International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Draft guidance on non-resident employers' tax obligations for employees in New Zealand

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-russel-mcveagh.png
Colombia should build on international experiences

Tim Stewart and Alex Ladyman of Russell McVeagh summarise the draft operational statement released by New Zealand Inland Revenue on non-resident employers' employment-related tax obligations in relation to employees in New Zealand.

Inland Revenue has released a draft operational statement providing guidance as to when non-resident employers are required to deduct tax at source under the pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) system from payments made to employees located in New Zealand. The statement also provides guidance as to when employer superannuation contribution tax (ESCT) and fringe benefit tax (FBT) are payable in respect of benefits provided to such employees.

The statement is timely given that COVID-19 and associated restrictions on travel have seen a number of employees working from New Zealand for non-resident employers who would not otherwise have a presence in New Zealand. The question of when a non-resident employer must account for tax in respect of employees in New Zealand arises more generally, however, and the guidance is not confined to circumstances resulting from COVID-19. 



In summary, Inland Revenue's view is that a non-resident employer will have New Zealand employment-related tax obligations in relation to an employee in New Zealand if:

  • The employer has made itself subject to New Zealand tax law by having a "sufficient presence" in New Zealand; and

  • The services performed by the employee are properly attributable to the employer’s presence in New Zealand.


Defining "sufficient presence"




Inland Revenue considers that an employer will normally have a "sufficient presence" in New Zealand where the employer has a trading presence (i.e. carrying on operations or employing a workforce in New Zealand). An employer would also have a "sufficient presence" in New Zealand where the employer has a permanent establishment or branch in New Zealand, has contracts that were entered into in New Zealand, or performs contracts in New Zealand with employees based in New Zealand. 



A sufficient presence would not arise by reason only of an employee choosing to undertake their employment activities in New Zealand where those activities have no necessary connection to New Zealand. This scenario has become more common, especially in light of COVID-19, as New Zealand citizens employed by non-resident employers choose for personal reasons to work from New Zealand.



Properly attributable



Once a non-resident employer has a "sufficient presence" in New Zealand, the extent of the non-resident employer’s employment-related obligations will be limited to payments properly attributable to that New Zealand presence. Typically, employer tax obligations will arise for such an employer in respect of any employee based in New Zealand. However, employer tax obligations could also extend to work done by employees outside New Zealand (e.g. where the employee is temporarily based overseas investigating the purchase of new equipment to be used in the employer's New Zealand operations).



Other issues addressed by the statement



The statement also sets out Inland Revenue's view that:

  • No PAYE withholding obligations arise where the non-resident employee is exempt from income tax either as a result of an exemption under domestic law or full relief under an applicable double tax agreement.

  • An employer (even if tax resident in New Zealand) is not required to withhold PAYE where the PAYE income payment is paid to a non-resident employee for work performed outside New Zealand.


Legal status of the statement



Currently, the statement is in draft form. It has been released for public consultation with a deadline for comment of September 1 2020. 



Once finalised, the statement will be the advice of Inland Revenue and (although not legally binding) will provide protection against interest and penalties for taxpayers whose filing positions are consistent with it. Further, in respect of core tax, Inland Revenue usually will not take action inconsistent with such advice except on a prospective basis. 




Tim Stewart

T: +64 4 819 7527

E: tim.stewart@russellmcveagh.com



Alex Ladyman

E: alex.ladyman@russellmcveagh.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Premier League football clubs are accused of avoiding paying up to £470 million in UK tax, while Malta is poised to overhaul its unique corporate tax system.
Bartosz Doroszuk of MDDP offers insights on Poland’s new tax legislation on shifted profits, as the implementation deadline looms nearer.
Four tax specialists preview the UK’s transfer pricing requirements, which come into effect on April 1.
The rise of the QDMTT will likely change how countries compete on tax and transfer pricing policy, but it may not reverse decades of falling corporate tax rates.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.