Ring Fencing Matters

[Pipg]

Ring Fencing Rules

Given pandemic- should new Ring Fencing Rules be deferred for another year (or abandoned). Ditto Healthy Homes. This allows some negatively geared landlords some extra $ flow and a cushion to keep tenants paying less during crisis/recession. Or does Labour hate landlords so much not going to happen (help the tenants, try to get rid of landlords). If yes - how to put pressure on government to act ASAP (before tax year ends).

[donna]

Great idea however it's not likely as this Gov't are not 'Landlord-friendly'.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

It's not likely as this Gov't is not 'LL-friendly'.

Not that - no. Not really, as in not vehement enough.

The current crop of socio-commie woodenheads are LL hostile.

[Monsterbishi]

Not that - no. Not really, as in not vehement enough.

The current crop of socio-commie woodenheads are LL hostile.

It's because they're picking a fight but at the same time already know full well that it doesn't matter how much the deck is stacked, they're going to lose.

[Perry]

. . . . they're going to lose.

As in lose the G.E?

[Monsterbishi]

As in lose the G.E?

As in the outcome of any of their actions will result in a net loss, be it financial or otherwise.

Even if they win the election it leaves them to bear the responsibility of the last three years, there's only so many times you can use the word 'reset' in a press release!

[simongu]

Re the Healthy Homes part, I listened in on a Crockers crisis-impact webinar a couple of days ago, covered a good amount of territory including this. From memory they said that they / REINZ are making representation to gummint about delaying HH deadlines. The presenters feeling was that the 1 July 20 one would not be delayed as no action action is required only doing assessments, and the 1 July 21 deadline is still being discussed. Source here: View recording

Too late to defer Ring Fencing, already in place, I got caught by this for one of my companies for my recently filed return for FY20

And agree with other posters, Labour party has an idealogical aversion to LLs and has an agenda to make the private LL market non-viable (but with no plan for a replacement)

[artemis]

For the record - several recent Written Parliamentary Questions from Judith Collins on ring fencing rental losses. Note that this will be repealed if there is a change of government this year.

6434 (2020). Hon Judith Collins to the Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash) (24 Apr 2020): Will he consider amendments to the new rules on ring-fencing of rental losses in light of COVID-19?
Hon Stuart Nash (Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash)) replied: I can confirm that amendments to the residential ring-fencing rules are not currently being considered.

6440 (2020). Hon Judith Collins to the Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash) (24 Apr 2020): What discussions, if any, has he had on delaying ring-fencing of rental losses on residential property as part of the Government's response to COVID-19?
Hon Stuart Nash (Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash)) replied: I have held no discussions on delaying ring-fencing of rental losses as part of the Government’s response to COVID-19.

6438 (2020). Hon Judith Collins to the Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash) (24 Apr 2020): What briefings, if any, has he received on ring-fencing rental losses since 1 October 2019 by title and date?
Hon Stuart Nash (Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash)) replied: No briefings have been received on ring-fencing rental losses since 1 October 2019

6436 (2020). Hon Judith Collins to the Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash) (24 Apr 2020): What was the total implementation cost for Inland Revenue of ring-fencing rental losses?
Hon Stuart Nash (Revenue (Minister - Stuart Nash)) replied: I have been advised that the operating costs to implement the ring-fencing policy were absorbed into Inland Revenue’s baseline operations for the delivery of legislative changes to annual returns. Inland Revenue is unable to break down the baseline operating costs to a specific annual returns change such as the ring-fencing policy.

[flyernzl]

The silly thing is that the Govt has bought in an allowance of $5000 for a capital expense write-off for one year to encourage landlords to spend, and then imposed the ring-fencing which will deter those same landlords from spending.
Real Lewis Carroll stuff!

[Wayne]

Too late to defer Ring Fencing, already in place, I got caught by this for one of my companies for my recently filed return for FY21

You're doing better than me - I haven't filed the FY20 yet and you've already done next years.

[simongu]

Aagh, you got me, thats a typo should have been FY20, will edit, thanks. Anyway I wanted to file asap as I knew I was loss making and wanted to bring my 7 May Prov tax down

[Rosco]

The silly thing is that the Govt has bought in an allowance of $5000 for a capital expense write-off for one year to encourage landlords to spend, and then imposed the ring-fencing which will deter those same landlords from spending.
Real Lewis Carroll stuff!

They would have been intending this for businesses not property.

[flyernzl]

They would have been intending this for businesses not property.

I have an email fro MBIE that states unequivocally that they consider residential rentals to be a business.

[Rosco]

I have an email fro MBIE that states unequivocally that they consider residential rentals to be a business.

I'm not saying rentals isn't a business. Just that they would have intended the $5,000 new asset threshold for business not property

Ross

[Perry]

Eh, What?

Stop digging, Ross.

E.g. Buying an asset like a heat pump (for a residential rental property) is not the same as 'property.' (Whatever your bubble defines property as.)

And - how have you divined this: they would have intended

An Appeal Court bench appointment beckons, perhaps?

Have fun with the nouveau 'what parliament intended' dilemma.