NZ banks lose 2.2b

[mamos]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3191641/Banks-to-pay-billions-owed

No big deal...

Where is the tax avoidance line now drawn and what are the implications for foreign investment into New Zealand?

[Balance]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3191641/Banks-to-pay-billions-owed

No big deal...

Where is the tax avoidance line now drawn and what are the implications for foreign investment into New Zealand?

Bloody good show. Zippo implications for foreign investments.

[dragonz]

I think the title should read " Australian Banks repay 2.2 billion back to the New Zealand tax payer".

Please change the title

[Penfold]

Possibly will be a few repercussions for foreign investment in NZ.

Luckily we have so much if we lose a little it won't be so bad.

Now this is over the IRD will no doubt have a few large multinationals in their sights that have been doing equally dodgy things.

I never thought at any point in my life I would be cheering for the IRD... but here I am hoping they recoup some tax income for our nation.

[mamos]

Agree wealth transfer from Aussie bank SH's to New Zealand. Think they settled more out of public relations than anything.

Will be interesting to see if the banks sue the accounting firms tax advice or have any other
indemnities. Lloyds TSb provided $100m ish in one indemnity from one of the announcements I read.

80% of interest + tax with no penalties.

No Court of Appeal or Supreme Court jurisprudence on the tax avoidance law is a little disappointing.

[whatsup]

I think the title should read " Australian Banks repay 2.2 billion back to the New Zealand tax payer".

Please change the title



Drag only too true, "these Aussies banks would sell their fathers if the knew who he was"!!!

[Balance]

Drag only too true, "these Aussies banks would sell their fathers if the knew who he was"!!!

Good one! Best posting of the year.

[nztx]

Possibly will be a few repercussions for foreign investment in NZ.

Luckily we have so much if we lose a little it won't be so bad.

Now this is over the IRD will no doubt have a few large multinationals in their sights that have been doing equally dodgy things.

I never thought at any point in my life I would be cheering for the IRD... but here I am hoping they recoup some tax income for our nation.



Undoubtedly the local punters patronising these outfits may be first in the line standing up to be punished a bit harder in monthly chunks.. some of the blanking crew got an early jump off the starting blocks ramping up fees earlier in 2009 ;)

[tsb]

As it is reported that the banks only paid 80% - the title could be changed to "banks save $440 million and the leaky homes fiasco continues"

[drillfix]

I think the title should read " Australian Banks repay 2.2 billion back to the New Zealand tax payer".

Please change the title


Dragonz, make that: Australian Banks Customers repay 2.2 billion back to the New Zealand tax payer :rolleyes:

[Jess9]

...and then we pay. Another .25- .5% added to all i/rates to follow?

[Penfold]

...and then we pay. Another .25- .5% added to all i/rates to follow?

Move to Kiwibank or TSB...

[Heke]

I never thought at any point in my life I would be cheering for the IRD... but here I am hoping they recoup some tax income for our nation.

It’s a pity the IRD didn’t get anything from the scoundrels involved in the winebox affair.

[whatsup]

Dragonz, make that: Australian Banks Customers repay 2.2 billion back to the New Zealand tax payer :rolleyes:

No Drill...., its the shareholders who own the company and they there fore pay the money to the N Z tax dept, customers are the canon fodder, no one asked them to borrow money from a bank , that is customers choice!!!

[dragonz]

No Drill...., its the shareholders who own the company and they there fore pay the money to the N Z tax dept, customers are the canon fodder, no one asked them to borrow money from a bank , that is customers choice!!!

And in this case it was the NZ Shareholder as the money owed had been reserved from the NZ operations only.

[macduffy]

And in this case it was the NZ Shareholder as the money owed had been reserved from the NZ operations only.

Not quite so.

NZ shareholders participate to the same extent as Aussie shareholders in the fortunes of the Aussie banks. Divs are the same and the NZ shareprice tracks the Aussie. So the effect is felt across the bank.

[macduffy]

Not the banks this time but it seems the IRD has QAN and TOL in its sights.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/toll-qantas-in-sights-of-nz-taxman-20100106-lueg.html

;)

[belgarion]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10619459

[whatsup]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10619459

Belg,,, r u on board ?

[Dubdee]

Not sure Balance is correct that there is Zippo effect on foreign investment in NZ.

Westpac had a binding IRD ruling (basically a transaction approval) on one of the transactions involved. All the others would have gone on with a suite of top tax opinions saying the deals were legal. The IRD has now undertaken another interpretation of the law which must shake some confidence in foreigners having any dealings with government and IRD in particular.

So as far as tax law is concerned the new mantra is not what the law says but what Parliament may have contemplated. Dangerous stuff. You now have to guess what was in the pollies minds at that time.

The reason the wine box stuff was never prosecuted was that according to the law then they were all legal. Immoral maybe but according to Fay Richwhite NZ corporate tax was voluntary in the mid late eighties. Peters did the moral whinge at the royal commission but that was about all they could do other than tighten the law to a postion today so complex that even the banks dont get it right.

[belgarion]

Belg,,, r u on board ?

Sorry Whatsup, I don't understand.