24 August 2011
Landmark tax avoidance decision has wide impact
Today’s Supreme Court decision in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in a case involving two surgeons who were
alleged to have paid themselves artificially low salaries to reduce their tax bill is a landmark decision, says PwC
Chairman and Tax Partner John Shewan.
Mr Shewan, who acted as an expert witness for the taxpayers in the case, says the decision has wide application. “There
are thousands of small businesses that operate through companies and which pay salaries or wages to their owner
operators. Today’s judgment confirms the Commissioner’s view that where the amount paid is artificially low that may
well constitute tax avoidance.”
“SMEs do not need to panic over the decision, but they will want to review their circumstances to ensure they are on the
right side of the line,” adds Mr Shewan.
The decision is helpful in pointing to some cases where avoidance would not be involved, such as the need to retain
funds to make capital expenditure or where the company is experiencing financial difficulties or it would be imprudent
to pay a market salary.
“As a practical matter it will be necessary for Inland Revenue to issue further guidance along these lines because it is
in everyone’s interests for there to be reasonable certainty as to where the boundaries lie” says Mr Shewan.
The decision also reinforces the importance of documenting the reasons businesses are taking particular decisions.
“Taxpayers need to be able to demonstrate why they did what they did. The second step is that if what they did reduces
their tax they need to be able to satisfy themselves and Inland Revenue that it is an advantage that Parliament would
have contemplated.
“We have some concerns over how the Parliamentary contemplation test will be applied in practice. What Parliament
intends is sometimes hard to fathom” says Mr Shewan.
It is clear there is a new playing field with regard to the application of tax avoidance rules in New Zealand. The key
is for people to understand this and to respect the fact that the Courts have made it very clear that the avoidance
provisions will be applied more literally than previously. So in any situation where there is a reduction in tax
relative to an alternative or a prior position people need to be able to justify that this is a result of genuine
commercial decisions, not as a result of a tax objective in itself unless, such as in the case of the PIE regime, that
tax objective is clearly contemplated by Parliament.
About PwC
PwC firms provide industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to enhance value for their clients. More than
161,000 people in 154 countries in firms across the PwC network share their thinking, experience and solutions to
develop fresh perspectives and practical advice. See www.pwc.com for more information.
ENDS