Back to Making Tax Simpler
Speed and accuracy of PAYE

Should employees provide date of birth information to Inland Revenue, via their employer?

Security and privacy concerns were raised in previous consultations.  Problems can arise in the tax system where people have the same name as others, use different spellings or versions of their own names, or make errors when they provide IRD numbers. These problems include deductions being wrongly credited and obligations wrongly assigned.

Confusion over identity would be significantly reduced if the information new employees provided to their employer, to be forwarded to Inland Revenue, included their date of birth.    

Example: Michael new employee 

Michael started his first job in April. His father’s name is also Michael and when the young Michael gives the payroll officer his IRD number he provided his father’s number by mistake – it was the first one he found in the desk drawer where the family papers were stored. 

At year end his father requested a PTS because he thought he was probably due a refund for the short period he had had between jobs. He was amazed to find that his income was reported as $31,000 higher than he thought and that he had significant tax to pay.   Although the problem got sorted out relatively quickly once he contacted Inland Revenue it caused considerable stress in the interim.  If Michael had had to provide his date of birth along with his IRD number the problem could have been avoided.

Questions

1.  Do you agree with the proposal that employers should obtain date of birth information and provide this information about their new employees to Inland Revenue?

2.  Should the requirement on the employee to provide date of birth information be included in legislation?

Comments

David Williamson
definitely not. This would result in additional compliance cost. The Companies have made this compulsory this year for all company directors and this has meant a lot of additional time procuring the information.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree4
  • disagree7
8 months ago
David Seifert
This would be quite an easy proposal to implement as long as it was not retrospective. Just add date of birth to the IR330 form. Provided all employers maintain the rule of no form no pay that should eventually solve such problems.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree9
  • disagree6
8 months ago
Carol
Yes I see no problem with this. It takes away the likely hood of errors for people with similar names and also would also be helpful to deter some cases of benefit/tax fraud.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree7
  • disagree6
8 months ago
Andrea
No problem with this - it will stop the wrong people getting bothered when an ID error occurs. We have to now file date & place of birth for all directors when doing an annual return - this is again to clear up identity confusion.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree2
  • disagree4
8 months ago
Financial Adviser
Absolutely! Providing the date of birth allows for full transparency in the country for all income and matching of client details. Makes perfect sense if you have nothing to hide.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree6
  • disagree5
7 months ago
Commonsense 2
In response to the questions put definitely; 1. No ; and 2. No. This all speaks of "big brother".

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree2
  • disagree5
7 months ago
Megan B
Agree with both, this will make KiwiSaver enrolments easier as well. No more issues with guessing someone's age.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree1
  • disagree5
6 months ago
Simon Mahony
Absolutely. DOB should be part of all standard sets of data held by the anyone who stores account information of any kind. As someone who has had to sort out confusion between people with similar names (and often the same address) in large sets of data, I can say that the cost of compliance when implementing this tiny change within a company is absolutely nothing compared to the cost (and frustration to all parties) of dealing with this at the level of government or large financial institutions. The "big brother" concerns are not relevant as "big brother" has far better ways to track you already. Ironically, it's the perfectly legitimate uses of data (like this, or the letters you get from insurance companies and banks) that suffer due to lack of clarity about who's who.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree2
  • disagree3
6 months ago
Jac
To be honest, I thought this information was already being provided as I know we as an employer collect it! So it makes sense that this information is provided if it leads to more accurate identification of a person.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree2
  • disagree5
6 months ago
Jac
With regard to making it compulsory via legislation - is that really necessary? Or would a simple update of the IR330 be sufficient? Anyone who doesn't want their date of birth disclosed to the IRD via the employer when it should already be attached to their IRD profile anyway would make me raise an eyebrow...

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree1
  • disagree4
6 months ago
Noel Reid
No, DOB should not have to be disclosed to your employer. It's a privacy issue. Supply directly to IR if necessary.

Do you agree with this comment?

  • agree2
  • disagree3
5 months ago
Scroll To Top