Ring Fencing Matters

[Rosco]

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.

Hi Perry,

The original post that I answered to was "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,"


This original post is subjective just like my answer. It is the poster presuming that the $5,000 capital expense write-off was to encourage landlords to spend.

My opinion also subjective as it was an opinion, was that government hate landlords and wouldn't do anything to encourage landlords to do anything, instead my opinion was the government intended this allowance for business. So government either don't care or didn't think of the consequences for landlords.

Ross

[Perry]

Heh, Heh.

The original post that I answered to was "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."

Right. But that sentence is not subjective.

The way you responded is such that, in your mind, the expression LL necessarily implies residential rentals?

Either way - commercial or residential - are you implying or suggesting that the commercial activity of being a residential rental LL is NOT a business that can incur a capital expense?

I doubt it.

It may be a gummint unintended consequence for residential rental LLs, but it is tax-specific, nonetheless.

[Wayne]

Right. But that sentence is not subjective.

The way you responded is such that, in your mind, the expression LL necessarily implies residential rentals?

Either way - commercial or residential - are you implying or suggesting that the commercial activity of being a residential rental LL is NOT a business that can incur a capital expense?

I doubt it.

It may be a gummint unintended consequence for residential rental LLs, but it is tax-specific, nonetheless.

Residential and commercial could incur a capital expense and would be able to write it off under the $5k allowance.
Not all business (rental or otherwise) make losses and therefore many residential rental owners will be able to happily use this (I will).
Some people seem to narrow these things down far to far - there is more to NZ business than residential rentals!

[Wayne]

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!

You have such a narrow view of the world.
It wasn't brought in just for landlords and many landlords will still be able to use it as they make a profit (don't you?)!
Your world may revolve around property but not everyones does.