Trans-Tasman triangular tax - Chapter 1
	Home      Contents     Previous     Next

Triangular investment illustrated
Benefits of reform of taxation of trans-Tasman triangular investment
Australian and New Zealand governments' approach to triangular reform
Steps to trans-Tasman triangular reform
Application date
Submissions

1.1     Trans-Tasman "triangular investment" is equity investment by an Australian or New Zealand investor through a company resident in the other jurisdiction that earns income in the country of the shareholder. This discussion document outlines a proposed mechanism for reducing the current double taxation imposed by Australia and New Zealand on dividends received through triangular investment.

1.2     To illustrate the underlying concepts simply, chapters 1 and 2 have the Australian or New Zealand company itself making the investment in the other country. Although this occurs with branch investment, investment through a subsidiary is just as likely. Chapter 3 and subsequent chapters discuss triangular investment through subsidiary companies as part of the mechanism for providing relief.

Triangular investment illustrated

1.3     Australian and New Zealand investors can invest in a company with the same residence as themselves or in a company resident elsewhere. If they invest in a company with the same residence, the home country imposes only one layer of taxation on income earned in its jurisdiction. When income is distributed to shareholders through dividends, tax paid in the home country is passed on to them through imputation credits.[1]

1.4     Trans-Tasman "triangular investment" arises when Australian or New Zealand investors invest in their own country through a company with residence in the other jurisdiction. For example, an Australian investor invests in a New Zealand company that invests in Australia, as illustrated in figure 1. The term "triangular investment" similarly applies to a New Zealand investor investing in an Australian company that invests in New Zealand.

1.5     The New Zealand company in figure 1 attaches imputation credits to dividends for New Zealand tax paid. Australia does not recognise foreign imputation credits or dividends from non-resident companies as being eligible for Australian imputation credits, even though those dividends may have been paid out of profits which Australia has taxed at source. Australia imposes full source country taxation on income earned by the Australian branch. It taxes its investors once when the income is earned at the company level and again when the income is distributed to the investor by way of dividend. Therefore when the New Zealand company pays out the Australian source income as a dividend to the Australian investor, it cannot attach an Australian imputation credit. The lack of an Australian imputation credit means that the Australian investor will be effectively taxed twice on the Australian source income.

1.6     This is known as "triangular taxation", although the term equally applies to the double taxation imposed by New Zealand on the New Zealand source income derived by an Australian company with New Zealand shareholders.

1.7     The taxation of trans-Tasman triangular investment is a consequence of Australia and New Zealand's policy of allowing only:[2]

• tax paid in their country to generate imputation credits; and
• resident companies to pass on imputation credits to their shareholders.

1.8     In the 1980s, when imputation rules were implemented by both Australia and New Zealand, these policies did not cause concern as Australians primarily invested into Australian companies and New Zealanders primarily invested into New Zealand companies. Since then, with the development of globalisation generally and Closer Economic Relations (CER) in particular, there has been a greater level of cross-investment between the two countries. This increased level of trans-Tasman cross-investment highlights the issue of triangular taxation, that Australia and New Zealand are respectively imposing two layers of tax upon the same underlying income.

1.9     Triangular taxation may arise between any two countries with imputation rules similar to those of Australia and New Zealand. However, owing to the special relationship embodied in CER, Australia and New Zealand are only concerned with examining the double taxation that arises on trans-Tasman triangular investment.

Benefits of reform of taxation of trans-Tasman triangular investment

1.10     Triangular tax relief would preserve Australia and New Zealand's source taxation, while reducing the extra layer of tax faced by their residents when taxed on their worldwide income. This is consistent with both countries' imputation systems, which are intended to tax resident investors only once on income earned in their home countries.

1.11     The issue of triangular taxation relief can also be considered from the perspective of the wider CER dynamic. Since the inception of CER, in 1983, the strategic underpinning of the economic relationship has been the closer alignment of the Australian and New Zealand economies.

1.12     Although the CER agreement is now a mature one, and significant inroads have been made towards creating a single market, the process is not yet complete. The capital market remains the least aligned part of the trans-Tasman market, and taxation disincentives may be impeding the flow of capital across the Tasman.

1.13     Both governments are committed to the removal of impediments to trans-Tasman business where possible, and addressing the problem of triangular taxation could be a significant step towards improving the ease of trans-Tasman capital flows.

1.14     Triangular tax reform would provide relief to Australian and New Zealand investors from the residence taxation imposed on income that has already been taxed at source by their home governments.

Australian and New Zealand governments' approach to triangular reform

1.15     Although the need to address possible barriers to trans-Tasman investment is an important consideration, reform must also consider the need to maintain the integrity of the respective tax bases. This is a key design objective.

1.16     It is important, therefore, that any triangular relief achieves a balance between the objectives of relieving disincentives to triangular investment and preserving the integrity of the Australian and New Zealand tax bases in a way that is acceptable to both business and the two governments.

Steps to trans-Tasman triangular reform

1.17     The possible reform of trans-Tasman triangular taxation was noted in Australia's Ralph Report:[3]

"The Australian Government propose to the New Zealand Government that discussions be held with a view to introducing a mechanism to allow franking credits to flow through trans-Tasman companies on a pro-rata basis to Australian and New Zealand investors."

1.18     On 29 August 2000, the Australian Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, and the New Zealand Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, issued a joint press statement advising that they had requested officials to develop a workable solution to the triangular issue and assess the costs and benefits of applying such a solution.

1.19     On 20 June 2001, Dr Cullen announced that Mr Costello and he had agreed that the mechanism should be one that allocates both franking and imputation credits to shareholders in proportion to their shareholding of the company. It would involve a mechanism known as pro rata allocation. As a further step in the process, a discussion document would be published to assist consultation.

1.20     This resulting discussion document outlines the preferred approach that the two governments will ultimately consider in deciding whether or not to reform the treatment of trans-Tasman triangular taxation. It also discusses other approaches to the provision of triangular relief and explains why both governments have decided not to pursue these other approaches.

Application date

1.21     It is proposed that triangular reform would apply no earlier than the New Zealand imputation year beginning 1 April 2003. Triangular reform would apply to companies from a particular day. For example, franking credits would arise in respect of franked dividends, or dividend withholding tax paid on unfranked dividends, paid on or after the start date.

Submissions

1.22      The Australian and New Zealand governments welcome submissions on this discussion document by 3 May 2002. Submissions should be addressed to either:

1.23     In New Zealand, submissions may be published on the website of the Policy Advice Division of the Inland Revenue Department, in the interests of making the information widely available. Should you object to your submission being published in this way, please clearly specify this in your submission. Whether published on the website or not, submissions may also be made publicly available if requested within New Zealand under the Official Information Act 1982. The withholding of particular submissions or parts of submissions on the grounds of privacy, or for any other reason, will be determined in accordance with that Act. If you feel that your identity and/or any part of your submission should be properly withheld under that Act, please indicate this clearly in your submission.