ASX ETF - like S&P500 = NO FIF ?

[FTG]

To be really FIF exempt, you basically have to own NZX listing and some ASX listings.

Not correct SBQ. Under certain circumstances an individual/entity doesn't need to come under the FIF regime at all.

First up and as i assume you already know, there is the NZD50K threshold, which if kept under makes adherence & related compliance paperwork for the small investor a LOT simpler.
Secondly, for those with overseas holdings exceeding the value of NZD50K there are other strategies & approaches one can deploy (don't worry - all very legal!) which means that one can elect NOT to be under the FIF regime. Of course the devil is in the detail, and there will be pro's & con's to being under FIF or not, as opposed to the alternative pathways. Plus, there are a variety of considerations particular to each individual's specific circumstances that needs to be considered. All quite technical and not suitable to being disseminated here on ST in generic form.

The short story is DYOR, ideally with your Tax Accountant/Advisor.

[SBQ]

Not correct SBQ. Under certain circumstances an individual/entity doesn't need to come under the FIF regime at all.

First up and as i assume you already know, there is the NZD50K threshold, which if kept under makes adherence & related compliance paperwork for the small investor a LOT simpler.
Secondly, for those with overseas holdings exceeding the value of NZD50K there are other strategies & approaches one can deploy (don't worry - all very legal!) which means that one can elect NOT to be under the FIF regime. Of course the devil is in the detail, and there will be pro's & con's to being under FIF or not, as opposed to the alternative pathways. Plus, there are a variety of considerations particular to each individual's specific circumstances that needs to be considered. All quite technical and not suitable to being disseminated here on ST in generic form.

The short story is DYOR, ideally with your Tax Accountant/Advisor.

You base my question on the basis that FIF is exempted under $50K NZD? This is a joke - even justakiwi knows the funds i'm dealing with (and for many of those that have invested in shares for a very long time nearing retirement), have well in excess of $50K NZD.

The issue of FIF has been batted many times in other threads. The wording by IRD's FIF manual seems to be interpreted differently by individuals here. ie. buying multiples of shares under $50K to assume that it exempts from FIF. I prefer to take the common sense approach and i'm sure all the financial advisers in NZ will agree. $50K is a threshold of ALL TOTAL assets that the individual has abroad. It would be senseless to think otherwise - and this is just only 1 example. One does not simply elect out of FIF just like one doesn't elect out of paying other taxes.

I am doing my research and fact checking. As the financial advisers tell me, the goal for FIF is to address taxation on large capital gains on foreign shares, namely US equities that have a tax system that favours capital gains on growth stocks instead of paying dividends (ie like Berkshire Hathaway). If FIF had some leeway for ASX listings being exempted from FIF, then perhaps I thought there would be some way to invest in a similar ETF holding such as the S&P500 (by Australian listings). However, it seems there's a fair % of ASX listings that do not qualify for FIF exemption.

Using the FIF lookup link that FTG provided for the current taxation year, can someone explain to me why a NZ company XERO ticker XRO trading on the ASX is not FIF exempted? While an Australian operated company BHP shows up as being FIF exempted?

So far i've not seen any benefit of investments going under FIF so perhaps you can elaborate this from a retirement planning point of view who this would be advantageous? My friends in Canada appear to have retirement plans where their share investments grow tax free (deferred taxation at retirement) and in many cases, have tax free registered accounts for education and TSFA which is 100% tax free for the intended purpose (ie saving for education, or disabilities). Yes I know we live in NZ, but I don't think it's fair that the productive working society, those who transition into the work force and work until retirement, that their investments are penalising them as the pay tax on those investment gains. This is a huge disincentive when the rich in NZ are able to buy multiple houses without paying any tax on the capital gain. They can hold the houses in a trust, and all the capital gains are tax free. The worker pays into a Kiwi Saver plan, in either a PIE fund or some other fund (FIF or not), and is still subjected to taxes every year.

Not trying to be hard on you but let's be real here. What are the advantages please?

[FTG]

You base my question on the basis that FIF is exempted under $50K NZD? This is a joke - even justakiwi knows the funds i'm dealing with (and for many of those that have invested in shares for a very long time nearing retirement), have well in excess of $50K NZD.

The issue of FIF has been batted many times in other threads. The wording by IRD's FIF manual seems to be interpreted differently by individuals here. ie. buying multiples of shares under $50K to assume that it exempts from FIF. I prefer to take the common sense approach and i'm sure all the financial advisers in NZ will agree. $50K is a threshold of ALL TOTAL assets that the individual has abroad. It would be senseless to think otherwise - and this is just only 1 example. One does not simply elect out of FIF just like one doesn't elect out of paying other taxes.

I am doing my research and fact checking. As the financial advisers tell me, the goal for FIF is to address taxation on large capital gains on foreign shares, namely US equities that have a tax system that favours capital gains on growth stocks instead of paying dividends (ie like Berkshire Hathaway). If FIF had some leeway for ASX listings being exempted from FIF, then perhaps I thought there would be some way to invest in a similar ETF holding such as the S&P500 (by Australian listings). However, it seems there's a fair % of ASX listings that do not qualify for FIF exemption.

Using the FIF lookup link that FTG provided for the current taxation year, can someone explain to me why a NZ company XERO ticker XRO trading on the ASX is not FIF exempted? While an Australian operated company BHP shows up as being FIF exempted?

So far i've not seen any benefit of investments going under FIF so perhaps you can elaborate this from a retirement planning point of view who this would be advantageous? My friends in Canada appear to have retirement plans where their share investments grow tax free (deferred taxation at retirement) and in many cases, have tax free registered accounts for education and TSFA which is 100% tax free for the intended purpose (ie saving for education, or disabilities). Yes I know we live in NZ, but I don't think it's fair that the productive working society, those who transition into the work force and work until retirement, that their investments are penalising them as the pay tax on those investment gains. This is a huge disincentive when the rich in NZ are able to buy multiple houses without paying any tax on the capital gain. They can hold the houses in a trust, and all the capital gains are tax free. The worker pays into a Kiwi Saver plan, in either a PIE fund or some other fund (FIF or not), and is still subjected to taxes every year.

Not trying to be hard on you but let's be real here. What are the advantages please?

SBQ, "tut tut". Yet again you appear to be making a few glib assumptions & hence some rather broad sweeping statements here. Sorry, I'm going to call you out on a couple of them, but there are too many for me to invest my time in addressing each & every one.

Let's remember SBQ that you started this thread with a simple question... ASX ETF - like S&P500 = NO FIF. I simply responded to your question, providing a web link to assist you & other STers in determining whether an ASX listed entity is exempt under the FIF regime or not. I also suggested that depending on an individual's/entity's particular circumstances, coming under the FIF regime MAY actually not be required or the best pathway.

To clarify & correct you
- At no point did I claim to know your (or any other ST members for that matter) financial position ("claimed" and/or actual)
- At no point did I claim that the advantages of coming under FIF outweighed (or not) not doing so; or vise-versa.

For what it is worth, my opinion is that the NZ FIF regime is an absolute dog. Significantly over-engineered, creating heavy compliance costs and many unintended consequences. When followed, the regime materially impacts real Net returns, which in turn goes on to change the behaviours of NZ investors.
But as you say, there are plenty of other FIF threads on ST where any further detailed discussion is more suited.

SBQ, apologies if you find this a bit harsh, but I assume that you genuinely wish to acquire more knowledge and improve your understanding with points discussed on ST, rather than it primarily being a soap box for yourself? If so, I would respectfully suggest expending your energy on posturing is not going to get you very far, let alone earning the enduring respect of fellow ST participants. I suggest you should take twice the time to properly read others' posts, and output half the amount you seem to currently keenly dispense.

You say that you are nearing retirement, so I can only assume that you have some reasonable life (and investing) experience. Experience that some others can surely learn from.
Maybe focus on the quality of your posts rather than the quantity. :-)

[Snow Leopard]

You base my question on the basis that FIF is exempted under $50K NZD? This is a joke - even justakiwi knows the funds i'm dealing with (and for many of those that have invested in shares for a very long time nearing retirement), have well in excess of $50K NZD.

The issue of FIF has been batted many times in other threads. The wording by IRD's FIF manual seems to be interpreted differently by individuals here. ie. buying multiples of shares under $50K to assume that it exempts from FIF. I prefer to take the common sense approach and i'm sure all the financial advisers in NZ will agree. $50K is a threshold of ALL TOTAL assets that the individual has abroad. It would be senseless to think otherwise - and this is just only 1 example. One does not simply elect out of FIF just like one doesn't elect out of paying other taxes.

I am doing my research and fact checking. As the financial advisers tell me, the goal for FIF is to address taxation on large capital gains on foreign shares, namely US equities that have a tax system that favours capital gains on growth stocks instead of paying dividends (ie like Berkshire Hathaway). If FIF had some leeway for ASX listings being exempted from FIF, then perhaps I thought there would be some way to invest in a similar ETF holding such as the S&P500 (by Australian listings). However, it seems there's a fair % of ASX listings that do not qualify for FIF exemption.

Using the FIF lookup link that FTG provided for the current taxation year, can someone explain to me why a NZ company XERO ticker XRO trading on the ASX is not FIF exempted? While an Australian operated company BHP shows up as being FIF exempted?

So far i've not seen any benefit of investments going under FIF so perhaps you can elaborate this from a retirement planning point of view who this would be advantageous? My friends in Canada appear to have retirement plans where their share investments grow tax free (deferred taxation at retirement) and in many cases, have tax free registered accounts for education and TSFA which is 100% tax free for the intended purpose (ie saving for education, or disabilities). Yes I know we live in NZ, but I don't think it's fair that the productive working society, those who transition into the work force and work until retirement, that their investments are penalising them as the pay tax on those investment gains. This is a huge disincentive when the rich in NZ are able to buy multiple houses without paying any tax on the capital gain. They can hold the houses in a trust, and all the capital gains are tax free. The worker pays into a Kiwi Saver plan, in either a PIE fund or some other fund (FIF or not), and is still subjected to taxes every year.

Not trying to be hard on you but let's be real here. What are the advantages please?

I am an idiot.

By mistake I gave good rep to this post when I meant to give it FTG. I think these 3 letter acronym names confuse me.

Actually I find the post to be in part offensive and believe it shows the posters total ignorance caused by their narrow-mindedness and total unwillingness to deviate from their prejudices.