New Ute Owners Warned Of Looming 'Tax Grenade'
Correction: This article has been updated to clarify the $21,060 figure was in taxable benefits, not necessarily the full amount of tax that would be owed; and that the IRD is still consulting on the proposal.
Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative will be hit by a "tax grenade" in the form of a fringe benefit tax (FBT), according to an expert.
Findex tax advisory partner Craig Macalister said the repeal of a work-related vehicle FBT exemption for mixed private and business use committed to in the government's latest Budget will result in tax implications for people who use their utes for business.
IRD was consulting on the proposed changes.
Under the change, farmers with a mixed used farm ute costing $70,000 will be hit with an annual FBT bill of $6370, at the proposed 26 percent rate for petrol and diesel vehicles.
"Farmers are buying vehicles at Fieldays, looking forward to a reduced cost thanks to depreciation deductibility, but oblivious to the tax grenade coming their way in 12 months," Macalister said.
"Worse still, any vehicle over $80,000 - such as a $75,000 ute with $6000 in extras - will be classified as 100 percent taxable, resulting in a staggering $21,060 in FBT per year in [taxable benefit]."
A tax of about $10,000 or $13,000 could then apply.
Macalister said consultation on the tax changes had not been given inadequate consideration, resulting in a policy that over-taxed essential business assets.
"In our view, the use of the current FBT exemption strikes the right balance for work-related vehicles. Scrapping it will hurt farmers and other industries reliant on utility vehicles," he said.
"These utes are not perks or 'Remuera tractors' - they're essential tools for carrying equipment, personnel and of course dogs on and off the farm.
"Yet, the IRD seems locked in a paradigm that views any provided vehicle as a perk to be taxed, unless it's an emergency vehicle."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kiwiblog
20 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: KiwiSaver, the employment contract and Budget 2025
A guest post by Michael Littlewood: KiwiSaver is about to change again. The Budget announced an increase in the minimum employee contribution (from 3% to 4%) over three years and in the matching minimum contributions paid by employers. The government is also cutting its own contribution from a 50% match to the first $1,042.86 of members' contributions to 25%. So, the maximum taxpayer subsidy drops from $521.43 a year to $260.72. It will also be income-tested so that the highest paid employees (receiving more than $180,000 will lose that. Whether or not these changes are a good idea, I want to address the lessons that employers might take from the latest changes. The first obvious lesson is that, whenever a government gets involved in the saving decisions of employees, change is a constant and that has direct consequences for employers. Since KiwiSaver was first announced in 2006, there have now been five[1] changes of significance. All will have resulted in significant administrative cost to employers. One possible lesson from this is that employers should aim to stay away from their employees' decisions about whether to save for retirement. The second lesson is that governments really shouldn't be telling employers how or how much they should be paying their employees. Aside from some minimum requirements, the employer should be setting the total cost and agreeing with employees how they want to receive that. In theory, the employer should be indifferent to employees' decisions, as long as the total of direct and indirect pay is unaffected. But that leads us into a contentious subject: the tussle between 'pay + benefits' and 'total remuneration'. Some definitions: 'Pay + benefits' says that employers set basic wages/salaries and then separately decide what other non-cash benefits are available (such as subsidised superannuation, medical insurance, death/disablement insurance). The employer leaves it for employees to decide which extra benefits they want. The total compensation each employee receives will depend on value of the benefits chosen by the employee. This can be thought of as the 'traditional' way that employees were paid. 'Total remuneration' says that the employer sets the total it is prepared to spend on a particular role but then lets each employee decide how to receive that total. A 'good' employer might offer help to the employees' making appropriate choices but the employer won't mind whether it's all paid in direct wages/salary or part direct/part indirect. We don't know how many employees are paid on the different bases. Some suggest that 40% of all employees are on 'total remuneration'. I think that should be 100% for reasons I discuss below. But, with respect to the latest KiwiSaver changes, the difference matters: Under pay + benefits , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. Under total remuneration, the extra 1% from the employer will come out of the employee's 'total remuneration' so that take-home pay will fall by about a combined 2%. It's a bit more complicated as KiwiSaver's contributions are based on the direct taxable pay so, if 4% of the total remuneration is deducted (the employer's eventual mandatory contribution), before-tax pay is now 96.15% of the starting 100% and both the employer and employee will pay 4% of that (4% of 96.15% + 96.15% = 100%). Also, the employer's contribution is taxed under slightly different rules to direct pay. Regardless, the employer doesn't pay any more in total to get that job done. To some (the Retirement Commissioner included) this looks as though employees have been chiselled out of money they should be getting on top of their regular pay. The Retirement Commissioner wants the practice outlawed – she wants the employer's contribution to be a genuine addition to direct pay, as a 'reward' for making the commitment to KiwiSaver. That is the wrong way of looking at things. Consider two employees, both doing exactly the same kind of work and offering the same value to their employer. In one case (pay + benefits), the employer doesn't know what 'total compensation' is until the employee decides whether to contribute to KiwiSaver. We don't know what proportion of all employees who work for pay + benefits employers, are not contributing to KiwiSaver but, for every such non-contributor, the employer saves, soon-to-be, 4% of their pay. The position is different in a total remuneration environment. There, both parties know what the employee will receive in total. Whether the employee contributes to KiwiSaver doesn't affect the total. The employer pays the same. Given that both employers are paying market rates for that particular role, the total employment costs must be higher for the total remuneration employer. The pay + benefits employer is better off in total by the number of non-contributors. Pay + benefits seems impossible to justify as an HR strategy. How can the employer explain that the total compensation is greater for contributing members over non-contributors, both doing the same job? Employees might have good reasons not to save through KiwiSaver. Here are some possibilities: they can't afford to join; they don't want their savings locked up until age 65; they don't trust such a long-term programme; they have other saving priorities (such as paying off debt) or they may not need to save any more for retirement. Also, some employees are not allowed to join KiwiSaver, or the employer does not have to contribute to KiwiSaver. Those over 65 are one group; also, those who do not have permanent residency but are able to work. It seems unfair that non-permanent residents cannot qualify for the employer KiwiSaver contribution and gives a perverse incentive to employ foreigners. Under pay + benefits, both those groups are penalised. With total remuneration, both can be treated fairly. But, most important of all, whether an employee contributes to KiwiSaver should have no bearing on the total amount the employee receives for the job done. And it's wrong that the government has any kind of role in deciding that total or how it should be paid. Employers who haven't thought about all this before now might be encouraged to do that by the government's 2025 decision to change the KiwiSaver rules again. If they want protection against further regulatory intrusions into their pay policies, shifting to total remuneration should insulate them. Much more importantly, it will treat all employees on a common basis, regardless of their private saving needs. For an employee on total remuneration, the only material advantage of saving through KiwiSaver will now be the government's annual subsidy of just $260.72 ($0 for pay of more than $180,000). For that, the employee must give up access to those savings until age 65. Employees could reasonably decide that any subsidy doesn't compensate for that loss of flexibility. Most KiwiSaver providers offer parallel, accessible saving options at a similar cost so there is no particular advantage, from an investment perspective, in saving through KiwiSaver. The KiwiSaver changes announced in the 2025 Budget might have some unintended long-term consequences. [1] The original model (2006) was a modest member-only, voluntary contribution model with the $1,000 'kickstart' as the only government incentive. That changed (#1) with the introduction of compulsory member and increasing employer contributions in the final version coupled with significant tax breaks (May 2007). The annual fee subsidy and employer tax credit were removed and contributions capped in 2008 (#2) but resumed increases in 2013 (#3). The 'member tax credit' was halved in 2012 and the kickstart was removed in 2015 (#4) Now the 'government contribution' is halved and will be income-tested (#5).
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
New Ute Owners Warned Of Looming ‘Tax Grenade'
Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative may inadvertently end up owing thousands of dollars in fringe benefit taxes. Correction: This article has been updated to clarify the $21,060 figure was in taxable benefits, not necessarily the full amount of tax that would be owed; and that the IRD is still consulting on the proposal. Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative will be hit by a 'tax grenade' in the form of a fringe benefit tax (FBT), according to an expert. Findex tax advisory partner Craig Macalister said the repeal of a work-related vehicle FBT exemption for mixed private and business use committed to in the government's latest Budget will result in tax implications for people who use their utes for business. IRD was consulting on the proposed changes. Under the change, farmers with a mixed used farm ute costing $70,000 will be hit with an annual FBT bill of $6370, at the proposed 26 percent rate for petrol and diesel vehicles. 'Farmers are buying vehicles at Fieldays, looking forward to a reduced cost thanks to depreciation deductibility, but oblivious to the tax grenade coming their way in 12 months,' Macalister said. 'Worse still, any vehicle over $80,000 – such as a $75,000 ute with $6000 in extras – will be classified as 100 percent taxable, resulting in a staggering $21,060 in FBT per year in [taxable benefit].' A tax of about $10,000 or $13,000 could then apply. Macalister said consultation on the tax changes had not been given inadequate consideration, resulting in a policy that over-taxed essential business assets. 'In our view, the use of the current FBT exemption strikes the right balance for work-related vehicles. Scrapping it will hurt farmers and other industries reliant on utility vehicles,' he said. 'These utes are not perks or 'Remuera tractors' – they're essential tools for carrying equipment, personnel and of course dogs on and off the farm. 'Yet, the IRD seems locked in a paradigm that views any provided vehicle as a perk to be taxed, unless it's an emergency vehicle.'
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
New Ute Owners Warned Of Looming 'Tax Grenade'
Correction: This article has been updated to clarify the $21,060 figure was in taxable benefits, not necessarily the full amount of tax that would be owed; and that the IRD is still consulting on the proposal. Farmers and tradies buying utes under the government's Investment Boost initiative will be hit by a "tax grenade" in the form of a fringe benefit tax (FBT), according to an expert. Findex tax advisory partner Craig Macalister said the repeal of a work-related vehicle FBT exemption for mixed private and business use committed to in the government's latest Budget will result in tax implications for people who use their utes for business. IRD was consulting on the proposed changes. Under the change, farmers with a mixed used farm ute costing $70,000 will be hit with an annual FBT bill of $6370, at the proposed 26 percent rate for petrol and diesel vehicles. "Farmers are buying vehicles at Fieldays, looking forward to a reduced cost thanks to depreciation deductibility, but oblivious to the tax grenade coming their way in 12 months," Macalister said. "Worse still, any vehicle over $80,000 - such as a $75,000 ute with $6000 in extras - will be classified as 100 percent taxable, resulting in a staggering $21,060 in FBT per year in [taxable benefit]." A tax of about $10,000 or $13,000 could then apply. Macalister said consultation on the tax changes had not been given inadequate consideration, resulting in a policy that over-taxed essential business assets. "In our view, the use of the current FBT exemption strikes the right balance for work-related vehicles. Scrapping it will hurt farmers and other industries reliant on utility vehicles," he said. "These utes are not perks or 'Remuera tractors' - they're essential tools for carrying equipment, personnel and of course dogs on and off the farm. "Yet, the IRD seems locked in a paradigm that views any provided vehicle as a perk to be taxed, unless it's an emergency vehicle."
