New Zealand: New Zealand considers reforms to GST treatment of land-related services

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

New Zealand: New Zealand considers reforms to GST treatment of land-related services

Stewart-Tim-100
Lester-James-100

Tim Stewart

James Lester

In September 2015 the New Zealand Inland Revenue released an issues paper on GST, consulting on a number of matters. One proposal in the issues paper, which draws on OECD guidance and international practice, relates to the GST treatment of services that are "directly in connection with" land.

New Zealand's GST system is based on the destination principle, meaning that goods and services should be taxed only if they are consumed in New Zealand. The proxy used to determine where a service is consumed is generally the residence of the recipient. However, an exception applies to services supplied directly in connection with land. Under current law, services supplied to non-residents who are outside New Zealand at the time of supply, and that are supplied directly in connection with land situated in New Zealand (or improvements to that land), are subject to GST. Services that are supplied directly in connection with land situated outside New Zealand are zero-rated for GST, notwithstanding that the recipient of those services may be resident in New Zealand.

In interpreting cases that have considered the phrase "directly in connection with" in the GST context, Inland Revenue has concluded that a service will not be supplied "directly in connection with" land when the service merely brings about or facilitates a transaction which in turn has a direct effect on land (for example, conveyancing services). Instead, only services that have a direct physical effect on land will be regarded as being supplied directly in connection with land.

The issues paper considers that such an interpretation is arguably inconsistent with the policy behind the existing rules. The issues paper considers that the "directly in connection with" land test was not intended to create a distinction between services that have a physical effect on land and other professional or intellectual services (such as legal and architectural services) that are supplied with an underlying purpose of affecting the physical or legal nature of the land.

The issues paper proposes an amendment to expand the definition of services that are supplied "directly in connection with" land, to include services where there is a direct relationship between the purpose or objective of the services and the land. The services of real estate agents, architects and lawyers for example would no longer be zero-rated when supplied to non-residents outside New Zealand, where those services "have the purpose or objective of affecting or defining the nature or value of land, protecting land, or affecting the ownership or interest in or right over land".

Similarly, where such services are supplied in relation to land situated outside New Zealand, under the proposed amendment those services would be zero-rated even if supplied to a New Zealand resident.

While the proposals may have a logical theoretical basis, some important issues will need to be addressed before the government makes a decision on implementation. These include:

  • Any increased complexity and uncertainty resulting from a change to the law (which is currently widely understood and easy to apply) relative to the revenue impact for the New Zealand government.

  • Consistency with rules regarding imported services in other jurisdictions, so that the imposition of GST (or VAT) in two jurisdictions on the same supply does not become widespread.

  • Potential bias against New Zealand suppliers, if New Zealand suppliers are required to charge GST on services supplied to non-residents but offshore suppliers of the same services are not.

  • The treatment of supplies in a business-to-business context, including the ability for non-resident businesses to obtain refunds of GST charged by New Zealand suppliers. In this regard the current rules (and practice of Inland Revenue) relating to the registration of non-resident businesses for GST may need to be reviewed.

Tim Stewart (tim.stewart@russellmcveagh.com) and James Lester (james.lester@russellmcveagh.com)
Russell McVeagh

Tel: +64 4 819 7527 and +64 4 819 7755

Website: www.russellmcveagh.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Heads of tax need to push their teams forward as strategic business advisers to add value across the organisation, says Sandy Markwick
Scott Bessent reportedly felt undermined by Musk naming Gary Shapley as acting IRS commissioner; in other news, Baker Tilly will combine with a top 15 US firm
The promise of nine years’ tax certainty and a ‘rational and pragmatic’ government process makes APAs a no-brainer, Indian tax advisers tell ITR
Despite garnering significant revenues from multinationals, Italy’s digital services tax presents pressing double taxation issues, say Stefano Simontacchi and Francesco Saverio Scandone of BonelliErede
ITR’s research shows that in-house tax counsel in Asia also feel underserved by their advisers’ international networks
World Tax global head of research Jon Moore tells ITR how his team spots standout submissions, and gives early statistical insights into this year’s entries
Australia’s conservative opposition will repeal controversial tax agent reporting rules if elected in the country’s May general election
Shapley would be the fourth person to hold the job this year; in other news, UK tax advisory firm MHA raised fewer funds than expected from its London IPO
The US needs to be involved in pillar one for there to be more international acceptance of the project, Michael Masciangelo says
The UK regulator is investigating EY’s auditing of the national postal service as it relates to the high-profile Horizon scandal, which saw hundreds wrongfully convicted
Gift this article