Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 One of the themes of Budget 2010 was the need to improve the integrity of the tax system and social assistance programmes so that individuals pay their fair share of tax and social assistance is targeted at those in genuine need.

1.2 Key in this objective is the comprehensive taxation of labour income and other benefits provided by employers to their employees in exchange for labour services, or as comprehensive an approach as practicalities will allow. A second important aspect is the comprehensive recognition of those various cash and non-cash returns to labour when determining eligibility for social assistance.

1.3 This issues paper discusses ways in which the current tax rules can be broadened in this regard. Views of employers and employees are sought on the suggested changes presented in this paper.

The suggested approach

1.4 Taking as our starting point that salary and salary substitutes should be taxed equally, ideally we would want to tax all material benefits that are salary substitutes. This is largely achieved under current tax legislation with salary and wages being treated as employment income, and subject to PAYE, and most non-cash benefits received as a result of employment treated as fringe benefits, and subject to fringe benefit tax (FBT).[1]  There are, however, a few long-standing exceptions.

1.5 While these exceptions, in the form of FBT exemptions, can result in employees receiving material untaxed benefits, their removal, based on past experience, would likely be contentious. This is partly because of the resulting valuation and compliance cost issues and partly because of the sensitivities associated with the exemptions themselves. The exemptions that are particularly relevant in this context are car parks and childcare provided on the employer’s premises, and benefits received by employees of charitable organisations.

1.6 In these circumstances we have decided to focus primarily on those situations where salary substitution is more evident, such as when an amount of salary has been traded off or given up for non-cash benefits (referred to as a salary trade-off). In other words, there is a cash alternative to taking up the benefit. For the purposes of this issues paper, it is suggested that those amounts be made taxable. Implicit trade-offs, when the amount of the salary alternative is not specifically identified but the employee has an enforceable right to the benefit, would also be included to address the behavioural shift that could otherwise potentially arise.

1.7 Crucially, this focus on salary trade-off situations also helps in achieving the policy objective of enhancing the integrity of key social assistance programmes. The focus in this regard is on Working for Families tax credits, the parental income test for student allowances, some recipients of community services cards (programmes based on “family scheme income”) and child support obligations. Budget 2010 made a number of changes to arrive at a better measure of the economic income available to a family (referred to as “family scheme income”) when determining eligibility for social assistance.[2] Including salary trade-offs would take this a step further by covering another form of economic income.

1.8 Some non-cash benefits, such as employer-provided accommodation, are automatically included in “family scheme income” as they are part of an employee’s taxable income. However, fringe benefits are generally not included because they are taxed in the hands of the employer.[3] Including salary trade-offs would mean that these fringe benefits would be included in family scheme income when salary has been traded off for them. Certain benefits that are currently outside the FBT net would also be included to the extent of any salary trade-off.

1.9 Limiting change to salary trade-off situations is consistent with the approach outlined in the August 2010 officials’ issues paper, Social assistance integrity: defining family income. That approach is that changes should not include (for social assistance purposes) economic income that is not reasonably available to meet family needs. Chapter 3 discusses the definition of “family scheme income”.

Benefits of this approach

1.10 Overall, the changes suggested in this issues paper should achieve a more equitable and efficient outcome.

1.11 Applying a more neutral treatment between salary and salary trade-offs lessens the likelihood of tax-driven economic behaviour. There are economic efficiency gains from reducing the tax incentive to provide non-cash remuneration and the associated reduction in the attractiveness of activities that lend themselves to high non-cash benefit remuneration.

1.12 Neutrality also means greater equity as employees enjoying equivalent remuneration packages pay equivalent tax and, all other things being equal, receive equivalent social assistance, regardless of the package’s composition.

1.13 Focusing on salary trade-offs also addresses a long-standing issue with the current boundary used to determine whether the provision of a car park is or is not a fringe benefit. That boundary has traditionally been whether the car park is on the employer’s premises, with “premises” being based on the interpretation of common law so that a leased car park, like one that is owned by the employer, is exempt from FBT whereas a licensed car park is not. There are, however, arguments that some licensed car parks would also qualify for an exemption, which would make the boundary hard to identify. Under the suggested salary trade-off approach, this distinction would be removed. All car parks and childcare benefits would be excluded from the on-premises FBT exemption and instead only be taxable when part of a salary trade-off.

How might a salary trade-off rule be applied?

1.14 There are two ways that a salary trade-off rule could be designed. Both are intended to achieve the same overall tax and social assistance result.

Option 1 – PAYE approach

1.15 The first option is to apply the approach comprehensively to all salary trade-offs, not just those where the underlying benefit provided by the employer is currently untaxed, and to tax the salary trade-off in the hands of the employee through PAYE. This would mean that all salary trade-offs would automatically count as income when determining eligibility to a range of social assistance programmes. Under this option, to ensure that the amount is not double taxed when the underlying benefit is subject to FBT, the salary trade-off amount (net of PAYE) in relation to those benefits, would also be treated as an employee contribution when assessing the employer’s FBT liability.

Option 2 – FBT approach

1.16 The second option is to target the salary trade-off rule only to certain currently FBT-exempt benefits, being predominantly car parks and childcare provided on the employer’s premises and benefits received by employees of charitable organisations. FBT would be applied to such trade-off amounts.

1.17 This approach would then require an employer to advise each employee of the amount of all fringe benefits provided to that employee when there has been a salary trade-off. Employees would then include those amounts in their “family scheme income” calculations.

1.18 An appropriate minimum value threshold would be included to ensure that the results are the same whether taxed as salary and wages or under the FBT rules.

1.19 This issues paper seeks the views of employers and employees on the relative merits, including compliance costs, of these two options, and whether some combination of the elements of each option could be preferable.

Charitable organisations

1.20 Although non-cash benefits provided to employees of charitable organisations currently have a general exemption from FBT, the salary trade-off approach would be applied to such benefits too. This would therefore limit the general exemption rather than replace it.

1.21 Additionally, legislative clarification is suggested in relation to the general exemption. Various arrangements are being marketed to charitable organisations, such as the provision of vouchers, which in effect aim to extend the scope of the exemption to cover an employee’s normal everyday living expenses. Because these types of arrangements provide such a readily substitutable alternative to salary and wages, and there is argument over whether they are taxable, they could cause a material risk to the tax base. Consequently, a wider response than focussing on salary-trade-offs is suggested in such cases, which is that these types of arrangements be more explicitly excluded from the FBT exemption for benefits provided to employees of charitable organisations.

1.22 A change is also suggested to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 (the GST Act), to ensure that non-profit bodies, like other employers, pay GST output tax on the fringe benefits they provide. The reason that output tax should be charged is that the benefits amount to private consumption by the employee. Non-profit bodies are already able to claim GST input tax credits on the goods and services acquired to provide such benefits.

Other changes to family scheme income

1.23 There is a strong argument for extending the definition of “family scheme income” to include all near-cash equivalent fringe benefits received by employees, not just when those benefits are part of a salary trade-off. Such facilities provide a very ready means by which a family can meet its living expenses. Accordingly, one of the suggested changes in this issues paper is to include all employer-provided short-term charge facilities and vouchers in “family scheme income”.

Application date

1.24 The above tax changes would apply from 1 April 2014, with the changes being included in a tax bill later this year. Any changes to the parental income test for student allowances would be given effect by amending the Student Allowances Regulations 1998.

How to make a submission

1.25 Submissions on this paper should be made by 31 May 2012 and can be addressed to:

Recognising salary trade-offs as income
C/- Deputy Commissioner
Policy Advice Division
Inland Revenue Department
P O Box 2198
Wellington 6140

1.26 Or email: [email protected] with “Recognising salary trade-offs as income” in the subject line.

1.27 Submissions should include a brief summary of major points and recommendations. They should also indicate whether it would be acceptable for officials from Inland Revenue and the Treasury to contact those making submissions and to discuss their submission, if required.

1.28 Submissions may be the subject of a request under the Official Information Act 1982, which may result in their publication. The withholding of particular submissions on the grounds of privacy, or for any other reason, will be determined in accordance with that Act. Those making a submission who consider there is any part of it that should properly be withheld under the Act should clearly indicate this.

1Similarly, employer contributions to an employee’s superannuation fund are subject to employer contribution superannuation tax.

2 In addition, the Government’s 2010 discussion document, Supporting children canvassed the idea of broadening the definition of income for child support purposes and this has been incorporated in the Child Support Amendment Bill introduced in 2011.

3Budget 2010 brought attributable fringe benefits provided to shareholder-employees who control a company within the social assistance income net. The officials’ issues paper, Social assistance integrity: defining family income released in August 2010, however, noted that there was scope for including an even wider range of fringe benefits.