Yes there would be holes everywhere that some smart people would find
Printable View
There's got to be a limit. Collectables, wine collections, stamp collections, art, vintage cars, antiques - and there's still that definition game which will plague cgt on real estate. It's a major problem, e'g' does a coin collector/dealer pay income tax on profits - or CGT on gains. (Credits on losses?) or should capital gains simply be treated as income with no special tax rate? There's an endless list where collecting tax would reult in a loss to the taxman. Besides, such things are close to impossible to trace.
NZ's system of intention is not perfect, but overall it's certainly better than any half-baked CGT plan. But if we introduce CGT at all it will be half-baked at best and do little more than appease the envious. To introduce a proper and effective CGT would be political hara-kiri.
Agreed - at some point the cost of collection will outweigh tax gained. But with IRD big expensive new IT system the range can be expanded
It will depend on the definitions. But it will be important to over all wealth generating asset classes so people aren't motivated to shift from a CGT class to a none CGT class.
No you wont get a credit for losses - this is about collecting tax off the wealthy, you would not want to disadvantage those that make bad decisions by giving them credits they couldn't use.
A coin collector would pay CGT on any gain as he isn't in the business of trading coins. A coin dealer would pay tax on profits made.
Things are now easier to trace thanks to technology (for example your car - take it for a WOF and the garage knows if it is the registration has been paid). Put something into your asset definition - say "artwork". Its given an asset number registered with IRD. Its scanned on purchase. Scanned on resale. Its accounted for in the annual tax return.
CGT would be guaranteed to make accountants and solicitors wealthier - and isnt that an irony. The clever would remain clever and find ways of avoiding CGT. In the end the risk is cost of implementation greater than tax gained. But that's not the point - we have to get rid of poverty and lessening the gap between the haves and the have nots and if a half baked CGT gives the appearance of achieving that then all is good