New Zealand: Set to introduce new business continuity test for tax loss carry-forward rules
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

New Zealand: Set to introduce new business continuity test for tax loss carry-forward rules

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-russel-mcveagh.png
The test can be seen as a hybrid of the Australian ‘same or similar business’ test and the UK test.

Fred Ward and Young-chan Jung of Russell McVeagh consider the key elements of the new business continuity test, which arrives following the economic fallout caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Legislation is to be introduced to reform New Zealand's loss carry-forward rules to include a business continuity test. Existing New Zealand law allows a company to carry-forward its tax losses to offset against profits in future years only if its shareholding remains the same, at least to the extent of 49%.

This test creates an impediment for businesses, particularly start-ups, wanting to innovate and grow by obtaining capital because the 49% ownership continuity threshold may be breached.

The proposal of the business continuity test comes partly in response to the economic impacts of COVID-19, with the aim to allow businesses that may require recapitalisation due to the effects of COVID-19 to take advantage of the revised test. Broadly, this test would allow a company to carry-forward losses, even after a change of ownership breaching the existing ownership continuity requirements, as long as the underlying business continues.

While legislation is yet to be introduced, the New Zealand Inland Revenue has released a questions and answers document and a fact sheet explaining the purpose and design of the proposed test.

Features of the proposed business continuity test

The proposed business continuity test can be seen as a hybrid of the Australian ‘same or similar business’ test and the UK test. Similar to the UK test, the proposed test would have a primary negative test – losses would be permitted to be carried forward after a change in ownership as long as there is not a major change as described in the legislation. Whether a change to a company's business activities is major is proposed to be determined by having regard to the assets used and other relevant factors.

Certain carve-outs to the definition of ‘major change’ are proposed to allow for the fact that companies may undertake major change to innovate and grow, including:

  • Changes to increase efficiency, scale, or to keep up with developing technology; and

  • Rationalising the company’s product or service range by introducing new items produced using largely the same assets of the company or of a kind relating to those already being produced or previously produced. When considering if the same assets of the company are being used, land (but not fixtures) is to be excluded from this carve-out as an integrity measure.

The proposed test includes several anti-avoidance measures, aimed to stop the ability of firms to trade in tax losses, which include:

  • A pre-purchase dormant company rule that would disallow the carry-forward of losses of dormant companies;

  • An anti-injection rule for transactions with associated persons similar to Australia's general income anti-injection rule;

  • An anti-cost transfer rule to stop the artificial increasing of a loss company's income in a group situation; and

  • An anti-avoidance rule preventing a change in business prior to a change in ownership for the purpose of meeting the business continuity test after the ownership change.

Application of the proposed test

The proposed business continuity test would apply to losses arising from the 2013 to 2014 income year onwards. Most companies would be required to maintain business continuity until the end of the income year which is five years after the change in ownership (or if earlier, the end of the income year in which the losses are utilised), with an exception for companies which are permitted to take bad debt deductions.

Legislation for the proposed test is expected to be introduced in mid-March 2021 in a supplementary order paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020–21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill before the House of Representatives.

 

Fred Ward

Partner, Russell McVeagh

E: fred.ward@russellmcveagh.com

 

 

Young-chan Jung

Solicitor, Russell McVeagh

E: young-chan.jung@russellmcveagh.com

 

 

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Proposals by HM Revenue and Customs to raise standards in the advisory market are ‘well overdue’, one partner declared
An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
‘Auditors are failing to perform their core function’ according to a think tank; in other news, White & Case adds a tax partner in Luxembourg
An overhaul of EU import taxes could spell the end of an exemption for cheap parcels
Sharma, managing director for A&M in the United Arab Emirates, tells ITR about intense time pressures, mimicking Jurgen Klopp and what makes tax cool
AI will speed up some of the most laborious TP processes without making human input redundant, argues Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Australian businessman Gordon Merchant used EY’s advice to offset an A$85 million capital gain, according to the Federal Court
Griggs has been drafted in ahead of schedule as the incumbent Tim Ryan departs for Citigroup; while the Netherlands plans to scrap a 15% share buyback tax
Authorities must ensure that Russian firms do not use transfer pricing schemes to increase profits made from oil sold in different markets, advocacy organisations have argued
Gift this article