You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Ad Hoc Government Discussion Papers >>
2001 >>
[2001] NZAHGovDP 3
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
GST and imported services. A challenge in an electronic commerce environment. A Government discussion document [2001] NZAHGovDP 3 (1 June 2001)
Last Updated: 18 July 2021
A Challenge in an Electronic Commerce
Environment
A Government discussion document
|
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Minister of
Finance Minister of Revenue
Hon Paul Swain Associate
Minister of Finance and Revenue
John Wright
MP Parliamentary Under- Secretary to the Minister of Revenue
|
First
published in June 2001 by the Policy Advice Division of the Inland Revenue
Department,
P O Box 2198, Wellington.
GST and imported services
– a challenge in an electronic commerce environment; A Government
discussion document.
ISBN 0-478-10344-1
PREFACE
Things have changed in the nearly fifteen years since GST was first
introduced. Some of the assumptions and realities which underpinned
the design
of GST no longer hold true.
Removal of regulations from the
telecommunications and financial services industries have opened them up to
competition. Legal and
technological constraints which had acted to stifle
international trade in goods and services have faded away.
New Zealanders
have become part of the global economy. As a result we are importing more
services than when GST was designed. The
development of electronic commerce
will further increase the extent to which New Zealanders are able to purchase
both goods and services
from offshore.
Today, if you were to buy services
from a New Zealand company, GST is charged. If instead you purchase services
from a foreign company
supplying services from offshore, GST is not charged.
This document examines this tax treatment in the light of changes in the economy
and in technology.
This document contains proposals that aim to ensure
that the GST system adjusts to the electronic commerce environment and does not
unfairly disadvantage New Zealand service industries. It is part of a
continuing review of GST and a part of the Government’s
electronic
commerce strategy, as set out in the Government strategy paper
E-Commerce: Building the Strategy for New Zealand.
We look
forward to receiving your submissions on this
document.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Hon
Paul Swain John Wright MP
Minister of Finance Associate Minister of Parliamentary Under-Secretary
Minister of Revenue Finance and Revenue to the Minister of Revenue
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
- 1.1 This
discussion document considers the application of goods and services tax (GST) to
imported services. This was raised as an
issue for further development in
the Government discussion document GST: A Review in March 1999 and in
the Government strategy paper E-Commerce: Building the Strategy for
New Zealand in November 2000. It proposes that GST be imposed on imports of
services by registered persons making non-taxable supplies, adopting
the
“reverse charge” mechanism. It also sets out the proposed scope and
general features of the mechanism, and signals
further areas for development of
GST in the future.
Objectives
General objectives
- 1.2 The
proposals contained in this discussion document are intended to improve the
efficiency and equity of GST, reduce future erosion
of the tax base resulting
from the growth in electronic commerce and bring New Zealand into line with the
internationally accepted
GST framework. The proposals are also intended to
clarify the international boundary in relation to GST.
- 1.3 This
discussion document examines the current GST treatment of imported services in
the light of:
- the increase in
the volume of imported services since the introduction of GST in 1986;
- the potential
for future increases in the volume of imported services, including digitised
products, arising from the rapid growth
in electronic commerce;
- the associated
potential for future revenue loss from the GST base as a larger volume of
services consumed in New Zealand is potentially
supplied from offshore;
- the competitive
distortions created by treating identical supplies of services differently
depending on the source of the supply;
and
- the
ramifications of treating imported services in a manner inconsistent with New
Zealand’s major trading partners and most
OECD countries.
- 1.4 The review
has been carried out, and the proposals resulting from it have been formulated,
in the context of the Ottawa Taxation
Framework and the Government’s
electronic commerce strategy.
The Ottawa framework
- 1.5 In
October 1998, representatives of several governments (including the New Zealand
Government) and businesses met at the OECD
ministerial conference “A
Borderless World: Realising the Potential of Electronic Commerce” in
Ottawa, Canada. The conference
discussed how to adapt to the challenges posed
by electronic commerce. In relation to taxation, it was agreed at this
conference
that the same principles that governments apply to the taxation of
“conventional” commerce should apply to electronic
commerce. The
five fundamental principles
are:[1]
- Neutrality:
Tax should seek to be neutral and equitable between forms of electronic
commerce and between conventional and electronic commerce,
thus avoiding double
taxation or unintentional non-taxation.
- Efficiency:
Compliance costs for business and administration costs for governments
should be minimised as far as possible.
- Certainty
and simplicity: Tax rules should be clear and simple to understand, so
that taxpayers know where they stand.
- Effectiveness
and fairness: Taxation should produce the right amount of tax at the
right times and the potential for evasion and avoidance should be
minimised.
- Flexibility:
Taxation systems should be flexible and dynamic to ensure they keep pace
with technological and commercial developments.
- 1.6 These core
principles have been developed in the field of consumption taxes to give the
following framework for cross-border
trade:[2]
- Taxation rules
should result in the taxation of cross-border trade in the jurisdiction where
consumption takes place.
- The supply of
digitised products should not be treated as the supply of goods.
- Countries should
consider the introduction of the reverse charge, self-assessment, or other
equivalent mechanisms to tax imports of
services.
- Appropriate
systems to collect tax on imports of physical goods should be
developed.
- 1.7 The New
Zealand Government endorses these principles, and any proposal in relation to
imported services will be consistent with
them as far as is
possible.
The Government’s electronic commerce
strategy
- 1.8 The
strategy paper E-Commerce: Building the Strategy for New Zealand
set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring New Zealand becomes
“world class in embracing electronic commerce for
competitive
advantage”.[3] A key principle
is that there must be a predictable, simple and consistent legal environment for
electronic commerce, with any
Government intervention carried out in a
transparent manner.[4] With respect
to taxation, this requires that the tax system take into account the growth in
electronic commerce, when possible,
provide clear, simple and equivalent tax
rules across jurisdictions and ensure an equivalent treatment of electronic and
non-electronic
transactions.
- 1.9 With these
principles in mind, the review of the GST treatment of imported services,
especially those provided electronically,
was acknowledged in the strategy paper
as a key part of ensuring that New Zealand’s regulatory environment
enables electronic
commerce.[5]
Key issues
- 1.10 Key
issues in considering the GST treatment of imported services
are:
- determining the
appropriate jurisdiction in which a supply occurs and, when necessary, such as
in the telecommunications sector, clarifying
the rules that determine the place
of supply;
- distinguishing
between supplies of goods and services, particularly with respect to digitised
products;
- the appropriate
mechanism for taxing imported services; and
- the extent to
which efficiency is achieved without significant compliance and administrative
costs.
- 1.11 This
discussion document addresses these four areas.
Application date
- 1.12 Legislation
resulting from these policy proposals is expected to apply from mid to late
2002.
Submissions
- 1.13 The
Government invites submissions on the proposals contained in this discussion
document. Please note submissions may be the
subject of a request under the
Official Information Act 1982. The withholding of particular submissions on the
grounds of privacy,
or for any other reason, will be determined in accordance
with the Act. If you feel there is any part of your submission which you
consider could be properly withheld under the Act (for example, for reasons of
privacy), please indicate this clearly in your submission.
- 1.14 Submissions
may be made in electronic form to:
policy.webmaster@ird.govt.nz
Please put “GST and Imported
Services” in the subject line for electronic submissions.
- 1.15 Alternatively,
submissions may be addressed to:
GST and Imported Services
C/- General Manager
Policy Advice Division
Inland Revenue Department
PO Box 2198
WELLINGTON
- 1.16 Submissions
should be made by 31 August 2001. They should contain a brief summary of their
main points and recommendations.
Submissions received by the due date will be
acknowledged.
- 1.17 An
electronic copy of this discussion document is available on-line
at:
http://www.taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/index.php?catid=2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
- A
reverse charge mechanism will be introduced to tax certain imports of services
in business-to-business transactions. This will
require GST registered
recipients of supplies of imported services to self-assess GST on the value of
the services if :
(1) the services are acquired for purposes other than of making taxable
supplies; and
(2) the supply of those services, if made in New Zealand by a registered
person, would be a taxable supply.
This means that if a registered person acquires services that would be
subject to GST if supplied in New Zealand and for which the
recipient would not
have received a full, or any, input tax credit, the recipient will be required
to add GST to the price of the
services and return the GST to Inland
Revenue.
- The recipient of
a supply of imported services will be treated as if it had made that supply for
the purpose of imposing and enforcing
the reverse charge and for determining
whether the GST registration threshold is exceeded. For all other purposes in
the GST Act
the recipient of a supply of imported services will be treated as
the recipient, rather than the supplier, of the services.
- For the purposes
of the reverse charge the normal time of supply and value of supply rules, in
section 9 and 10(2) and (3) respectively,
will be applied.
- Supplies of
imported digitised products, such as software provided over the Internet, will
be treated as supplies of services.
- A New Zealand
branch or company will be treated as separate from its offshore head office or
parent company in relation to supplies
of services that would be subject to GST
if supplied in New Zealand. This requires in these
circumstances:
- treating a New Zealand branch of a non-resident
company as a separate entity; and
- not disregarding supplies within a wholly-owned group of companies.
- The amount of a
management fee or cost allocation charged to a New Zealand branch or subsidiary
that is to be subject to the reverse
charge will be calculated by taking the fee
or allocation and excluding component supplies that are readily identifiable as
not being
for the acquisition of services that would be subject to GST if
acquired in New Zealand.
- A supply of
services in New Zealand will occur when a New Zealand customer initiates the
supply of telecommunications services from
a non-resident telecommunications
supplier. Non-resident suppliers of telecommunications services will be
required to register for
GST if they make supplies of more than $40,000 in a
twelve-month period.
- Telecommunications
services will be excluded from the reverse charge.
- The Commissioner
of Inland Revenue will have a discretion not to require GST to be returned by
telecommunications suppliers operating
wholly offshore if it would not be cost
effective to do so.
Chapter 2
THE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CHALLENGE
Introduction
- 2.1 It
is crucial that the New Zealand taxation framework is able to contend with, and
respond to, changes in the commercial environment
if it is to gather revenue in
a stable, efficient and minimally distortionary manner.
- 2.2 The
development of electronic commerce is one of the most significant changes in the
business environment in the last decade.
It greatly increases the ability of
consumers to obtain goods and services worldwide and improves the ability of
businesses to provide
them.
- 2.3 This chapter
looks at the ways in which electronic commerce is affecting, and will continue
to affect, New Zealand’s taxation
system and outlines areas where change
may be needed.
The impact of electronic commerce on taxation
- 2.4 Electronic
commerce gives rise to issues in the three main areas of
taxation:
- income tax;
- tax
administration; and
- goods and
services tax (GST).
- 2.5 It provides
opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the tax system, and
at the same time creates challenges
which must be overcome if increased
efficiencies and stable levels of revenue are to be achieved.
Income tax issues
- 2.6 Rapid
advances in technology have made it easier for non-residents to conduct
substantial business with, and derive substantial
income from, New Zealand
customers without having a fixed place of business in New Zealand. This has
implications for many of the
concepts of our international tax rules, which were
developed at a time when operating a business commonly required a physical
presence.
- 2.7 For example,
under double taxation agreements, a resident of one state is normally required
to have a “permanent establishment”
in another state before that
state is able to impose tax on the non-resident’s business profits. A
permanent establishment
in a state commonly requires a physical presence.
Technological advances mean that a physical presence is no longer needed to
conduct
business.
- 2.8 Even if a
physical presence is established in New Zealand, however, modern technology has
made it relatively straightforward to
ensure that the bulk of the value-adding
activities are retained outside New Zealand. In that case, New Zealand would
not be able
to attribute any significant share of the overall profits of a
non-resident to that physical presence in New Zealand.
- 2.9 This poses
two important questions in relation to the taxation of income:
- Is there a need
to redefine existing concepts to accommodate the changes to business practices
caused by electronic commerce?
- Is a continuing
reliance on source-based taxation appropriate?
- 2.10 New Zealand
imposes tax on the worldwide income of its tax residents (the residence
principle of taxation). However, New Zealand
also imposes tax on all income
sourced in New Zealand, whether it is derived by resident or non-resident
taxpayers (the source principle).
The double tax agreements to which New
Zealand is a party can modify the application of these
principles.
- 2.11 Both the
residence and source principles have definitional difficulties that may be
exacerbated by electronic commerce.
- 2.12 The main
challenge from electronic commerce to income tax is to the source rules (the
statutory provisions defining the income
which is sourced in New Zealand),
especially for the business income of non-residents. Residents of countries
with which New Zealand
has double tax agreements must have a permanent
establishment to become liable for income tax in New Zealand on their business
profits.
- 2.13 For
example, a programmer living in Australia is contracted to design a database for
a New Zealand bank, and conducts all of
her development from a terminal in
Australia. She makes one short visit to New Zealand to discuss her development
work with the
New Zealand bank. Under New Zealand’s double tax agreement
with Australia, the Australian programmer would need an actual
place of business
in New Zealand (a permanent establishment) before New Zealand could tax her
business income. New Zealand could
not, therefore, tax the business income of
the programmer. Similar protection would apply to most non-residents engaging
in electronic
commerce with New Zealand customers from a country with which New
Zealand has a double tax agreement.
- 2.14 If
non-residents from countries with whom New Zealand does not have a double tax
agreement engage in business with New Zealand
customers, their business profits
would not be protected by the definition of “permanent
establishment”. Thus if the
programmer in the example used here were from
a country with which New Zealand does not have a double tax agreement, she would
be
deriving New Zealand-sourced business income, by virtue of her business being
partly carried on in New Zealand. Even then, however,
little of the income is
likely to be attributable to New Zealand, as the courts have tended to look to
where services are performed
in attributing income from services between
jurisdictions.
- 2.15 The
Government recognises that there are international issues to which the policy
response needs to be developed in co-operation
with other countries. For that
reason it continuously monitors the work the OECD is undertaking to update the
concept of a permanent
establishment, for the purposes of the OECD’s model
double tax agreement (which is used as the basis for most negotiations
between
OECD member countries). New Zealand shares the OECD view that the current
framework of international income tax rules is
adequate to deal with these
issues. In particular, the benefits of the growth of electronic commerce should
not be inhibited by
attempts to impose new taxes or impose tax on income not
sourced in New Zealand and derived by non-residents.
Tax administration issues
- 2.16 The
growth in electronic commerce has raised difficult issues for tax
administrations in maintaining the revenue base. On the
other hand, it has
provided the opportunity to make tax administrations more efficient, improving
the timeliness and quality of service
to taxpayers – for example, by
allowing the electronic filing of tax returns and the electronic payment of tax
and tax refunds.
- 2.17 Although
many of the revenue base concerns raised by electronic commerce are not new, the
rate of technological development has
increased their significance and potential
impact on the tax base and tax administration.
- 2.18 Some of
these issues are:
- Audit trails
may be more difficult to identify: The lack of any central control of the
Internet and the ease with which cross-jurisdiction transactions take place may
make tracing
complex arrangements more difficult.
- Verification
of identity and residence: Taxpayers can establish, and operate from, an
Internet address in any jurisdiction even though they effectively reside
elsewhere.
- Obtaining
documentation: The growth in Internet commerce may make obtaining the
information necessary for enforcement difficult, particularly when transactions
involve countries with which New Zealand does not have a double tax agreement or
the issues involved are not covered by the information
exchange powers contained
in New Zealand’s double tax agreements.
- The removal
of convenient "taxing points": With fewer or, in some cases, no
intermediaries in the distribution of goods and services as a result of
producers selling directly
to consumers, the number of available collection
mechanisms is reduced.
- 2.19 The
Electronic Transactions Bill, currently before Parliament, aims to facilitate
the use of electronic technology, in part by
allowing paper-based legal
requirements to be met using “functionally
equivalent”[6] electronic
technology. The Government is considering how the bill interacts with the
requirements for businesses to keep records
for tax purposes (largely contained
in the Tax Administration Act 1994).
- 2.20 Inland
Revenue’s policy on record storage emphasises the ability to restore
documents to paper as a test for whether electronic
recording provides a
functional equivalent to paper, and this is consistent with the stated purposes
of the bill. The Government
is considering in more detail whether the bill
should, among other things, specifically support the continuation of this
approach
to ensure that the integrity of information is maintained.
- 2.21 The
Government is always interested in the views of taxpayers, tax agents and other
interested parties on how tax administration
can be made more efficient, and
welcomes any views on how electronic commerce can be harnessed for greater
efficiency gains.[7]
GST issues
- 2.22 New
Zealand’s GST was designed and introduced before the prevalence of
electronic commerce. Although the general framework
of GST remains robust
enough to deal with most electronic commerce transactions, at a detailed level
electronic commerce raises some
difficult issues.
Invoices and record-keeping
- 2.23 Invoices
are Inland Revenue’s primary information source for verifying a registered
person’s GST calculations. Suppliers
of goods and services are now able
to operate from anywhere in the world, in many cases without a physical address,
which could diminish
the ability of businesses to obtain suitable invoices, and
that of Inland Revenue to verify the necessary details of transactions.
Similarly, the fact that many suppliers may now more easily be situated outside
New Zealand provides challenges for ensuring compliance
with record-keeping
requirements and gaining access to documents.
Border enforcement
- 2.24 Electronic
commerce has made it easier to import goods and services. Some products which
would once have been in a tangible
form and described as goods can now be
supplied in a digitised form, making them more easily transferable and more akin
to services
in their mode of delivery. This creates border control issues, with
it being increasingly difficult for customs and revenue authorities
to monitor
the importation of both goods and services. This, therefore, affects the
ability of these authorities to gather revenue
from such importations, eroding
the revenue base.
Imported services and GST
- 2.25 The
major issue in relation to GST is the treatment of imported services. Unlike
imported goods, most services imported into
New Zealand are not subject to GST,
except for freight and insurance services associated with imported goods. This
treatment came
about because of the low volume of imported services in the
mid-1980s, when GST was introduced, compared with the compliance and
administrative costs involved in taxing imported services.
- 2.26 Changes in
the New Zealand economy, the global economy, and the way that business is done
now mean that it is time to reconsider
this treatment. The distortions which
arise from treating services in a different manner depending on the place from
which they
are supplied, and the fact that most other OECD countries impose GST
or VAT on imported services, suggest that the current exclusion
of imported
services from the New Zealand GST base should be reconsidered.
- 2.27 New Zealand
service providers are at a disadvantage, therefore, compared with non-resident
service providers, since New Zealand
service providers must charge GST, whereas
non-resident service providers are not generally required to do
so.
- 2.28 From an
international perspective, it is important to limit the non-taxation of supplies
between New Zealand and our trading
partners. By not taxing imports of
services, the New Zealand GST system allows those services to avoid any impost
of consumption
tax, since such supplies would not have been taxed when exported
from the jurisdiction in which they originated. As well as creating
consumption
distortion effects in New Zealand, it may also distort decisions in the country
from which services are exported.
- 2.29 Any move to
impose GST on imported services is not primarily designed to be a revenue
raising exercise but it would stem future
revenue losses from this source. The
increasing mobility of the supply of services means that purchasing services
supplied offshore
is becoming more common. Although there is no evidence to
suggest the tax base is currently significantly threatened by not applying
GST
to imported services, this does not mean a significant future revenue loss is
not possible.[8]
- 2.30 This
discussion document considers the GST treatment of imported services and
proposes that GST be imposed on certain imported
services.
Chapter 3
GST AND IMPORTED SERVICES
This
chapter outlines the current treatment of imported services, explains the
reasons for this treatment, and discusses the reasons
for proposing change in
this area.
Current treatment of imported services
- 3.1 Unlike
imported goods, most imported services are not subject to GST, except for
freight and insurance services associated with
imported
goods.[9] This treatment largely
reflects the limited volume of imported services that existed when GST was
introduced, and the practical
difficulties associated at that time with levying
and collecting GST on them.
- 3.2 When GST was
introduced, in 1986, all but international transportation services were consumed
in the jurisdictions in which they
were produced because of the legal and
technological constraints that either prevented international trade in services
altogether
or made it uneconomic. The volume of services imported into New
Zealand at the time was relatively low, and their exclusion from
the GST base
was, therefore, perceived to be relatively non-distortionary.
- 3.3 The
practical difficulties involved in identifying and monitoring the supply of
services also militated against their inclusion
in the GST base at that time.
The decision not to impose GST on imported services resulted from concerns that
the revenue derived
from GST on imported services would not justify the costs
incurred by business and the Government in collecting that tax.
Problems with the current treatment
The efficiency of the GST system
- 3.4 Ideally,
the tax system raises and redistributes revenue in a manner that is consistent
with the government’s economic and
social policies. It achieves this
objective while minimising the costs to the economy as a whole. This is
referred to as the “efficiency”
of a tax system. An
“efficient” tax system is one that does not affect
individuals’ investment decisions one way
or the other.
- 3.5 The limited
number of exemptions and the uniform rate at which it is applied generally make
GST an efficient tax relative to a
multi-rate tax with many exemptions. The
non-taxation of imported services, however, reduces the efficiency of GST. Both
imported
and domestically produced services can be consumed as part of the
production process or as final consumption, but only domestically
supplied
services are currently subject to GST. The absence of GST on imported services,
therefore, causes distortions in:
- The relative
prices faced by consumers of tradable services. The absence of GST on
imported services encourages domestic consumers to substitute imported services
that are not subject to GST
for domestically produced services that are subject
to GST. In other words, it encourages inefficient patterns of consumption by
discouraging the consumption of domestically produced services in favour of
imported services.
- The relative
prices faced by producers of tradable services for their outputs and their
factors of production to the extent that tradable
services are used in the
production process. The absence of GST on imported services also tends to
encourage inefficient patterns of production and resource use in New Zealand.
In particular, it discourages the domestic production of services, since
domestic producers may not be able to pass on the GST cost
to consumers, who are
able to switch to imported services that are not subject to GST. It also
discourages the use of domestically
produced services by some New Zealand
businesses. Domestic producers who are either unable to claim input tax
credits, or unwilling
to incur the compliance costs associated with claiming
input tax credits, will tend to substitute imported services for domestically
produced services.
- 3.6 By
distorting these relative prices, GST causes resources to be allocated in a less
efficient manner than they would be if both
domestic and imported services were
subject to taxation. It is clear that imposing GST only on domestic supplies of
services creates
a distortion by re-allocating resources away from domestic to
foreign production. The production inefficiency arises because New
Zealand
consumers acquire a reduced level of the domestically supplied services and more
services supplied from offshore.
- 3.7 Since the
introduction of GST, several developments have promoted a considerable growth in
the volume of services being imported
into New Zealand. Deregulation of the
telecommunications and financial services markets in New Zealand, coupled with
rapid advances
in communication and computer technology, mean that it is now
possible to consume a wide range of services in New Zealand that have
been
produced offshore. This growth in the volume of imported services exacerbates
the distortions caused by the non-taxation of
imported
services.
- 3.8 The
efficiency of the GST system, therefore, will be improved by taxing imported
services at the same rate as other goods and
services.
Impact of electronic commerce on the economic costs of
taxation
- 3.9 The
size of the costs caused by taxation depends upon the responsiveness of patterns
of consumption and production to changes
in relative prices (the elasticities of
demand and supply). As responsiveness increases so do the economic
costs.
- 3.10 In general,
the responsiveness of demand to price increases with:
- the degree to
which the services demanded can be substituted for other services;
- the amount of
time that has elapsed since the relative price change; and
- the proportion
of income spent on the service.
- 3.11 The
responsiveness of supply increases with the length of time available to
suppliers to change the quantities of production
and introduce the technology
that enables them to alter those quantities.
- 3.12 Electronic
commerce increases the responsiveness of both demand and supply of services,
particularly in industries such as telecommunications,
where the services
produced are highly substitutable. Specifically, electronic commerce reduces
the cost at which services can be
traded across borders and the speed at which
markets react to changes in relative prices. As the use of electronic commerce
develops
as a means of transacting, relative price movements caused by taxation
could result in larger economic costs, exacerbating the existing
problems caused
by the non-taxation of imported services.
- 3.13 Advances in
technology mean that it is now possible for New Zealand businesses to import
services that in the past would have
had to have been supplied by domestic
producers. For example, a New Zealand financial institution wanting to update
its software
systems faces a choice between obtaining the necessary services
from domestic providers or importing them.
- 3.14 If the
financial institution decides to obtain those services from a New Zealand
programmer who is a registered person, GST will
be charged on the software
development. However, if the services are being used to update the financial
institution’s treasury
operations, it cannot claim an input tax credit for
those services because treasury operations are exempt from GST. By contrast,
if
the financial institution contracts with a non-resident programmer, the services
may not be subject to GST since the supply may
be deemed to occur outside New
Zealand.
- 3.15 The absence
of GST on these imported programming services, therefore, has the potential to
distort the resource use decisions
of financial institutions that need to
purchase programming services. In particular, it lowers the price of imported
programming
services in relation to domestically produced services for those
financial institutions that are either unable to claim input tax
credits, or are
unwilling to incur the additional compliance costs associated with claiming
them.
- 3.16 The absence
of GST on imported programming services also distorts patterns of production and
resource use in New Zealand. In
particular, it means that domestic programmers
may not be able to pass on the full burden of the GST to businesses that
purchase
their services. This places domestic programmers at a competitive
disadvantage in the markets for both their outputs and their
inputs.
Equity
- 3.17 GST
is intended to impose the burden of the tax on the consumer, and, with the
exception of firms making exempt supplies, not
on producers. The fact that the
burden of GST falls on New Zealand programmers in the situation described
earlier, as a result of
the design of the GST Act, means the policy intention is
not being achieved. Nor is “horizontal equity” being achieved,
since people in the same position are being subjected to different effective
rates of tax.
Tax base implications
- 3.18 Not
taxing imported services poses a potential risk to the tax base. When GST was
introduced, the level of imported services
was low. The increasing mobility of
the supply of services, however, means that purchasing services supplied from
offshore is more
common. Although there is limited evidence to suggest the tax
base is currently threatened by not applying GST to imported services,
this does
not mean a significant future revenue loss is not possible.
- 3.19 In
considering tax base implications, the imposition of GST on imported services
would not, therefore, be expected to raise substantial
revenue in the short
term. It would, however, limit the potential for future significant revenue
losses.
International consistency
- 3.20 Not
imposing GST on imported services is contrary to the generally accepted
international framework for consumption taxes. Most
other jurisdictions,
particularly members of the OECD, include imported services in their consumption
tax base. Indeed, the OECD
has stated that members should consider the
introduction of mechanisms for taxing imports of services by businesses, as this
is necessary
to limit the non-taxation of cross-jurisdictional supplies. The
vast majority of nations operate consumption tax systems which tax
the supply of
goods and services consumed within their country. This is brought about by
taxing imports of goods and services and
not taxing exports of goods and
services. This is known as the destination principle.
- 3.21 New Zealand
operates under the destination principle. Nevertheless, by not taxing imports
of services, the New Zealand GST system
allows services which have not been
taxed in the jurisdiction from which they have “originated”, and are
consumed in
New Zealand, to avoid the impost of any consumption
tax.
- 3.22 It is
important, therefore, for New Zealand to address the non-taxation of imported
services.
Chapter 4
OPTIONS FOR TAXING IMPORTED SERVICES
This
chapter outlines methods by which the importation of services into New Zealand
could be made subject to GST. It concludes that
the “reverse
charge” mechanism is the most appropriate method, and recommends its
introduction.
Introduction
- 4.1 The
distortions caused by the non-taxation of imported services can be addressed in
three ways. Two of these options result in
GST being charged on imports of
services, and both fit within the current GST framework. The third option
involves a fundamental
change to the GST framework. All three must be
considered in the context of determining the appropriate “place of
supply”
rules for internationally traded services.
- 4.2 This chapter
analyses these issues and concludes that the reverse charge mechanism is the
most appropriate.
OECD consumption tax framework
- 4.3 The
OECD has developed the “Ottawa framework” to provide the following
guidelines for consumption tax:
- Rules for the
taxation of cross‑border trade should result in taxation in the
jurisdiction where consumption takes place, and
an international consensus
should be sought on the circumstances under which supplies are to be regarded as
consumed in a jurisdiction.
- The supply of
digitised products should not be treated as a supply of goods.
- In relation to
imports of services and intangible property, countries should examine the use of
reverse charge, self‑assessment
or other equivalent mechanisms if this
would provide protection for the competitiveness of domestic suppliers and for
the revenue
base.
- Countries should
ensure that appropriate systems are developed in co-operation with the World
Customs Organisation and in consultation
with carriers and other interested
parties to collect tax on the importation of physical goods, and that such
systems do not unduly
impede revenue collection and the efficient delivery of
products to consumers.
- 4.4 The place of
consumption has been defined for business-to-business transactions as the
jurisdiction in which the recipient has
located its business presence. For
business-to-consumer transactions, it is the recipient’s usual
jurisdiction of
residence.[10]
- 4.5 The
Government intends to base any proposal in relation to services imported by
businesses in New Zealand on these principles.
Especially important is the
principle that consumption tax rules should result in taxation in the
jurisdiction in which consumption
takes place. This ensures that the
unintentional double or non-taxation of goods and services does not occur when
they are traded
across borders. It also ensures that New Zealand continues to
tax in accordance with the more internationally accepted “destination
principle”, rather than the “origin principle”. These
concepts are discussed in the following paragraphs.
A change in the GST framework: the origin principle
- 4.6 Most
goods and services are consumed in the same jurisdiction in which they are
produced. In these circumstances, GST can be
imposed on the basis of the place
of supply (the location of the supplier) or the place of consumption (the
location of the recipient)
and the incidence of the tax will be the same. For
reasons of administrative and compliance costs, it is easier to tax at the place
the supply is made. Adjustments must be made, however, when goods and services
are traded across borders, because the place of supply
and place of consumption
are not the same. To make these adjustments, GST can either be based on the
“destination principle”
or the “origin principle”.
The destination principle
- 4.7 Under
the destination principle supplies of goods and services are taxed in the
jurisdiction in which the goods and services are
consumed. This means that
exports are zero-rated, while imports are taxed. New Zealand’s GST
system, and the vast majority
of other countries’ systems, are based on
the destination
principle.[11]
The origin principle
- 4.8 Under
the origin principle supplies are taxed according to their origin and at the GST
rate of the originating jurisdiction.
This means that exports are taxed but
imports are not taxed. Moving to the origin principle would therefore remove
the need to tax
imported services. It would also remove the need to tax
imported goods.
Comparing the origin and destination principles
- 4.9 This
document raises proposals for taxing imported services under the current GST
framework, which is based on what is known as
the destination principle. Under
this method of applying GST, exports are zero-rated (and thus face no GST
impost), while imports
are subject to GST as they cross the border. As a
result, consumption in New Zealand is taxed but consumption of New Zealand goods
and services outside New Zealand is not subject to GST. This is in accordance
with the “Ottawa framework” for consumption
taxes.
- 4.10 Economic
theory holds that the same effect as taxing imports and zero-rating exports can
be achieved by moving from the destination
principle to the origin principle.
Under the origin principle, goods and services are taxed according to the place
from which they
originate. This means that exports would be subject to GST (by
removing zero-rating) but imports would be zero-rated and thus free
of
GST.
- 4.11 This would
seem to place exporters and import-substitutable businesses at a disadvantage,
as they would compete against imported
goods and services and overseas purchased
goods that would not be subject to New Zealand GST. However, when combined with
an appropriate
exchange rate adjustment a move to the origin principle could be
expected to leave all producer and consumer prices, and thus trade
flows,
unaffected.
- 4.12 A GST based
on the origin principle seems to have advantages when looked at in the context
of the issues dealt with in this document.
It means, for example, that there is
no need to tax imported services (or any other imports), removing the need to
tax supplies
(such as digitised products) that are not easily taxed as they
cross the border.
- 4.13 Nevertheless,
a GST system based on the origin principle has serious administrative problems.
Imports would need to remain zero-rated
through to final consumption. To
achieve this, a deemed input tax credit would need to be provided to registered
persons first acquiring
imported supplies. This would create an unacceptably
high risk to the tax base. In addition, since the essential equivalence of
goods and services taxation based on the origin and destination principles is
often misunderstood, the origin approach, which on
its face appears to
disadvantage New Zealand businesses, is unlikely to be widely accepted as trade
neutral.
- 4.14 Moving to
the origin principle does not seem, therefore, to be a viable option, and this
document concentrates on options based
on the destination principle. However,
we welcome comments on this issue.
Register offshore non-resident suppliers
- 4.15 One
mechanism for taxing imported services would be to change the current rules that
determine the place of supply so that an
obligation to register for GST is
imposed on offshore non-residents if they supply services to New Zealand to a
value exceeding the
registration threshold.
- 4.16 In New
Zealand the place of supply is determined by reference to the residence of the
supplier. In the case of non-resident
suppliers, the test is whether the
services are physically performed in New Zealand and, for transactions between
registered persons,
whether the parties agree to treat New Zealand as the place
of supply. In other jurisdictions, such as the members of the European
Union
(EU), the place of supply is determined by reference to the
“establishment” of the supplier. These rules are based
on the
principle that the majority of consumption will occur in the GST or VAT
jurisdiction in which the supplier resides.
- 4.17 These rules
do not, however, generally require offshore non-residents to charge GST or VAT
when they supply services within the
taxing jurisdiction. This could be
addressed by introducing a place of supply rule that is based on the effective
use of goods or
services supplied within the taxing
jurisdiction.
- 4.18 A major
difficulty with an effective use test is in determining where the service is in
fact used. This is generally feasible
if the service that is supplied is not
readily transferable from one jurisdiction to another. For example, services in
relation
to land are less easily transferred to another jurisdiction than are
services in the nature of, say, insurance, which can be effectively
used in a
number of jurisdictions.
- 4.19 Some
jurisdictions apply a targeted effective use test to certain types of imported
services, such as telecommunications. Whether
this would be appropriate in
relation to the New Zealand telecommunications sector is discussed in chapter
8.
- 4.20 A general
impost of GST in this manner could also raise significant enforcement concerns,
since the legislation would need to
be enforced offshore. It would also create
compliance cost concerns for non-residents required to register in New Zealand
and charge
GST.
- 4.21 Last year
the European Commission (EC) circulated a
proposal[12] which would impose VAT
on supplies of electronically delivered services based on the location of the
consumer of those services (as
opposed to the supplier’s location, as at
present). Suppliers selling electronic
services[13] from outside the EU to
customers inside the EU would be required to account for VAT in the same way as
an EU resident supplier: they
would register for, and charge,
VAT.[14] The non-EU supplier would
only be required to register only if it made sales of more than Euro 100,000 to
private consumers in the
EU, and would be required to register in only one
jurisdiction within the EU.
- 4.22 The
proposal was adopted by the EC on 7 June
2000.[15] It will operate alongside
the reverse charge already in operation for business-to-business transactions.
- 4.23 Once in
place, the proposal will rely partially upon international co-operation for
enforcement. It will also rely upon the
willingness of multinational firms to
protect their goodwill and image in the EU and maintain a favourable environment
in the EU
for non-EU suppliers to do business. A favourable environment might
provide, for example, protection of intellectual property and
free access to
markets.
- 4.24 While it is
feasible for an economic bloc to implement such a system of taxation, it is
questionable whether a country the size
of New Zealand could unilaterally impose
and enforce such a system.
Reverse charge
- 4.25 The
most commonly used mechanism for taxing imported services is the reverse charge.
The members of the EU introduced a reverse
charge in the late 1970s in response
to the growing level of services traded within the common market.
Canada’s GST system
incorporates the reverse charge and, more recently,
Australia introduced a reverse charge as part of its GST system. There is a
general acceptance among OECD member countries of the appropriateness of the
“reverse charge” mechanism to tax imported
services provided in
business-to-business transactions.
- 4.26 The reverse
charge mechanism results in the taxation of services in the jurisdiction in
which the services are consumed, that
is, in the jurisdiction to which they are
imported. The adoption of a reverse charge mechanism is, therefore, consistent
with the
accepted OECD framework for consumption taxes and the OECD’s more
recent guidelines on the appropriate place of taxation for
internationally
traded services. These OECD guidelines, which are endorsed by the Business and
Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC),
a committee of the OECD, also recommend the
adoption of the reverse charge mechanism as the most viable tax collection
method for
cross-border business-to-business transactions.
- 4.27 The
specific design of the reverse charge can vary between jurisdictions but the
principle is the same. Registered persons self-assess
GST and claim an input
tax credit to the extent that services were acquired for the principal purpose
of making taxable supplies.
- 4.28 A similar
obligation is imposed on registered suppliers of exempt goods and services and
in some countries, such as Canada and
Switzerland, on private individuals. In
these circumstances an input tax credit for the self-assessed GST would not
generally be
available. For enforcement reasons, however, it is clear that the
reverse charge is difficult to apply effectively to supplies of
imported
services to private individuals.
- 4.29 A reverse
charge mechanism would, however, have one advantage. In relation to
business-to-business transactions, it would be
a suitable mechanism for
correcting the production distortions created by the preference that registered
suppliers acquiring services
for purposes other than of making taxable supplies
might have for internationally provided services over domestically provided
services.
Preferred option
- 4.30 Ideally,
to remove all of the distortions created by the non-taxation of imported
services, GST would be levied on all imports
of services, both to consumers and
businesses. The option of registering offshore non-resident suppliers would
achieve this. However,
a general requirement for offshore non-resident
suppliers to register for GST would pose several problems, particularly with
enforcement.
- 4.31 Requiring
self-assessment of GST under the reverse charge would also remove all of the
distortions. However, a general requirement
for final consumers to self-assess
GST under the reverse charge mechanism would also have enforcement problems.
This, therefore,
leaves the taxation of services imported by businesses.
- 4.32 The
Government’s preferred option is to implement a reverse charge on
business-to-business transactions. The reverse charge
has been adopted by the
majority of countries with a general consumption tax and is proven to work well
in relation to business-to-business
transactions. It also results in the
taxation of services in the jurisdiction in which they are consumed, consistent
with the OECD
framework for consumption tax.
- 4.33 In this
case, if the New Zealand importer is making taxable supplies, the business would
receive an input tax credit for any
GST paid. In the light of this, the
benefits of imposing GST on registered persons making solely taxable supplies
are unlikely to
be large enough to justify the compliance costs of doing so.
- 4.34 A net
benefit from taxing imported services is, therefore, likely to occur only when
the importer is acquiring the services for
purposes other than of making taxable
supplies. Therefore the reverse charge proposed in this discussion document is
targeted at
imposing GST on businesses importing services for purposes other
than of making taxable supplies, as discussed further in the following
chapter.
Chapter 5
THE REVERSE CHARGE MECHANISM
Proposed
policy
- A reverse charge
mechanism will be introduced. It will require the self-assessment of GST on the
value of services imported by registered
persons for purposes other than of
making taxable supplies if the supply of those services in New Zealand by a
registered person
would be a taxable supply.
- For the purpose
of imposing and enforcing the reverse charge, and for determining whether the
registration threshold is exceeded,
the recipient of a supply of imported
services will be treated as if it had made that supply. The recipient of a
supply of imported
services will be treated as the recipient, rather than the
supplier, of the services for all other purposes in the GST Act.
- For the purposes
of the reverse charge, the normal time of supply and value of supply rules, in
section 9 and section 10(2) and (3)
respectively, will be applied.
Introduction
- 5.1 This
chapter outlines the main features of the proposed reverse charge mechanism.
The two following chapters deal with issues
concerning the scope and operation
of the reverse charge in more detail.
General application
- 5.2 The
reverse charge mechanism will generally require registered recipients of
supplies of imported services to self-assess GST
on the GST-inclusive value of
those supplies. For the purposes of the reverse charge, the recipient of a
supply will add GST to
the value of the services and be required to return the
GST as if it had made a supply of the services.
- 5.3 This means
that when New Zealand residents receive a supply of services which is not
supplied in New Zealand under section 8(2)
(and therefore not subject to GST
under section 8(1)) they will self-assess GST on that supply of services as if
the supply were
made in New Zealand.
- 5.4 This will
ensure, in keeping with the Ottawa taxation framework, that supplies of services
are taxed in New Zealand if they are
consumed in New Zealand.
- 5.5 It is
proposed that the reverse charge apply to supplies of services performed for New
Zealand recipients that would be taxable
supplies if made in New Zealand by New
Zealand-resident suppliers. For example, a supply of imported financial
services, say, re-insurance
of a life insurance contract, which would be an
exempt financial service, will not be subject to the reverse charge.
- 5.6 As explained
in more detail in the next two chapters, the reverse charge will generally apply
to supplies of imported services
that would be taxable if made in New Zealand
and that are acquired by a person other than in the course of making taxable
supplies.
- 5.7 The value of
imported services supplied to a person will be included in the total value of
supplies made by that person for the
purposes of determining liability to
register for GST under section 51. Although businesses making exempt supplies
in New Zealand
will usually be registered for GST in any event, the reverse
charge may require others to register – in particular, any person
importing services exceeding $40,000 in value in a twelve-month period as a
private consumer.
- 5.8 Introducing
a reverse charge will not preclude a non-resident company carrying on a taxable
activity and making supplies in New
Zealand from registering for GST in New
Zealand if it wishes to do so. In this situation the company would charge GST
on any supplies
made in New Zealand, and the reverse charge would not apply to
the recipient of the supplies.
Limited to acquisitions for purposes other than of making
taxable supplies
- 5.9 The
application of the reverse charge will be limited to services to the extent that
they are acquired by registered persons (or
persons liable to be registered) for
purposes other than of making taxable supplies. Therefore, to the extent that a
registered
person acquires a service for purposes other than of making taxable
supplies, the supply will be taxed under the reverse charge
mechanism.
- 5.10 In
contrast, any services imported and for which the taxpayer is entitled to an
input tax credit if the services are supplied
onshore will not be subject to the
reverse charge. This approach will remove the necessity for taxpayers to pay
GST for which they
are then fully reimbursed through input tax credits. It will
also remove the corresponding administrative costs.
- 5.11 This
proposed treatment will differ in its scope from that of imported goods. Most
imported goods are charged with GST at the
border by the New Zealand Customs
Service, regardless of whether or not the recipient of the goods is entitled to
an input tax credit.[16] This is
done because the Customs Service will not know at the time of importation if the
recipient of the goods is entitled to an
input tax credit – the recipient
may not be registered or, if registered, may not be acquiring the goods for a
taxable purpose.
It is, therefore, more efficient to charge GST on the
importation of all goods than it is to require recipients to prove on
importation
that they have acquired the goods for the principal purpose of
making taxable supplies and are, therefore, entitled to an input tax
credit.
- 5.12 For this
reason the reverse charge will mainly apply to providers of financial services,
such as banks, but will also apply to
other registered persons who import
services for purposes other than of making taxable supplies.
Time of supply
- 5.13 Under
section 9(1) of the GST Act, a supply takes place at the earlier of the time an
invoice is issued or a payment is received
for the supply.
- 5.14 Section
9(2)(a)(iii) further provides that in supplies between associated persons the
time of supply for services is the time
they are performed, unless an invoice is
issued, or a payment is received on or before the last day for furnishing a GST
return for
the taxable period in which the services were performed. In that
case the rule in section 9(1) applies.
- 5.15 These rules
ought to work equally for the purposes of the reverse charge. It is proposed,
therefore, that the time of supply
for the reverse charge be the earlier
of:
- when an invoice
is issued in respect of the supply; or
- when payment is
made in respect of the supply; or
- when the
services are performed if the supply is between associated persons and an
invoice has not been issued, or payment received,
on or before the last day for
furnishing a GST return.
- 5.16 Any rule
based on the performance of a service has inherent difficulties, particularly if
the service is performed uniformly
over a period. The Government is, therefore,
interested in receiving submissions on any special considerations and problems
that
should be taken into account in the application of these rules to supplies
of imported services.
Valuation
The issue
- 5.17 The
general rule under section 10(2) of the GST Act for determining the value of a
supply is that a supply is valued by reference
to the amount in money that has
been paid for the supply, or if the supply is paid for using non-monetary
consideration, at the open
market value of that consideration. Under section
10(3), the value of a supply between associated persons is the open market value
of the supply, unless, in terms of section 10(3A), the recipient is entitled to
an input tax credit for the supply. The Australian,
Canadian and United Kingdom
GST or VAT legislation use their general valuation rules for their reverse
charge mechanisms, which are
equivalent to the rule in section 10(2) of the GST
Act. Furthermore, under Canadian GST legislation, the value of a supply between
branches is the “fair market value” at the time the supply is
made.[17]
- 5.18 A
requirement to adopt market valuation for transactions between associated
persons ensures that objective considerations are
applied and that supplies of
goods and services are not under-taxed by GST. This would seem to apply equally
for cross-border transactions
as for domestic transactions. The Government is,
however, interested in receiving submissions on any special considerations that
should be taken into account in the application of the valuation rules to
supplies of imported services.
- 5.19 Transfer
pricing may be an issue to consider in the context of the proposed reverse
charge. However, most countries, particularly
New Zealand’s main trading
and commercial partners, already have GST or VAT systems with reverse charges.
The relatively low
rate of GST in New Zealand as compared to other OECD
countries with a GST or VAT system may, therefore, reduce the incentives to
transfer price for GST
purposes.[18]
Proposed policy
- 5.20 Supplies
subject to the reverse charge will be valued in the same way as normal supplies
under the GST Act, which means section
10(2) and
(3)[19] will treat the value of the
supply as:
- the total of the
amount of money paid for the supply and the open market value of any
non-monetary consideration; or
- the open market
value of the supply if it is between associated persons (branches, members of a
group) and the monetary and non-monetary
consideration is less than the open
market value of the supply.
- 5.21 This
proposed treatment is consistent with the treatment of intra-group supplies and
the arm’s length principle expressed
in New Zealand’s Transfer
Pricing Guidelines.
Mixed use acquisitions and apportionment
- 5.22 The
recipient of a supply of imported services will be treated as if it had made
that supply of services itself for the purpose
of imposing and enforcing the
reverse charge and for the purpose of determining whether the registration
threshold is exceeded.
For all other purposes in the GST Act, the recipient
will continue to be treated as the recipient, rather than the supplier, of the
services.
- 5.23 For
example, a non-resident supplier provides software to a New Zealand life
insurance company for $1 million. Using a turnover
approach, the software is
used 70 percent for making exempt supplies of life insurance, and 30 percent for
making taxable supplies
of general insurance. Under the reverse charge, the
life insurance company would, therefore, add GST to the $1 million, giving a
figure of $1.125 million, and include the GST of $125,000 imposed under the
reverse charge in its GST return.
- 5.24 Because the
company uses the software 30 percent for taxable purposes, it is entitled to an
input tax credit adjustment, and
will be able to make a deduction of $37,500
from its output tax liability.
- 5.25 The company
would not, however, include the $1.125 million as a supply it has made for the
purposes of making the adjustment
based on turnover. This is because the amount
assessed under the reverse charge will be treated as a supply received by the
life
insurance company, not a supply made by the life insurance
company.
- 5.26 Conversely,
if the life insurance company acquires the software for 70 percent use in making
taxable supplies and 30 percent
in making exempt supplies, the reverse charge
will still apply, as the software is not solely acquired for making taxable
supplies.
The company will, however, be entitled to a full input tax credit on
the importation of the services, as they are acquired for the
principal purpose
of making taxable supplies. It would then be required to make an adjustment for
exempt supplies made using the
software.
Documentation requirements
- 5.27 The
GST on supplies of imported services subject to the reverse charge will be
included in a registered person’s GST return
in the same way as other
supplies. As invoices will not always be provided for such supplies,
alternative supporting documentation,
such as a supply contract or record of
payments made, will be required to substantiate the valuations adopted for the
purposes of
the reverse charge.
Chapter 6
“SERVICES”
This
chapter addresses the application of the proposed reverse charge in relation
to:
- what constitutes
a “service” for the purposes of the reverse charge;
- the treatment of
“digitised products”; and
- the treatment of
physically imported software.
Introduction
- 6.1 The
services to which the reverse charge is to apply must be clearly defined.
So-called “digitised products”, and
software more generally, raise a
number of issues in this regard that require clarification.
- 6.2 This chapter
deals with what constitutes a “service” for the purposes of the
reverse charge.
Broad definition of “services”
- 6.3 The
GST Act defines a service as anything other than goods or
money.[20] Thus if the reverse
charge applies to a registered person, it should apply to all supplies of
services that, if acquired offshore,
would give rise to a lower GST impost than
if the services were acquired in New Zealand. This treatment corrects the
production
distortions created by the preference that registered suppliers
acquiring services for the purpose other than of making taxable supplies
may
have for internationally provided services over domestically provided
services.
- 6.4 As stated
earlier (chapter 5), the reverse charge will not apply to supplies of services
which would be exempt if supplied by
domestic suppliers. For example, the
reverse charge will not apply to supplies of imported financial services, as
defined in section
3(1).
Generic description versus list
- 6.5 Some
jurisdictions apply the reverse charge to a specific list of services, and in
other jurisdictions it is applied to all services,
with specified exclusions.
Both approaches raise questions over which services, if any, should be excluded
and, indeed, what constitutes
a “service” for the purposes of the
reverse charge.
- 6.6 The
Australian reverse charge applies to all imported services, apart from the
supply by an overseas entity to an Australian branch
of the services of an
expatriate employee.[21] The EU, on
the other hand, lists the specific services to which the reverse charge applies.
- 6.7 A clear
disadvantage of listing the services to which the reverse charge applies is that
problems are created with respect to
defining each type of service in the list.
This has been the case, to a degree, with the definition of “financial
services”,
for example, in section 3 of the GST Act. The list also runs
the risk of rapidly becoming outdated, especially with the advent of
new
technologies, services, and methods of service delivery. The use of a specific
list creates a boundary around which avoidance
and tax planning activity can
occur, with a resulting increase in compliance and administrative costs.
- 6.8 Indeed, the
European Commission has suggested that the EU rule could be reshaped to become a
general rule for services, stating
that “[t]here are sound reasons ... for
saying that the ‘list’ approach is fundamentally flawed and should
be replaced
by some more general
measure.”[22]
- 6.9 Using a more
generic definition instead of a list approach would remove the need to define
each type of service subject to the
reverse charge. It would also avoid the
need to update the list as new types of services emerge and technology enables
more of the
existing services to be traded across borders.
Proposed policy
- 6.10 It
is proposed, therefore, that the reverse charge apply generally to all supplies
of services, unless specific services are
excluded from its scope. Chapter 7
discusses specific services that will be included in or excluded from the
reverse charge.
The nature of digitised products
The issue
- 6.11 Digitised
products are goods and services that are delivered by electronic means in
digital form. These products can be delivered
to a computer through the
Internet, by way of telephone or cable network, or by satellite. Music in the
form of compressed music
files, film and software are examples of digitised
products.
- 6.12 These
products are usually received by customers directly from the supplier and are
not subject to border control by Customs
or handling by intermediaries. They are
not tangible property when sent to the customer, but are easily converted to a
tangible form
by, for example, saving music files on to a compact
disc.
- 6.13 The
categorisation of digitised products as either goods or services is an issue for
consumption tax purposes when digitised
products are traded across borders. If
they are treated as goods[23] the
New Zealand Customs Service would be required to charge GST on the importation
of a digitised product. If they are treated as
services, they would, under the
proposals in this discussion document, be subject to GST under the reverse
charge only when imported
by a registered person other than in making taxable
supplies.
- 6.14 In October
1998 the OECD, as a part of the ministerial conference “A Borderless
World: Realising the Potential of Electronic
Commerce”, released a policy
paper outlining taxation framework elements that required consideration as a
result of electronic
commerce.[24]
The paper concluded that digitised products should not be treated as
“goods” for cross-border consumption tax purposes.
New Zealand has
agreed to this treatment in principle.
- 6.15 Further,
the EC, on behalf of the EU, has stated that sales of digitised products
downloaded over the Internet should be taxed
as services.
- 6.16 Administratively
it is easier to levy GST on digitised products using a reverse charge (thereby
treating them as services) rather than treating them as goods and
the customs service levying the tax at the border under section 12 of the GST
Act. This is
because digitised products can enter a country in a number of ways
– by cable, telephone wire, cellular network, or satellite,
all of which
pose enforcement and tracing difficulties.
- 6.17 A reverse
charge avoids this problem by placing the onus of levying tax on the recipient
of the import. The OECD framework is
based, therefore, on the pragmatic
problems associated with the taxation of digital goods rather than a purely
principle-based approach
to defining the nature of digitised products. It is
also based on the assumption that there is a reverse charge mechanism on
imported
services, which is the case in most OECD
countries.[25]
Proposed policy
- 6.18 In
line with the OECD taxation framework, digitised products will be treated as
services for the purposes of the reverse charge.
Physical imports of software
The issue
- 6.19 Software
physically imported into New Zealand (contained on a disc or CD-ROM) is
considered to be “goods” and liable
to duty (in this case GST)
collected by the New Zealand Customs Service under section 12 of the GST Act.
GST is levied on the price
paid or payable for the imported software package.
- 6.20 For
valuation purposes, however, if the value of the contents (the message or data)
is declared or invoiced in a manner which
distinguishes it from the value of the
carrier medium, the legislation allows the customs service to deduct the value
of the contents
from the price paid or payable. Customs will then levy GST only
on the value of the carrier medium, plus the cost of freight and
insurance
incurred in bringing the goods to New
Zealand.[26]
- 6.21 This method
of valuation results from New Zealand’s commitment to the World Trade
Organisation General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT). The agreement
allows jurisdictions to impose customs duties on only the carrier media
(CD-ROMs) physically imported
into a country, excluding the software (data or
instructions) content.[27] Although
this valuation method is not mandatory, it is a convention which member
countries will ideally follow. The distinction
between content and media does
not apply to imported sound, cinematic or video recordings, or embedded
software.[28]
- 6.22 The
distinction is also restricted to pure customs duties – taxes such as GST
which apply to both imported and domestically
produced goods are excluded, even
if the tax is collected or enforced by a customs authority at the border.
[29] The GATT distinction between
content and media is, therefore, not determinative of the appropriate GST
treatment of physical importations
of software.
- 6.23 For GST
purposes it may be argued that a supply of software can be regarded as
comprising both a supply of a goods component
(the carrier medium) and the
supply of a services component (the message or data). The GST Act provides
little guidance on the treatment
of composite supplies and it is, therefore,
unclear whether, under a reverse charge system, a cross-border supply of
software could
give rise to GST both at the border on the “goods
component” and under the reverse charge on the “services
component”.
The issue needs to be considered.
Options for removing the distortion
- 6.24 The
current treatment of physically imported software may give rise to the potential
for the software component of imported software
to avoid a GST impost. More
generally, the current treatment could distort a registered person’s
choice of the method of importation
of software.
- 6.25 There are
two approaches which would remove this distortion and avoidance opportunity.
However, they both potentially involve
introducing new distortions and
increasing compliance or administrative costs.
- 6.26 The
valuation rule could be removed for GST purposes, meaning that Customs would
charge GST on the full value of physically imported
software at the border.
This would remove the distortion and avoidance opportunity, since registered
persons would be subject to
the reverse charge on electronically imported
software. It would also, however, mean that non-registered persons (final
consumers)
and registered persons not otherwise subject to GST under the reverse
charge will be charged GST on physical importations of software
but not on
electronic importations of software.
- 6.27 Although
registered persons not subject to the reverse charge will generally be entitled
to an input tax credit for the physical
importation, taxing the full value of
the import would give rise to a distortionary treatment between physically and
electronically
imported software for non-registered persons. This distortion
occurs because services imported by final consumers (business-to-consumer
transactions) are not subject to GST and, because of the impracticalities of
doing so, are not likely to be subject to GST in the
near future (see chapter
9). The extent of this distortion will increase with improvements in
telecommunications and Internet technology
and the associated ease with which
software can be downloaded or electronically delivered.
- 6.28 Alternatively,
the valuation rule could be retained, with Customs charging GST on the value of
the media, and registered persons
importing for non-taxable purposes applying
the reverse charge to the remaining value of the product. This treatment would
remove
the distortion and avoidance opportunity for registered persons subject
to the reverse charge, while not affecting final consumers
and registered
persons not subject to it. This approach could, however, significantly increase
compliance costs on registered persons
subject to the reverse charge and
administrative costs for Inland Revenue and the New Zealand Customs
Service.
- 6.29 Despite
their disadvantages, both approaches would clarify the GST treatment of
physically imported software. The Government
seeks submissions on which
approach is preferred.
- 6.30 Neither of
these options will affect New Zealand’s commitment to the World Trade
Organisation’s moratorium on imposing
specific tariffs or specific taxes
on electronic transmissions and the
Internet.[30]
Chapter 7
BRANCH AND INTRA-GROUP TRANSACTIONS AND COST
ALLOCATIONS
Proposed
policy
- A New Zealand
branch or company will be treated as separate from its offshore head office or
parent company in relation to supplies
of services that would be subject to GST
if supplied in New Zealand. This requires in these
circumstances:
- Treating a New Zealand branch of a non-resident
company as a separate entity; and
- Not disregarding supplies within a
wholly-owned group of companies.
- The amount of a
management fee or cost allocation charged to a New Zealand branch or subsidiary
that is to be subject to the reverse
charge will be calculated by taking the fee
or allocation and excluding component supplies that are readily identifiable as
not being
for the acquisition of services that would be subject to GST if
acquired in New Zealand.
Introduction
- 7.1 This
chapter discusses the treatment of inter-branch and intra-group transactions,
and the treatment of management fees and cost
allocations, in the context of the
proposed reverse charge.
What is a “supply” in the context of cross-border,
related party transactions
- 7.2 Section
5(1) of the GST Act defines a supply as including “all forms of
supply”, and the courts have interpreted the
term according to its
ordinary meaning: “to furnish with or
provide”.[31]
- 7.3 It may be
necessary in some instances to specify for the purposes of the reverse charge
whether a supply of services has been
made, particularly when intra-group or
inter-branch transactions are involved. An overriding consideration is whether
a member of
a group or a branch is treated as an independent party receiving
supplies from its parent or head office or as, in effect, part of
a single
entity. The following example is illustrative of where such clarification may
be needed.
![2001_302.png](2001_302.png)
US ADVERTISING COMPANY
![2001_303.png](2001_303.png)
![2001_304.png](2001_304.png)
UK Co.
(Parent)
UK(NZ) Co. (Wholly-owned Sub.)
Generic
advertising
£
- 7.4 A financial
services group with a United Kingdom-based parent and a wholly-owned subsidiary
in New Zealand decides to embark upon
an international advertising campaign. To
facilitate the campaign, the UK parent contracts with a United States based
advertising
firm for a series of generic advertisements for screening in all of
the countries in which the group operates.
- 7.5 In this
situation there would, in effect, be a supply of advertising services to the New
Zealand subsidiary. However, because
the contract is with the UK parent only,
it is unclear whether the New Zealand subsidiary itself receives a supply of
services.
- 7.6 In
principle, the reverse charge should apply to all services that, if acquired
offshore, would give rise to a lower GST impost
than if acquired in New Zealand.
However, in many instances the charge for the services will be incorporated into
a larger sum.
In the example used here the advertising cost to the New Zealand
subsidiary may be incorporated into a general head office charge
from the UK
parent. Requiring the value of the service and every other component of the
charge to be separately identified for the
purposes of the reverse charge could
create substantial administrative and compliance costs.
- 7.7 An important
consideration in introducing a reverse charge, therefore, is to balance the
objective of imposing the tax on services
that, if not taxed, would give rise to
distortions and the objective of minimising compliance and administration costs.
Cost allocations and related party transactions
Identifying entities to which the reverse charge will
apply
- 7.8 In
some circumstances individual services supplied to a business will not be
charged for or identified separately. This may be
the case within a group of
companies or single multi-national company, where the parent company or head
office may, for example,
allocate a proportion of its costs to the various parts
of the enterprise. The existence of a supply of services may not be easily
ascertainable in this situation. The charging of a global sum, or allocation of
global costs does not, however, change the fact
that a supply may have been made
to which at least part of the costs relate. Thus, in principle, the nature of
the charge, be it
a global sum or specific charges for specific services, should
not affect the GST treatment of any supplies made.
- 7.9 The more
difficult issue is whether the New Zealand entity should be treated as distinct
from its offshore parent or head office.
The general approach proposed in this
discussion document is to treat the New Zealand entity or presence as a separate
person, but
only in relation to supplies (including components of cost
allocations) to which the reverse charge should apply because of the economic
distortions that non-taxation would create. That is, the reverse charge will
generally apply only to supplies of services that would
be taxable supplies if
made in New Zealand by a registered person.
- 7.10 Treating
the New Zealand entity or presence as a separate person for the purposes of the
reverse charge will require changes
to the treatment of cross-border
transactions between head offices and branches and cross-border transactions
within groups of companies
under the GST Act. Currently the GST Act, in the
majority of situations, does not recognise transactions between head offices and
branches and transactions within groups of companies as supplies. It is
necessary, therefore, to treat parents and branches, and
members of groups, as
separate persons before identifying the supplies to which the reverse charge
should apply.
Inter-branch transactions
- 7.11 GST
applies only to supplies made between separate legal entities. A registered
person may apply under section 56 of the GST
Act for separate registration of
any branch, and the branch will be deemed to be a separate registered person
carrying on a separate
taxable activity for the purposes of the GST Act.
However, an offshore parent company not carrying on a taxable activity in New
Zealand might not be a registered person, so section 56 would be inapplicable to
the branch in New Zealand. (Although under the
current legislation an offshore
parent company not carrying on a taxable activity in New Zealand is arguably
able to register for
GST purposes, this position needs to be reviewed, as
discussed later in this chapter.)
- 7.12 Therefore,
based on the current law, the reverse charge would not apply to supplies from an
offshore parent to a New Zealand
branch (unless section 56 has been applied).
If a New Zealand supplier makes exempt supplies in New Zealand and it is a
branch of
a non-resident company, any supplies of services from the non-resident
company to its New Zealand branch will not be subject to GST,
because a single
legal entity cannot make supplies to itself.
- 7.13 Many of the
entities to which the reverse charge will apply, such as financial institutions,
are branches of foreign entities.
If supplies between offshore parent companies
and New Zealand branches were not within the scope of the reverse charge the
distortions
which the reverse charge was intended to remove would be
perpetuated.
- 7.14 Therefore
for the purposes of taxing imported services, a New Zealand branch of a
non-resident company should be treated as a
separate entity from the offshore
part of the company (unless section 56 has been applied).
Intra-group transactions
- 7.15 Under
section 55 of the GST Act, companies that are in a group of companies for income
tax purposes[32] may apply for group
GST registration if all of the members are registered for GST. Any person may
voluntarily register for GST under
section 51(3) if they can show that they are
carrying on a taxable activity. A taxable activity, as defined in section 6(1),
is
any activity carried on continuously or regularly which involves or is
intended to involve the supply of goods or services for consideration.
The
taxable activity definition is not restricted to activities carried on in New
Zealand. Therefore it is arguable that a non-resident
business which is not
carrying on any business in New Zealand may register for GST if it so wishes,
although it will only pay output
tax on taxable supplies made in New Zealand and
claim input tax credits directly related to those supplies.
- 7.16 This
position needs to be reviewed as there seems to be little justification for a
non-resident company not carrying on a taxable
activity in New Zealand to be
able to register for GST. At a minimum, there needs to be a restriction for the
purposes of the reverse
charge on the ability of such a company to
register.
- 7.17 Based on
the current legislation, therefore, a non-resident company which is a member of
a group could apply, together with New
Zealand members of the group, for group
GST registration. Once registered as a GST group, all taxable supplies between
members of
the group would be
disregarded.[33]
- 7.18 A supply of
services by a foreign subsidiary or parent of a New Zealand GST group to the New
Zealand arm of the group would be
disregarded, and the reverse charge would not,
therefore, apply.
- 7.19 As with
inter-branch transactions, if supplies between members of groups of companies
were not within the scope of the reverse
charge the distortions which the
reverse charge was intended to remove would be perpetuated.
- 7.20 Therefore
intra-group transactions should not be disregarded if, but for the existence of
the GST registered group, that transaction
would have been charged with GST
under the reverse charge mechanism.
Calculating the amount subject to the reverse
charge
- 7.21 The
next issue, once the New Zealand entity or presence is separated from its
offshore entity or presence, is how best to calculate
the amount to which the
reverse charge should apply. This requires a balance between removing the
distortions which necessitate
the reverse charge and minimising compliance and
administrative costs.
- 7.22 The
calculation could be made in two ways. The first would be to take the global
sum or cost allocation and identify component
supplies that should be excluded
from the ambit of the reverse charge. This would target supplies that, in the
main, have originated
from a third party external to the parent company or head
office, such as the advertising services of the US company in the example
used
earlier. An alternative would be to include in the calculation only those
components of the global sum or cost allocation that
would be subject to GST if
supplied in New Zealand: again, supplies that have originated from an external
third party.
- 7.23 Both
approaches will give rise to the need for access to information from the
offshore parent company or head office on which
to base any apportionment or
identification of a sum on which to apply the reverse charge. Inland Revenue
would have difficulty
obtaining access to such information, particularly given
its limited ability under the current law to enforce requests for information
made offshore in relation to GST. Taxpayers in these circumstances, who are
associated with the suppliers, are in a better position
to obtain this
information. The Government therefore prefers the first option, which is to
take the global sum and subtract the
amounts that relate to specified supplies
that should be excluded from the reverse charge.
- 7.24 Under
either approach New Zealand businesses incurring cost allocations will need to
be able to break down the allocations so
as to identify the “taxable
supply” components to enable the appropriate targeting of the reverse
charge.
- 7.25 Charges
that may be excluded would include exempt supplies such as interest on loans.
Salaries might also be excluded. Although
GST will apply in some circumstances,
such as when fees are charged for seconded staff, in most cases it will not
apply. The reason
is that GST is not charged on the supply by an employee of
services under a contract of service, and supplies within groups and between
branches are disregarded for GST purposes. Excluded charges would be listed in
the legislation.
- 7.26 The need to
limit the scope for avoidance by placing higher values on the non-taxable
components would also need to be considered.
- 7.27 If the New
Zealand entity is a branch, there is no separate entity in law, and breaking
down cost allocations in the manner proposed,
subject to the need to minimise
compliance and administration costs, would be appropriate. The issue is more
difficult in the case
of New Zealand subsidiaries, although, when
wholly-owned,[34] there is no reason
why, in principle, the same approach should not apply.
- 7.28 This
approach can be contrasted with that in Canada. Under the Canadian Excise Tax
Act[35] the true nature of any
“management fee” is considered in determining whether there are
multiple supplies of services
to be separately characterised for the purposes of
the reverse charge or one supply of management services. If the head office has
a “hands on” management role (that is, control and decision making)
any cost allocation or charge is generally characterised
as a global
“management fee” and, therefore, fully reverse charged. If not, the
individual supplies are analysed and
subject to the reverse charge if they come
within the Canadian law.
- 7.29 This
approach, while having some merit, also involves difficult judgments as to what
constitutes “hands on management”.
Summary of proposed approach
- 7.30 The
treatment of related party transactions, management fees and cost allocations
proposed in this chapter can be summarised
as involving:
(a) Starting from the principle that the reverse charge should apply to
services which would be subject to GST if supplied in New
Zealand.
(b) Treating a New Zealand entity or presence as separate from its offshore
presence in relation to the services described in (a).
This requires:
(i) Treating a New Zealand branch of a non-resident company as a separate
entity; and
(ii) Not disregarding supplies within a wholly-owned group of companies.
(c) Calculating the amount of a management fee or cost allocation that is to
be subject to the reverse charge by taking the global
sum or cost allocation and
identifying component supplies that should be excluded from the ambit of the
reverse charge. Such charges
would include exempt supplies and potentially
salaries.
- 7.31 Ultimately,
the need to achieve a balance between the appropriate targeting of the reverse
charge and the minimisation of compliance
and administrative costs will be
dependent on practical considerations, particularly the extent to which New
Zealand entities are,
in fact, able to identify the separate components of cost
allocations. It will also depend on the ability of the reverse charge mechanism
to counteract the development of a practice of placing higher values on the
non-taxable components of a cost allocation. The Government
therefore welcomes
submissions on these issues.
Chapter 8
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
Proposed
policy
- A supply of
services will occur in New Zealand when a New Zealand customer initiates the
supply of telecommunications services from
a non-resident telecommunications
supplier. Non-resident suppliers of telecommunications services will be
required to register for
GST if they make supplies of more than $40,000 in a
twelve-month period.
- Telecommunications
services will be excluded from the reverse charge.
- The Commissioner
of Inland Revenue will have a discretion not to require GST to be returned by
telecommunications suppliers operating
wholly offshore if it would not be cost
effective to do so.
Introduction
- 8.1 The
provision of telecommunications services involves the sending or receiving of
material or information by electronic or similar
communications systems. As
well as telephone calls, this includes Internet access and satellite
transmission services.
- 8.2 These
services are highly mobile and homogeneous, which makes it difficult to
establish where they are supplied or consumed and
hence where they should be
appropriately taxed. Many jurisdictions have, therefore, included specific
provisions in their GST legislation
to deal with the taxation of
telecommunications services.
- 8.3 This chapter
examines whether similar provisions are justified in the GST
Act.
Telecommunications services – the issues
- 8.4 Technological
advances and the deregulation of the telecommunications market in New Zealand
have made it possible for consumers
in New Zealand to purchase
telecommunications supplies from international service providers as easily as
they can from New Zealand
service providers.
- 8.5 For example,
a New Zealand resident can choose to subscribe to either a New Zealand or an
American Internet service provider (ISP)
for Internet connection services. The
New Zealand ISP would charge GST on the connection services it provides to the
New Zealand
resident, whereas the American ISP would not charge GST, even though
the New Zealand resident is consuming the services in New
Zealand.
- 8.6 Therefore
the absence of GST on imported telecommunications services encourages consumers
to substitute domestically produced
services with imported telecommunications
services. The extent of this distortion in patterns of consumption depends upon
how substitutable
New Zealanders consider imported services to be for
domestically produced services.
- 8.7 The absence
of GST on imported services may also distort patterns of production and resource
use in New Zealand. In order to
stay competitive with suppliers of imported
telecommunications services, New Zealand telecommunications companies would be
forced
to lower their prices, thereby eroding their ability to pass on the full
burden of the GST levied on the telecommunications services
they supply to New
Zealanders.
- 8.8 This means
that the GST system would impose a relatively higher rate of tax on the value
added by domestic telecommunications
companies. This would reduce their ability
to compete not only in the market for their products, but also their ability to
purchase
resources.
- 8.9 Therefore
the absence of a GST impost on these services encourages inefficient patterns of
consumption by discouraging the consumption
of domestically produced services in
favour of imported services. It also discourages the domestic production of
services, since
domestic producers may not be able to pass on the GST cost to
consumers.
- 8.10 The
introduction of a reverse charge on imported services would remove these
distortions with respect to GST-registered suppliers
acquiring services for a
purpose other than of making taxable supplies. Entities making taxable supplies
would not be affected,
as they would be entitled to input tax credits for
purchases of imported services if GST was imposed. The economic distortion
problem
would still exist in relation to final consumers of telecommunications
services – “business-to-consumer” transactions.
For these
transactions there is, as yet, no solution to the general problem of imposing
GST on supplies of services across international
borders. (See the next chapter
for a discussion of this issue.)
- 8.11 Although
these distortions and problems exist for all business-to-consumer supplies,
supplies of telecommunications services
are being specifically addressed as
there is a smaller and more identifiable group of suppliers involved and a more
immediate threat
to the GST base.
- 8.12 Equally
significantly, the general application of the reverse charge would not provide
the much needed certainty as to the place
of supply of telecommunications
services. The way in which other jurisdictions have provided this certainty,
and hence clarified
which supplies of telecommunications services are subject to
GST or VAT in the jurisdiction, is discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Overseas approaches
European Union treatment
- 8.13 In
1997 telecommunications services were added to those in article 9 of the EU
6th Directive[36] that
are subject to taxation where the recipient of the service is established.
Their inclusion was initially an interim measure
but has now become permanent.
- 8.14 The rules
are aimed at ensuring that telecommunications services used by customers
resident in the EU are subject to EU VAT.
There are two sets of rules for
telecommunications services. The normal reverse charge mechanism applies to
business-to-business
transactions, whereas place of supply rules for
business-to-consumer transactions treat certain supplies as made in the EU.
Therefore,
they may require a non-resident supplier to register for VAT
purposes.
Business-to-business supplies
- 8.15 Under
article 9(2)(e) of the 6th Directive, the place of supply of
telecommunications services provided to customers outside the EU or provided to
taxable persons
(equivalent to registered persons) in the EU but not in the same
country as the supplier is:
(i) where the customer has its business establishment; or
(ii) where the customer’s fixed establishment to which the supplies are
made is located.
- 8.16 In this
case the taxable person would return VAT under a reverse charge if the supply
was from a non-resident telecommunications
supplier.
Business-to-consumer supplies
- 8.17 Under
articles 9(3)(b) and 9(4) of the 6th Directive, telecommunications
services supplied by an operator established outside the EU to a private
individual established inside
the EU are supplied where the effective use and
enjoyment of the services takes place. This also ensures that supplies made to
customers
who are not resident in the EU are not subject to EU VAT. In this
case the supplier is required to register for and return VAT.
For example,
under the UK Value Added Tax Act 1994, when a UK resident receives
telecommunications services supplied by a non-resident
and consumes them in the
UK the supplier will be subject to UK VAT on those services.
- 8.18 If neither
requirements (i) and (ii) of Article 9(2)(e) nor Article 9(4) apply, Article
9(1) treats the supply as made where
the supplier is
established.
- 8.19 Telecommunications
services are defined as services relating to the transmission, emission or
reception of signals, writing,
images and sounds or information of any nature by
wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems, the provision of access
to global information networks (the Internet), and the related transfer or
assignment of the right to use capacity for such transmission,
emission or
reception.
Canadian treatment
- 8.20 Under
the Excise Tax Act non-resident suppliers of telecommunication services are
liable to register for GST in Canada when they
provide the services in the
course of carrying on business in
Canada[37] and:
- a
telecommunication facility is located in Canada; or
- the signal is
emitted and received in Canada; or
- the signal is
either emitted or received in Canada and the billing location for the service is
in Canada.[38]
- 8.21 The billing
location is in Canada if either:
- the person
responsible for payment of the bill has an account with a telecommunication
supplier and the account relates to a telecommunication
facility that is usually
located in Canada; or
- the
telecommunication facility used to initiate the telecommunication service is
located in Canada.
- 8.22 If the
specific rules do not apply the general reverse charge provisions can still
apply when the supply is made outside of Canada.
- 8.23 A
telecommunication service is defined as the emitting, transmitting, or receiving
signs, signals, writing, images or sounds
or intelligence of any nature by wire,
cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar
technical system,
or making available telecommunications facilities to provide
such emissions, transmissions or reception.
Australian treatment
- 8.24 Division
85 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 deals with
telecommunication services. When final consumers receive telecommunication
services from offshore the provision requires
overseas suppliers to register for
and return GST in Australia.
- 8.25 Division 85
provides that telecommunication supplies are connected with Australia, and hence
subject to GST, if they are effectively
used and enjoyed in Australia,
regardless of where the supplier has a physical presence.
- 8.26 Section
85-5 provides that:
“(1) A telecommunication supply is connected with Australia if the
recipient of the supply will effectively use or enjoy the
supply in
Australia.
(2) [The section] does not apply to a telecommunication supply, or a
telecommunication supply included in a class of telecommunication
supplies,
if:
(a) the supplier makes the supply through an enterprise that is not carried
on in Australia; and
(b) the Commissioner determines that collection of GST on that supply or
class of supplies would not be administratively feasible.”
- 8.27 Thus if the
supplies are made from an enterprise offshore that has no permanent
establishment in Australia and the collection
of tax is deemed by the
Commissioner not to be feasible, there is a discretion to treat the
telecommunication supply as not being
a taxable supply.
- 8.28 Section
85-10 defines a telecommunication supply to be a supply relating to the
transmission, emission or reception of signals,
writing, images, sounds or
information of any kind by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic
systems. It includes:
- the related
transfer or assignment of the right to use capacity for such transmission,
emission or reception; and
- the provision of
access to global information networks (the Internet).
- 8.29 If Division
85 applies to tax a supply the reverse charge in Division 84 does not
apply.
Proposed application in New Zealand
- 8.30 The
approach adopted by the EU, and latterly Australia, has shown that it may be
possible to address the problems posed by imported
supplies of
telecommunications services, and provide the necessary definition of the tax
base, by enacting specific provisions determining
the place of supply for these
services. The approach in these jurisdictions is to treat telecommunications
supplies as being made
where the customer (the person “using” the
call services) resides and, therefore, to require suppliers of those services
to
register for GST or VAT.
- 8.31 It is
proposed to introduce similar, but not identical, rules for taxing
telecommunications supplies to operate alongside and
complement the proposed
reverse charge mechanism.
- 8.32 Telecommunications
services should be defined as clearly as possible, and in a way that ensures the
definition will not be made
obsolete by changes in communication technology.
The Telecommunications Act 1987 defines telecommunication as the conveyance from
one device to another of any sign, signal, impulse, writing, image, sound,
instruction, information, or intelligence of any nature,
whether for the
information of any person using the device or
not.[39]
- 8.33 This
definition, and the definitions used in the EU and in Australia, are based on
the definition of telecommunication adopted
by the International
Telecommunications Union (of which the New Zealand Government is a member) in
the Final Acts of the World Administrative
Telegraph and Telephone
Conference[40] – known as the
Melbourne Accord. The Melbourne Accord regulates international supplies of
telecommunications. Telecommunication
is defined as “any transmission,
emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or
intelligence of any
nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic
systems”.
- 8.34 A supply of
telecommunications services could, therefore, be defined as the transmission,
emission or reception of signals, writing,
images, sounds or information of any
kind by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar
technical system.
It would include:
- the related
transfer or assignment of the right to use capacity for such transmission,
emission or reception; and
- the provision of
access to global information networks (the Internet).
- 8.35 The
services supplied would, therefore, be the action of sending or receiving
material or information provided by the telecommunications
supplier to the New
Zealand customer.
- 8.36 Under the
proposed rule, a supply of services in New Zealand would occur when a New
Zealand customer initiates the provision
of telecommunications services from a
non-resident telecommunications supplier – for example, when a New Zealand
customer connects
to the Internet using an overseas ISP. Conversely, if a
non-resident customer initiates the provision of telecommunications services
from a New Zealand-resident telecommunications supplier the supply would not be
subject to GST in New Zealand.
- 8.37 There are
two possible approaches to determining whether there is a New Zealand customer
(and conversely, if there is a non-resident
customer) and, therefore, whether
the consumption and the supply of telecommunications services has occurred in
New Zealand and is
subject to GST.
- 8.38 The first
is to treat a supply of telecommunications services as occurring in New Zealand
when a person who is usually resident
in New Zealand initiates a supply of
telecommunications services. This approach avoids potential problems associated
with identifying
the jurisdiction in which the customer is actually physically
located when they initiate the supply.
- 8.39 This
approach does not, however, provide the most accurate identification of the
jurisdiction in which the customer is actually
present and consuming the
services – it sacrifices this accuracy to provide a simple and certain
result.
- 8.40 The second
approach would be to treat a supply of telecommunications services as occurring
in New Zealand when the customer who
initiates the supply is actually physically
present in New Zealand. This approach would require the telecommunications
supplier
to identify the place from which the customer is initiating the supply
of telecommunications services. If the telecommunications
supplier were not
able to identify the jurisdiction from which the customer was initiating the
supply of telecommunications services,
the services could be treated as supplied
either in the jurisdiction in which the customer is usually resident or the
jurisdiction
of the telecommunications supplier.
- 8.41 Although it
is potentially capable of more accurately identifying the jurisdiction in which
consumption actually occurs, a test
which looks at where the customer is
actually physically present may be more difficult to apply. Difficulties in
identifying where
the customer is physically located will increase with advances
in technology, such as the increased use of wireless communications
and Internet
telephone services.
- 8.42 The
Government welcomes submissions on the advantages and disadvantages of these
approaches.
- 8.43 Under the
proposed rule, a non-resident telecommunications supplier making over $40,000 of
such supplies in a twelve month period
will become liable to be registered for
GST, and incur all the associated GST obligations.
- 8.44 In this
situation the reverse charge will not be applied to telecommunications services.
Although the reverse charge would tax
such supplies to exempt suppliers, it may
not be possible for telecommunications suppliers to distinguish between
customers who would
be liable to the reverse charge and those who should be
charged GST on supplies.
- 8.45 It is also
proposed to include a discretion for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue not to
enforce the rule in relation to telecommunications
suppliers operating wholly
offshore if it would not be cost-effective to do so. Under such circumstances
the reverse charge would
also be deemed not to apply to such a
supply.
The section 11A(2) amendments and telecommunications
- 8.46 In
1999 section 11(2A), now section 11A(2), was inserted into the GST Act to ensure
that section 11(2)(e), now section 11A(1)(k),
did not apply to zero-rate
services that were consumed in New Zealand but contracted for by a non-resident
who was outside New Zealand.
- 8.47 Section
11A(2) provides that section 11A(1)(k) does not zero-rate services supplied to a
non-resident if another person (including
an employee or company director of the
non-resident) receives the performance of those services in New Zealand. The
provision does
not apply if it is reasonably foreseeable that the supply of the
services is related to the making of taxable or exempt supplies
by registered
persons.
- 8.48 At the time
the amendment was made concerns were raised that it might, contrary to the
policy intent, incorrectly exclude "inbound"
telecommunications services from
the GST zero rating provisions.
- 8.49 An example
of an "inbound" telecommunications service is an overseas caller making a
telephone call to a person in New Zealand.
This service is provided to the
overseas caller by an overseas telecommunication supplier who contracts with a
New Zealand telecommunication
supplier to connect the call in New Zealand. In
this situation the New Zealand telecommunication supplier serves as a link
between
the overseas telecommunication supplier and the New Zealand resident
receiving the phone call. Such services are intended to be
zero-rated under the
GST Act.
- 8.50 The
Government does not consider that section 11A(2) applies to
“inbound” telecommunications supplies, as the connection
service
supplied by the New Zealand telecommunications company is received by the
overseas telecommunications company, not by the
person in New Zealand receiving
the call. This was made clear in the report of the Finance and Expenditure
Committee on the Taxation
(Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill and in the
Inland Revenue’s Tax Information Bulletin article on the
legislation after it was enacted.
- 8.51 Enacting
specific rules for telecommunications services will further clarify the place of
supply of telecommunications services,
and hence clarify what supplies are
subject to GST in New Zealand. This will ensure that connection services in
relation to “inbound”
telecommunications services provided by a New
Zealand telecommunications supplier are not subject to GST in New
Zealand.
Chapter 9
BUSINESS-TO-CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS
Introduction
- 9.1 At
present, most imports of services occur through business-to-business
transactions. The volume of business-to-consumer transactions
is still
relatively small, but is expected to increase. This discussion document only
proposes a solution to the problems caused
by the non-taxation of
business-to-business imports of services, as there is not, as yet, a viable tax
collection mechanism for business-to-consumer
imports of services.
- 9.2 This chapter
outlines the problems and possible future tax collection mechanisms with regard
to business-to-consumer transactions.
Business-to-consumer transactions: the problem
- 9.3 The
collection of GST from transactions involving supplies between non-resident
businesses and New Zealand private consumers poses
a difficult problem to which,
internationally, there is yet to be a workable resolution.
- 9.4 The problem
arises because the non-resident business will not in the usual course of events
be registered for GST and, therefore,
will not return GST to Inland Revenue on
any sales to New Zealand consumers.
- 9.5 Electronic
commerce has increased the extent to which services can be traded across
borders. As electronic commerce further develops
as a means of transacting, the
extent to which it is possible and affordable to purchase services from offshore
providers will increase.
- 9.6 Difficulties
also arise when determining the residence of the consumers, principally when
digitised products are being supplied,
since these may be sent to an Internet
address which may not have any obvious connection to the actual residence of the
consumer.
(For example, the address may not be identifiable as a New Zealand
domain name.)
- 9.7 As discussed
in the previous chapter, business-to-consumer transactions are a particular
issue for telecommunications suppliers,
as it is difficult to determine if these
services are physically performed or occur at a particular location, and the
services are
highly mobile.
Possible solutions
- 9.8 Four
possible methods have been identified to collect GST from business-to-consumer
transactions.
Self-assessment
- 9.9 Under
a system of self-assessment, consumers who receive services from offshore
suppliers self-assess and return GST on the value
of those supplies. This means
that a mechanism such as the reverse charge would apply to private consumers.
This method appears
at this stage to be the least effective way to subject
supplies of imported services to private consumers to GST. There are
significant
compliance and enforcement issues, with there being no or very few
incentives for consumers to comply with a requirement to self-assess.
There are
also difficulties in identifying those who have imported services, and
difficulties relying upon consumers knowing that
they must comply with the
self-assessment requirement.
- 9.10 Placing the
burden of complying with tax rules on the consumers of imported services would
tend to discourage the consumption
of such services, and distort consumption
patterns towards domestically produced services.
- 9.11 Such a
system is also contrary to recent simplification initiatives which aim to shift
the burden of compliance from individual
taxpayers, and contrary to the GST
framework which avoids placing any administrative requirements on private
consumers.
Registration of non-resident businesses
- 9.12 This
option would require non-resident businesses making supplies of services to a
country to register for GST in that country
and charge and return GST on the
supplies they make, according to the GST rules of that country. Non-resident
suppliers would, therefore,
be treated in the same manner as New Zealand
suppliers for GST purposes.
- 9.13 This
approach is used with some success in the EU with respect to supplies of
telecommunications services, apparently owing to:
- the relatively
limited and identifiable number of companies involved in the supply of
telecommunications services, and the ability
to trace those companies, since to
provide their services they must interconnect with resident telecommunications
suppliers;
- compliance costs
being limited by the need to register in only one EU nation for the purposes of
all EU VAT;
- the size and
economic power of the EU; and
- the incentives
that telecommunications service providers have to comply with EU
law.
- 9.14 The EC also
has a broader proposal which would impose VAT on supplies of electronically
delivered services based on the location
of the consumer of those services (as
opposed to the supplier’s location, as is currently the
case).[41] Suppliers selling
electronic services[42] from outside
the EU to consumers inside the EU would be required to account for VAT in the
same way as an EU-resident supplier.
The non-resident supplier would register
for, and charge, VAT in the EU.[43]
The non-EU supplier would be required to register only if it made sales of more
than Euro 100,000 to private consumers in the EU,
and would be required to
register only in one jurisdiction within the EU.
- 9.15 The
proposal will operate alongside the reverse charge already in operation for
business-to-business transactions. The proposal
was adopted by the EC on 7 June
2000, but is not yet legislated for in member
countries.[44]
- 9.16 The
proposal will rely partially upon international co-operation for enforcement.
It will also rely upon the willingness of
multinational firms to protect their
goodwill and image in the EU and retain a favourable climate in the EU for
non-EU suppliers
to do business.
- 9.17 The OECD
has recently published for public consultation a draft report from its working
party on consumption taxes.[45] The
report states that, in the short term (pending adoption of
technology-facilitated options), the most viable collection mechanism
to support
the practical application of the Ottawa Taxation Framework
Guidelines[46] to
business-to-consumer transactions lies with a mechanism based on the
registration of non-resident suppliers. The working party
acknowledges that the
registration of non-resident suppliers has its shortcomings and that simplified
approaches to the registration
of non‑resident suppliers should be
developed.
- 9.18 Although
this approach appears to have been successfully applied to telecommunications
services in the EU, there are a number
of difficulties with its general
application to imported services:
- It would impose
significant compliance burdens on the non-resident supplier, which would need to
have technical knowledge of the GST
or VAT systems of the jurisdictions to which
it makes supplies.
- It will be more
difficult to enforce the registration requirement generally, as other service
industries may not be as identifiable
or as traceable as the telecommunications
industry.
Technology-based solutions
- 9.19 As
the identification of suppliers and recipients becomes increasingly difficult in
the electronic commerce environment, owing
to the growing employment of
electronic cash payment systems and software protecting customer privacy,
technology-based withholding
systems using financial intermediaries could be
used to collect GST.
- 9.20 Financial
intermediaries would withhold the GST or VAT portion of any payment for a supply
of goods or services acquired electronically,
and remit the money to the
relevant revenue authority.
- 9.21 Assuming
withholding by financial intermediaries were technically feasible, the following
problems might arise:
- The financial
intermediary would need to know the jurisdiction in which the supply was taking
place. Identification of the residence
of the consumer may be possible if a
credit or debit card were used, but not necessarily if electronic cash were
used.
- The financial
intermediary would need to know the GST or VAT rules of that jurisdiction.
- The financial
intermediary would need to know the nature of the supply, to determine the
correct GST or VAT treatment.
- 9.22 This
approach might require compensating financial institutions for the high
compliance burdens placed upon them, and measures
to ensure that financial
institutions in jurisdictions which did not comply with the withholding
framework were not used to avoid
the withholding regime.
Taxation at source and transfer
- 9.23 A
further option is to enter into consumption tax agreements with countries under
which a business making an export would charge
and collect GST or VAT on that
supply, and return that amount to their revenue authority. The revenue
authority would then pass
the tax on to the revenue authority of the country in
which the services are acquired.
- 9.24 This
approach would require a network of agreements between nations, and a system of
incentives to encourage the revenue authority
in the exporter’s
jurisdiction to ensure compliance by the exporter. It would impose a compliance
burden upon exporters, who
would be required to have an understanding of the GST
or VAT rules of the countries to which it was exporting.
The future
- 9.25 A
general impost of GST on supplies of imported services from businesses to
private consumers is not proposed at this stage.
The New Zealand Government is
continuing to participate at the OECD and discuss these issues with member
countries, and will monitor
the EU proposal to register non-resident suppliers
of electronically delivered services.
[1] Electronic Commerce:
Taxation Framework Conditions,
www.oecd.org/daf/fa.
[2]
ibid.
[3] E-Commerce:
Building the Strategy for New Zealand, November 2000, page
9.
[4] ibid, page
2.
[5] ibid, page
15.
[6] Clause 3(b) Electronic
Transactions Bill; and Electronic Transactions Bill, Explanatory Note, General
Policy Statement, page 1; conditions
for functional equivalence are set out in
Part 3 of the Electronic Transactions
Bill.
[7] The Government discussion
document More Time For Business, released 3 May 2001, contains a
discussion of areas where technology could be used to lower compliance costs on
business.
[8] For example,
globally, electronic commerce is predicted to reach approximately US$ 600
billion in trade by 2004-05, or roughly eight
percent of all global trade (OECD
Presentation: Electronic Commerce - Answering the Taxation Challenges, Tokyo
OECD / Pacific Island
Forum Conference, February
2001).
[9] Section 12(2) –
valuation of imported goods.
[10]
A report by the Committee’s Working Party No. 9 on Consumption Taxes:
Consumption Tax Aspects of Electronic Commerce, (www.oecd.org/daf/fa/e_com/ec_6_WP9_REPORT_Eng.pdf).
[11]
The Russian Federation taxes imports into the Federation, but zero-rates only
exports out of the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), so exports from
within the Federation to other members of the CIS are taxed. It is often
perceived that the European Union
(EU) operates under the origin principle. For
supplies to non-registered consumers within the EU this is generally true.
Supplies
between businesses, however, are not taxed under this principle.
Instead tax is applied by using a reverse charge mechanism that
applies to both
services and goods supplied within the EU. This is not an “origin”
system in the strict sense of the
word, but is more representative of an attempt
to move toward a single internal market. Between the EU and the rest of the
world
the destination principle
applies.
[12] A Strategy to
Improve the Operation of the VAT System within the context of the Internal
Market COM(2000) 349.
[13]
For example, pay-per-view
television.
[14] Conversely, EU
suppliers that provide such services to non-EU customers do not have to charge
VAT.
[15]
It is unclear, however, whether it will be
implemented, as it has been reported that the UK has recently expressed
opposition to the
proposal.
[16]
Section 12, Goods and Services Tax Act
1985.
[17] Section 220(c), Excise
Tax Act.
[18] Standard rate: New
Zealand: 12.5%, Australia: 10%, Canada: 7%, United Kingdom: 17.5%, France:
20.6%, Germany: 16%, Ireland: 21%,
Italy: 20%, EU(15) average:
19.4%.
[19] Section 10(3A) will
not be applicable, as the supplies the reverse charge applies to will be outside
the scope of that provision.
[20]
Section 2(1); choses in action are services, as they are specifically excluded
from the definition of
“goods”.
[21] Section
84 – 15(2), A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999.
[22] Harmonisation of
Turnover Taxes European Commission, Working Party 1, Brussels, June 1999,
page 14.
[23] Defined as
“all kinds of movable personal property, including animals” in
section 2 of the Customs and Excise Act
1996.
[24] Electronic
Commerce: Development of a Taxation
Framework.
[25] This is why
this approach differs from that proposed for income tax purposes in the Exposure
Draft of Interpretation Guideline IG0007: Non-resident Software
Suppliers’ Payments Derived from New Zealand – Income Tax
Treatment, whereby the means of delivery is not considered determinative of
the income tax treatment.
[26]
Second schedule cl 3(1)(c) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.
[27] WTO Valuation Committee
Decision VAL/8/Add, reaffirmed in WTO Valuation Committee Decision
4.1/1.
[28] Second schedule cl
3(3) of the Customs and Excise Act
1996.
[29] GATT Article 3, Ad
Article 3.
[30] Declaration on
Global Electronic Commerce, May 1998, WTO Ministerial
Conference.
[31] Per Davidson CJ,
Databank Systems Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (1987) 9
NZTC 6,213 at 6,223.
[32]
Section IG 1 of the Income Tax Act
1994.
[33] Section 55(7)(c)
– although adjustments must be made under sections 55(7)(db) and (dc) in
conjunction with sections 21(1) and
21E to reflect any changes in use of goods
and services by the group.
[34]
For GST purposes defined in section IG 1(3) of the Income Tax Act
1994.
[35] Refer Policy Statement
P 126.
[36] Which sets the
framework and general rules for the VAT systems in all EU
jurisdictions.
[37] Section
143(1) of the Excise Tax
Act.
[38] Section 142(1) and
Schedule IX Part VIII of the Excise Tax
Act.
[39] Note that the recently
introduced Telecommunications Bill is likely to change this
definition.
[40] Final Acts of
the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference (WATTC – 88),
Melbourne, 1988.
[41] A
Strategy to Improve the Operation of the VAT System within the context of the
Internal Market COM(2000)
349.
[42] For example
pay-per-view television.
[43]
Conversely, if an EU supplier provides such services to a non-EU customer they
do not have to charge VAT.
[44]
It is unclear, however, whether it will be implemented, as it has been reported
that the UK has recently expressed opposition to
the
proposal.
[45] A report by the
Committee’s Working Party No. 9 on Consumption Taxes: Consumption Tax
Aspects of Electronic Commerce,
(www.oecd.org/daf/fa/e_com/ec_6_WP9_REPORT_Eng.pdf).
[46]
See discussion in Chapter 1.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZAHGovDP/2001/3.html