Proposed Amendment to Brightline Test: What You Need to Know

Angela Hodges • 19 March 2024

The government has finally introduced the Bill with the proposed changes to the Brightline test, and interest deductibility for residential rental property owners. 

The Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters Bill proposes significant changes.


Key Features of the Proposed Amendments:

  1. Repeal of Current Bright-line Tests
    The proposals repeal the existing 10-year and 5-year new build bright-line tests and replace them with the new 2-year bright-line test.
  2. Simplification of Main Home Exclusion
    The exclusion would apply if the land has been predominantly used as the person’s main home for most of the ownership period.
  3. Extension of Rollover Relief
    Rollover relief rules would be extended to cover all transfers between associated persons, provided they have been associated for at least two years prior to the transfer.


Proposed Changes – Brightline Rules

Proposed Changes: The amendment proposes to repeal the current bright-line tests and replace them with a new 2-year bright-line test. This shift aims to return the bright-line test to its original purpose of taxing income from property sales within a specified period, particularly targeting land speculators.


Application Date: The proposed changes would come into effect for disposals of residential land occurring on or after 1 July 2024. This means that any property sale after this date would be subject to the new 2-year bright-line test. 


Remembering that the brightline period ends when an Agreement to Sell the property is signed. It is critical that vendors do not sign any sales agreement prior to 1 July 2024. If they do, they will fall within the existing rules and could be caught.


Extension of Rollover Relief – Finally!

The proposed amendment to the bright-line test also includes a significant expansion of rollover relief provisions. Rollover relief aims to mitigate the tax consequences of certain property transfers, particularly between associated persons or entities, by deferring taxation until a later date.

Under the current legislation, rollover relief is limited to specific circumstances, such as transfers involving relationship property, inherited property, or into a related Trust. However, the proposed amendment seeks to broaden the scope of rollover relief to cover a wider range of transactions.


The key expansion involves extending rollover relief to apply to all transfers between associated persons, provided they have been associated for at least two years prior to the transfer.


By extending rollover relief to all associated person transfers, the amendment aims to provide tax relief for genuine transactions that do not involve speculative behaviour. This extension acknowledges that not all transfers between associated persons are driven by profit-seeking motives and should not be subject to immediate taxation under the bright-line test. It recognizes the importance of facilitating transfers within family units or between closely connected entities without imposing unnecessary tax liabilities.


Critically, it could finally resolve the issue with parents being taxed on imaginary gains when trying to help their children into their first homes.


The proposed amendment to the bright-line test in New Zealand represents a significant shift in property taxation policy. If implemented, it would have implications for property investors and speculators, as well as homeowners. Stay informed about these changes to ensure compliance and understand their impact on property transactions.


*This publication contains generic information only. NZ Tax Desk Ltd is not responsible for any loss sustained by anyone relying on the contents of this publication. We recommend you obtain specific taxation advice for your circumstances. 


A person is drawing a red circle around the number 30 on a calendar
by Angela Hodges 4 June 2025
The Deadline is Approaching for FY25 General Approval Applications
An aerial view of a parking lot filled with lots of cars.
by Angela Hodges 28 May 2025
The end of the Work Related Vehicle FBT Exemption.
A man is writing on a piece of paper while using a calculator.
by Angela Hodges 14 April 2025
If your business is carrying out research and development (R&D) work, you may be eligible to receive a cash payment from Inland Revenue— however there is limited time to act if you want to claim this for FY24.
A man in a suit and tie is holding a piece of paper in his hand.
by Angela Hodges 25 March 2025
Among the biggest winners from the Government’s proposed Foreign Investment Fund (FIF) reforms are likely to be US citizens living in New Zealand. The proposed Revenue Account Method, which is set to take effect from 1 April 2025, offers significant relief from the sometimes harsh and often unfair outcomes created when the US and NZ tax systems collide. The Double Tax Problem for US Citizens Unlike most countries, the United States taxes individuals based on citizenship, not residency. This means that US citizens remain fully taxable by the IRS no matter where in the world they live. When they become New Zealand tax residents, they are subject to NZ’s FIF rules – which tax unrealised gains each year. The problem is that these deemed gains are not recognised by the US tax system, which only taxes actual income or realised gains. This mismatch creates a common scenario where a US citizen in NZ pays tax to New Zealand on phantom FIF income (including unrealised capital gains) but then pays US tax again when the investment is eventually sold – with no US tax credit for the NZ tax already paid. The result is real, permanent double taxation. How the Revenue Account Method Helps The proposed Revenue Account Method addresses these challenges by bringing New Zealand’s tax treatment of FIF investments more in line with the US tax system, as it only taxes: Tax is only triggered when dividends are received or capital gains are realised, allowing US citizens to align taxable events across both jurisdictions. Capital gains are only partially taxed in NZ (70%), and foreign tax credits may be available in the US when realisation occurs (US tax advice will be required). For example, under current rules, FIF income is often calculated using the Fair Dividend Rate (FDR) method – which taxes 5% of the opening value of most foreign shares annually, even if no income is actually received. While this is straightforward from a compliance perspective, it does not align well with US capital gains tax rules, which only tax gains when they are realised. This mismatch can lead to several problems: Double taxation : US citizens in New Zealand can be taxed on notional income under the FIF regime that doesn’t correspond to any US tax liability, meaning no foreign tax credit is available in the US. Compliance complexity : The requirement to use different tax bases (realisation for US purposes, deemed accrual/unrealised gains in NZ) creates extra complexity for reporting and record-keeping. Cash flow issues : As no cash is received under FDR (and potentially CV), taxpayers may be forced to fund NZ tax from other sources or liquidate investments earlier than intended. For US citizens holding private equity, start-up shares, or unlisted interests acquired prior to NZ tax residency, this new method could make a substantial difference. It removes the need to fund NZ tax liabilities out of pocket for income never actually received. The new Revenue Account Method should be especially attractive to US citizens holding equity in start-ups, employee share schemes, or private investment vehicles, where growth potential is high but cash flow is minimal. However, it is important to remember that ultimately this method will still tax capital gains on these offshore investments, as well as taxing dividends. The Revenue Account Method should not be a default go-to for new residents, as some taxpayers may have more favourable outcomes with the existing FIF methods. See our more detailed article on the new Revenue Account Method here. Planning Tips for US Citizens and Advisors If you or your clients are US citizens becoming NZ tax residents, consider the following planning steps: Document asset values on entry : For investments eligible for the Revenue Account Method, the cost base will be the value at the time NZ tax residence begins. A formal valuation may be required to substantiate this. Review eligibility : Confirm that the taxpayer became fully tax resident in NZ on or after 1 April 2024 and that investments were acquired before residency (or pursuant to pre-residency arrangements). Coordinate with US tax advisors : Cross-border alignment is key. A coordinated strategy that considers both US and NZ tax consequences will reduce surprises and improve outcomes. Contact us to discuss how these changes could affect your US-NZ tax position. Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is general in nature and does not constitute personalised tax advice. You should consult with a qualified tax adviser familiar with both US and NZ tax systems before making any decisions based on this content.
A city skyline with a stock chart in the foreground.
by Angela Hodges 25 March 2025
A Welcome Boost for Migrants and Returning Kiwis
by Angela Hodges 24 February 2025
Act Now: Help Your Clients Remove Properties from the GST Net Before the Deadline
by Angela Hodges 15 January 2025
As tax advisors, we know there has long been contention around the tax treatment of loyalty points and rewards. We have seen numerous times how large these benefits can actually be. It’s an issue that has largely been overlooked, and something that clients have certainly not wanted to know about.
by Angela Hodges 28 November 2024
As accountants, you're often confronted with specific scenarios regarding Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) and Goods and Services Tax (GST). Below are answers to some common questions.
A couple booking accommodation on their mobile phone.
by Angela Hodges 29 September 2024
How Upcoming Tax Changes Could Streamline Reporting for Short-Stay Accommodation Providers
by Angela Hodges 30 June 2024
The Inland Revenue has recently released a new draft Interpretation Statement, PUB 0040: Income tax – overdrawn shareholder loan account balances . This statement is currently open for consultation until 2 August 2024. Family-owned small businesses often operate through close companies. Given the significant control shareholders have over these companies, it is common for them to withdraw company funds for personal use. These amounts are commonly transacted through the Shareholder Current Account. The issue is when these Shareholder Current Accounts become overdrawn. In practice, the reasoning behind an overdrawn Shareholder Current Account can often be the sale of a capital asset and the withdrawal of those funds by the shareholder (without declaring a dividend). Unfortunately, we also commonly see this when a company, or the shareholders, are struggling financially. In this context it is perhaps timely, given the struggles businesses have been going through, for the Inland Revenue to issue a reminder about the potential tax issues these overdrawn Shareholder Current Accounts can present. Understanding Shareholder Loan Accounts and Their Tax Implications Firstly, the Inland Revenue refers to a Shareholder Loan Account. In practice, this is often a Shareholder Current Account, thus I have used the terminology interchangeably. Shareholder Current Accounts are generally informal arrangements between close companies and their shareholders, documenting any advances made between the two. When a shareholder withdraws more money from the company than they have advanced, the account becomes overdrawn, leading to several potential tax issues. The following tax issues apply equally to a Shareholder Loan balance, where the shareholder owes the company funds. Tax Issues Arising from Overdrawn Shareholder Loan Accounts 1. Dividend Income: If a shareholder pays no or low interest on an overdrawn loan account, dividend income may arise. For this reason, the company will generally charge the shareholders interest on the overdrawn shareholder current account. 2. Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT): Shareholder-employees who pay no or low interest on their overdrawn accounts may face FBT liabilities. 3. Interest Income: Companies charging interest on overdrawn accounts generate interest income. This interest will be taxable income to the company and may be non-deductible to the shareholder (discussed further below). 4. Resident Withholding Tax (RWT): Companies can claim a tax credit for RWT withheld from interest payable. The credit is claimable in the year the interest is derived, provided the RWT has been paid to Inland Revenue. 5. Interest Deductibility: Interest paid by shareholders on overdrawn accounts is typically not deductible as it often funds private expenditure. However, if the borrowed money is used for income-earning activities or businesses, a deduction may be available, subject to documentation and general limitations. 6. Withholding and Reporting Requirements: Shareholders paying RWT may have obligations to deduct RWT on interest paid to the company on the balance of the current account (or loan). 7. Debt Forgiveness: If a shareholder is relieved of their obligation to repay an overdrawn loan balance, this typically results in taxable debt remission income for the shareholder. For this reason, the company cannot simply forgive the loan or overdrawn balance. Importantly, the company should never be wound up with the shareholders owing the company funds, as this could also trigger taxable debt remission income. Beyond the scope of the Interpretation Statement, there are additional potential tax issues to consider with Shareholder Current Accounts: 8. Salary: If the shareholder is taking regular drawings to meet their living costs, there is support for the Inland Revenue to reconstitute these drawings as taxable salary or personal services income in some circumstances. This is particularly where the company has not paid the shareholder a reasonable market salary or met the personal services or attribution rules. 9. Documentation: There is caselaw in which loan repayments have been reconstituted as taxable income to the shareholder, however those are extreme examples involving an absence of documentation. It is always important to document all loans to the company. Any transactions between the company and the shareholder should include clear narrations e.g. on the bank transfer. Take care in those narrations, if something is labelled “salary”, chances are the IRD would argue it should be taxed as such. Understanding these tax implications is crucial for both companies and shareholders to ensure compliance and optimize their tax positions. *This publication contains generic information only. NZ Tax Desk Ltd is not responsible for any loss sustained by anyone relying on the contents of this publication. We recommend you obtain specific taxation advice for your circumstances.
More posts