News
LAQC proposals questionable: NZICA
Monday 31st of May 2010
As part of the Budget process, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has proposed limiting the use of LAQCs to reduce the overall tax paid by property investors and others. The department's Policy Advice Division released for comment Qualifying companies: Implementation of flow-through tax treatment, which makes the following proposals:
- The distinction between a qualifying company (QC) and an LAQC will be removed. There will be only QCs that will be allowed only one class of share.
- QCs will be taxed similarly to a limited partnership, not a company, with the income and losses flowing through to shareholders in a QC in proportion to their "effective interest" (generally a shareholder's voting interest).
- A loss limitation rule will be imposed. Losses will be able to be claimed by a shareholder in a QC but the amount will be limited to the value of that person's investment in the QC. Excess losses may be carried forward and utilised when the shareholder's investment in the company increases.
- Amounts derived from the QC will retain their character in the shareholder's hands; that is, capital distributions will be treated as a capital receipt by the shareholder and revenue distributions will be treated as income.
- The dividend and imputation rules will not apply to a QC.
- Shareholders in a QC will no longer be personally liable for the company's income tax when electing to become a QC.
- A shareholder will be required to account for tax on disposing of their interest in a QC only if the value of the proceeds from the disposal exceeds the total net tax book value of their share of company property by more than $50,000. The same exceptions to this rule that apply to partnerships will also apply to shareholders in a QC.
- There will be a deemed disposition and reacquisition at market value of the company's assets when the company ceases to be a QC. The shareholder will therefore be required to account for tax on the disposal of their share of the QC's property.
- On liquidation of a QC a shareholder of a QC will be treated as having disposed of and reacquired all of their interest in the company at market value.
- The QC will be required to file an IR 7 partnership income tax return.
- There will be no tax costs associated with an existing QC transitioning into the new QC rules.
Want to read the full article?
Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.
Latest News
5 min read
Latest Comments
FMA wants clearer fees
@first time caller - I can see the complexity you highlight, but as above, investors should be able to see what they are paying without having to reference multiple documents. Investment admin can track and report deductions for tax, withdrawals, fees et al, would be /should be straightforward to aggregate advice fees into costs at member level... at least I hope so.
8 hours ago Goldcard
FMA wants clearer fees
@goldcard - how would you propose that a fund manager calculates the TER to include adviser fees given not all clients pay them and different advisers charge different fees, not to mention some advisors charge different fees to different clients? The advice fee gets disclosed in the adviser's disclosure statement and the statement of advice, so the client can add that to the published TER of the fund they are invested in to see how much they are paying overall.
1 day ago First time caller
FMA wants clearer fees
Schedule 4 of the FMCA regs 2014, particularly clauses 2(1) and 53(3) provide the basis for excluding individually charged advice fees from the statutory TER. This was introduced with the best of intentions, but now it is little more than an invisibility cloak for deductions from member accounts.
1 day ago Goldcard
Ideas for reforming KiwiSaver
@Ross The evidence is pretty clear on that. When advisers work in the best interests of their customers, as opposed to putting their customers into the products that pay them the most, outcomes are improved. (Makes sense doesn't it? Financial advisers go from sales people for fund companies to client fiduciaries.) It might reduce access, but does someone with $50K in a KiwiSaver really need investment 'advice'? A risk profile questionnaire or similar is a much better way to help consumers get into the right fund, i.e. move from a Balanced Fund to a Growth Fund. Why have more developed investment markets, e.g. US, UK, Canada, Aus, Netherlands etc. have banned adviser commissions from fund providers? I'd also add that there is a large group of KiwiSaver customers that are paying someone an advice fee without getting anything beyond a cursory email once a year in exchange. As @Paul says, it's 'easy money' for advisers...
5 days ago Market Commentator
Financial advice complaints down, but still some concerns, FSCL says
Aside from other questions I have on the inheritance/trustee case, what was the trustee company 'guilty' of to make them liable for the loss? Was it negligence, breach of contract (presumably not), was the trust in breach of its fiduciary duty? Where is the evidence? What is the justification? My understanding is Trusts and Trustees must act prudently and soberly in protecting a beneficiary's interests and does not extend to taking undue investment risk.
How can 'advice' or investment decision be condemned simply on the outcome and with the benefit of hindsight?
The benefit of hindsight can never be the determining factor in liability for inherently uncertain and unforeseeable outcomes, such as investment returns.
If the trustee company had put her money in a growth fund and that had suffered losses over the period compared to a balanced or conservative fund, I have no doubt the trustee company would have been found to have taken too much risk and would again be making good the 'losses'. This cannot be fair, reasonable or just, it condemns advisers to being 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'.
5 days ago Steve Wright