“Winston Peters’ so-called minority report on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the powers and
operations of the Inland Revenue Department raises real questions about the competence of New Zealand First,” Revenue
Minister Sir William Birch said.
Minority reports normally appear as part of the printed select committee report - New Zealand First’s so-called minority
report appeared several hours later as a media release.
Its opening sentence was that New Zealand First had for eight years been pressing for a far reaching investigation into
the powers of the Inland Revenue – surely a bit difficult when New Zealand First has existed for only just over six
years.
Then New Zealand First goes on to refute IRD’s interpretation of tax law, particularly those relating to tax avoidance
and evasion. “Fortunately for taxpayers, it is the courts not New Zealand First that have the responsibility of
reviewing the IRD’s interpretation of the tax law. Also a bit rich considering it is Winston Peters who has personally
blocked parliamentary consideration of five clauses intended to amend the Tax Act to prevent the abuse of foreign tax
credits. These clauses, at Mr Peters’ insistence, have languished in the Finance and Expenditure Committee since 1994.”
Six almost impenetrable pages later, one finds that New Zealand First agrees with 24 of the 27 recommendations made in
the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report. The only three of the committee’s recommendations that New Zealand First
does not agree with are:
The recommendation that the Tax Administration Act be amended to provide a clear four-year time bar in relation to all
taxes except where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has reasonable grounds to suspect a return to be fraudulent or
wilfully misleading. New Zealand First say there should be no time sanctuary for tax evaders, that is, that the IRD
should be able to pursue taxpayers for ever.
The recommendation that the Government review the process by which assessments can be challenged, placing particular
emphasis on assessing the merits of establishing a time limit on the Commissioner of Inland Revenue when addressing a
taxpayer’s Notice of Response. Again New Zealand First say that IRD should be able to pursue a taxpayer indefinitely.
The recommendation that the ministerial approval thresholds for instalment arrangements and remissions be removed, but
that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue be required to provide a regular report to the Minister of Revenue outlining
applications for remissions and instalments in excess of $100,000. New Zealand First’s desire to retain the status quo
would leave it difficult for the IRD to reach agreement with taxpayers on time-payment of taxes.
“On all three recommendations, the New Zealand First stance is taxpayer-unfriendly, making life more difficult for the
taxpayer – surely quite the opposite of the situations that prompted the committee to carry out the inquiry.”
“I can only conclude that Winston Peters, having failed in both the Davison Commission and in the courts to establish a
single case of fraud among all the Winebox transactions, is disappointed that other members of the Finance and
Expenditure Committee did not allow him to rerun the Winebox in the course of the committee’s inquiry,” said Sir
William.