Inland Revenue has developed a discussion paper proposing that Fringe Benefit Tax should be applied to cash and non cash benefits as part of salary packages for people employed by charities.
Their arguments are that charities need to be treated the same as other employers and should pay fringe benefit tax.
In preparing our submission on this paper, we’re considering two angles. We’d appreciate comment and suggestion from you in developing our submission for the end of May deadline.
- It’s a matter of principle.
Salaries in our sector are not equitable, and this should be recognised by Inland Revenue as an arm of government.
Surveys in our sector clearly demonstrate that salary scales in the not for profit sector are substantially less than in others : in April 2012 the difference in median base salaries between NFP and public sector was 14.7%, and 15% with the general market. (Strategic pay NFP Remuneration survey April 2010).
While all charities pay PAYE and GST, the Government supports charities by allowing a tax exempt status (donee status) to recognise the voluntary and public good work by thousands of different organisations in New Zealand.
While charities (and indeed all NFP organisations) pay PAYE and GST, the tax s less cash in their pay packet system is also used to create an enabling and supportive environment to encourage community based activities and provide opportunities for participation and involvement.
This status was last described in Kia Tutahi, the Relationship Accord signed by the Government in 2011, which includes an assumption to “respect and value the contribution of Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary organisations” (Kia Tutahi 2011).
Exemption from Fringe Benefit Tax has been part of this status, and we do not accept that there is an equity argument for changing the provisions at this stage.
- In practical terms it creates an additional level of complexity and compliance.
Fringe Benefit tax is notoriously difficult to manage and takes considerable resources to administer in terms of calculating such things as proportion of personal and business use of vehicles, eligibility for different forms of non implicit trade-offs in offering such benefits as car parks, child care, health insurance or memberships (gyms, professional bodies).
Very few charities can realistically offer trade-offs on salaries, which means that if the benefit were withdrawn there’d be a corresponding increase in salary. In practice, where such benefits can be offered, they are seen as an incentive rather than a trade off to compensate for lower salary levels.
So, calculating what actually is a trade off in our sector will be challenging, and add considerable time and effort to manage, with probably not a lot to gain in additional revenue for Government.
Keeping tax requirements for charities simple is an important issue for the many volunteer committee and treasurers that manage the books for organisations.
At a time when many organisations are cash-strapped, such proposals create further compliance costs for organisations that will struggle to meet their obligations.
We urge the Government not to introduce further costs and compliance issues for charities in New Zealand, especially at a time when many are struggling to manage within their resources.