Draft guidance on non-resident employers' tax obligations for employees in New Zealand

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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Draft guidance on non-resident employers' tax obligations for employees in New Zealand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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Gift this article