,the advisor inevitably cops the blame,following by a lengthy period of stress and cost whilst the position is debated with the department.
There is then the reputational risk for the advisor.
Bad news travels fast.

The problem for advisers in a case such as Penny and Hooper is that in at least one of those cases the structure was set up PRIOR TO the increase in the top tax rate - so how the IRD contend that it was a tax avoidance measure AND got the court to agree with that is beyond me.

It is simply proof that this is a moving playing field taxpayers/advisors have to deal with and one must be aware of the possibility of the IRD using the 'it's my ball' approach.

That is because in the case of companies,as there is no legislation requiring market salaries to be paid or precedents,whether there is such a requirement in the case of companies being set up at the commencement of a self-employed person's trading,is a moot point.
As I understand it,the one case that was corporatised pre the 39 cent tax rates,was still a restructure and not a commencement of trading.
I have observed that some advisors tend to view their clients' affairs as a slush fund when it comes to income tax.
I have always had the opinion that you must always bring commercial reality into play once you establish distinct structures for a taxpayer.
If you do that,you minimise your risk.
This is regardless of whether it is a new or restructured business venture.
The courts will continue to make the law.

Post new comment or question

Login to use your NBR member name
Full HTML is not supported but you can use the following tags in your comments:
Link: <url>link</url>
Quote: <quote>text</quote>