News

Do property investors really have "tax benefits?"

Monday 30th of November 2009

By Jenha White

The government is waiting for recommendations from the tax reform committee which will table a variety of alternatives the government may implement to curb the Kiwi enthusiasm for property investment and balance the budget deficit, in the wake of falling tax revenues.

Mark Withers from Withers Tsang & Co says the perceived benefits of claiming losses are not unique to property investment.

"Tax benefits are construed as unique to property, but any farmer or business person in New Zealand that makes a loss can offset this against their income, subject to the structuring of their affairs.

"The suggestion that this is somehow unique to property investment is completely false," he says.

 If you lose $1 on property investment by incurring more costs than you earn in rent, the maximum tax benefit is 38% of the dollar lost.

To get that 0.38c from the government you have to lose the $1 first and even then, only if you have sufficient tax paid income to offset the loss.

"Where's the benefit in that?" Withers asks.

He says the "benefits" are only a by-product of circumstances where there's a genuine loss of money.

However, it needs to be acknowledged that property investors would only generally tolerate these arrangements if they had a long term expectation of capital growth in the property asset.

Withers says people do not invest in property to create losses. 

Generally they are looking to reduce debt in order to become profitable and enjoy some capital growth over time as they work towards this. Ultimately they pay tax on their profit just like everyone else.

"Where do you draw the line? Is a farm a property investment?" he asks. Many farms return losses as a result of the high interest costs on debt to purchase land, just as property investors do.

Farming losses are tax-deductible and capital gains are also tax-free "but we don't demonise them".

Withers thinks the government will choose to implement a form of land tax.

"I believe land tax is the front-runner because the tax revenue collected by the government would be extremely predictable and regular which is in stark contrast to capital gains tax."

He says ring fencing tax losses would collect more tax now but less tax in the future when losses that are ring fenced get offset against rental profits.

The government's biggest challenge in introducing land tax would be dealing with the extent to which it applies.

"Would it apply to the farming community? How about Maori tribal interests which have received Treaty of Waitangi settlements of valuable but perhaps largely unproductive land?"

He says politically that would be a big problem, especially given the need to keep coalition partners on side.

Withers believes if the government introduced a land tax at the same time as a cut in the top marginal tax rate, this may be less politically damaging.

"Introducing a capital gains tax mid term at a time when the property market is essentially flat or declining seems mad.

"Not only would it collect virtually no tax in the immediate future, it could be extremely unpopular with much of National's middle New Zealand voter base."

Withers says that his preference is that we remain one of the few western countries free of hated tax regimes like capital gains tax, stamp duty, and death duties, "but we shall see".

Comments (4)
Man Yin Ng
Both Allan Bollard and Bill English made constant remarks that due to property investors' activities, the nation is taking in too much foreign debts. This is a myth!!! If a million houses are required in NZ, home-owners can afford to buy only 60% of them, the rest have to be absorbed by investors or other organizations, otherwise some people in NZ will have to live in doghouses or garrages. Based on 40% being absorbed by investors; then a $120 billions or more debt will be taken up. But if investors do not come in to the party, who else can do it? The State Housing probably, and at what costs -certainly more amd much more than the $120 billions, on top of that, there will be other hidden costs, admin costs, repairs costs, loss-of-rents, etc, which can run into billions$ as well!! So, if is clear a lie has been propogated! What a lie! The investors are providing badly needed social services, and because of that, they are penalised! What a joke! We have bunch of useless and irrational politicians! What a tragedy for NZ!!!
0 0
15 years ago

M Walker
A MAJOR omission in Mark Withers article...new regime (FDR)of taxing shares held (not traded, just buy & hold), this is a capital gains tax EACH year, and, under certain circumstances, if the share price reduces and a loss is incurred, that loss cannot be brought forward to offset future income. When the Mum & Dad's, or unscrupulous property people sell their property investment, they pay no tax on the capital gain. Even playing field??? I don't think so, and this is ignoring the now HUGE compliance cost from a tax perspective, of owning such shares.
0 0
15 years ago

Ian Staples
Firstly we do not need another tax. - We need to get the drones out of the government shelter into productive work thereby reducing the need for tax but providing more from the existing base by real production of real goods and services in a competitive market. Second the concept of taxing the increase in the numbers for a property without taking into effect the inflation over the period is nonesense. We measure a number of things in 'real terms' i.e. taking out the effect of inflation so a capital is not a capital gain until the inflation effect is removed. This would effectively reduce so called capital gains on houses to ZERO Goverments went away from the gold standard to allow inflation to work its 'magic' so they could line up at the public trough and then tell us that in 'real terms' it was not what it seemed. GOOD GRIEF - GET REAL
0 0
15 years ago

Ian Thompson
I am annoyed at mr ed's misguided comments about making profit and the profit is all capital gain. Most long term investors and I mean 10 years or more aim to make their properties profitable that means more rent comes in than expenses. This profit is taxed as income tax the same as any wage or salary. If you are a property trader then you also have to pay tax on any profit you make when the property is sold. The problem was during the boom when every Tom ,Dick and Harry decided they could make a quick buck and trade houses without paying tax. The inland revenue was given 13 million to investigate these dodgy deals. I as a long term investor, providing a service to the public of NZ am sick of getting flak from people who have been misled by incorrect media and government speakers. I am looking at selling up and investing in commercial property where I will be left alone.
0 0
15 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.