Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

New law limits tax write-off scope on farms

PA Wellington Farmers who diversify into completely different types of farming may strike new tax laws limiting the size of losses they can write off on their new operation, according to the Inland Revenue Department.

Under the new Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), a farmer diversifying from his present farm operation can be subject to a ?10,000 limit on tax write-off for the new activity — with two exceptions. The act lays down “specified activities” in farming. If the farmer diversifies within that specified activity, whether on his own farm or another property, he does not face the $lO,OOO limit.

For instance, a fanner wanting to diversify from sheepfarming into another form of pastoralism, such as deer or goats, would not run up against the limit because both activities fall within the same specified activity. But a dairy farmer diversifying into kiwifruit would be allowed to write off only ?10,000 of his kiwifruit costs against his dairying income. A mussel farmer wanting to start a deer farm would face the same limit.

One of the exceptions is a farmer who has gained his livelihood from one property for at least five years. He is free to diversify into any other activity, provided it is on his existing farm. But if he buys another property and starts a different activity there, he will strike the $lO,OOO clause.

The other exception is diversification into “complementary” activities. For ex-

ample, a kiwifruit farmer could write off the costs of putting beehives on his orchard against his kiwifruit income because that would be a complementary activity, although both are different specified activities.

It is up to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to decide what a complementary activity is. The department says it can only administer the law and not comment on whether it is fair or unfair. However, a spokesman asked why a dairy farmer who bought into a kiwifruit orchard should be treated differently from a lawyer or accountant who did the same thing.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19830624.2.30

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, 24 June 1983, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
339

New law limits tax write-off scope on farms Press, 24 June 1983, Page 3

New law limits tax write-off scope on farms Press, 24 June 1983, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert