It seems quite clear that NZ has allowed trusts to be registered by
the IRD when they have no direct connection to NZ - they are not 'tax resident', don't own assets in NZ, don't have NZ-resident
beneficiaries and don't derive income from within NZ.

So why does NZ permit this?

Its a question asked here:

"It isn't clear why it's worth allowing them at all - the only
beneficiaries appear to be the lawyers who earn about $20 million a
year managing them"

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/explaining-panama-papers-leak-means-tax-haven-new-zealand

The answer seems quite clear and simple - the IRD does not grant
registration (presumably an IRD number) to any entity (trust or
o9therwise) unless there is a connection with NZ in the form of
income, assets, and/or tax-resident trustees and/or beneficiaries.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 2016-04-09, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems quite clear that NZ has allowed trusts to be registered by
the IRD when they have no direct connection to NZ - they are not 'tax resident', don't own assets in NZ, don't have NZ-resident
beneficiaries and don't derive income from within NZ.

So why does NZ permit this?

Its a question asked here:

"It isn't clear why it's worth allowing them at all - the only
beneficiaries appear to be the lawyers who earn about $20 million a
year managing them"

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/explaining-panama-papers-leak-means-tax-haven-new-zealand

The answer seems quite clear and simple - the IRD does not grant
registration (presumably an IRD number) to any entity (trust or
o9therwise) unless there is a connection with NZ in the form of
income, assets, and/or tax-resident trustees and/or beneficiaries.

Yes, but will anything be done along these lines? Probably but when?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 9 Apr 2016 06:06:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:

On 2016-04-09, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

It seems quite clear that NZ has allowed trusts to be registered by
the IRD when they have no direct connection to NZ - they are not 'tax
resident', don't own assets in NZ, don't have NZ-resident
beneficiaries and don't derive income from within NZ.

So why does NZ permit this?

Its a question asked here:

"It isn't clear why it's worth allowing them at all - the only
beneficiaries appear to be the lawyers who earn about $20 million a
year managing them"

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/explaining-panama-papers-leak-means-tax-haven-new-zealand

The answer seems quite clear and simple - the IRD does not grant
registration (presumably an IRD number) to any entity (trust or
o9therwise) unless there is a connection with NZ in the form of
income, assets, and/or tax-resident trustees and/or beneficiaries.

Yes, but will anything be done along these lines? Probably but when?

At least the subject is getting talked about. Its mixed up with other international tax issues as well, and likely to be an issue until the
next election. See: http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/12/18/wealth-management-tax-avoidance-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/

My take is that governments will be forced to make at least token
changes; here that may mean the government still rejecting the bill
about transparency put forward by the Green Party, but probably
putting their own bill on similar lines through in a few months time,
but real changes will probably take a year or more - in our case until
after the election.

In the meantime a bit of humour is sometimes welcome: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/78700275/david-slack-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-tax

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)