A consultation document on the rules for taxing land sales includes a proposal to tax the sale of a person’s principal home or business premises when there is any pattern of buying and selling land.
Earlier this year, in its response to the Tax Working Group’s final report, the government ruled out a comprehensive capital gains tax, as well as a more targeted option for land. However, Officials were asked to look at whether the current tax rules for land were working as intended.
The sale of a person’s main home is not subject to tax under the five-year bright-line test. The residential and business premises exemptions apply to certain other land taxing provisions. However, these carve-outs are not absolute—they do not apply when there is a regular pattern of selling activity.
Officials’ concern is that even if there is a regular pattern of buying and selling land, the sales remain exempt if there are different activities. An example:
Although there is a regular pattern of buying and selling, the activity on the land is different each time. The exemptions continue to apply.
Proposed tax measures
The broad proposal is that:
The Tax Working Group’s work may have concluded without its key recommendation being taken up, but the focus on land continues. In this case, the focus is the owner occupying the land. The “own use” (to live in or to operate a business) exemptions are not intended to apply when a taxpayer “flips” property on a regular basis. However, due to a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a pattern of activity, the exemptions apply. The proposal would change this result.
Officials’ expectation is that property that is not acquired with the intention of disposal would not be caught by the revised pattern of activity test. This is an important caveat. The proposal is to remove an exemption from the existing land tax rules rather than to create a new rule based on a regular pattern of buying and selling. However, the risk for taxpayers is that the rule would be applied by default to tax sales when there is a regular pattern.
The proposals would have broader implications for property—not just residential property. The measures would apply to businesses that own their premises. For a corporate group that owns multiple properties (used in the business), the ability to rely on the business-premises exemption for the sale of an individual property would need to be tested against associates’ activities.
Read a September 2019 report prepared by the KPMG member firm in New Zealand
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.