Chamber Criticises Payroll Tax

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32367, 5 August 1970, Page 14

Chamber Criticises Payroll Tax

Where the payroll tax could be passed on this would be done, and in this respect the tax was inflationary; where it could not be passed on, the tax was unfair on the companies and individuals, concerned.

These opinions were ex- Tzust Office, which were pressed in a report from its liable for payroll tax. taxation committee which The committee agreed that was adopted by the Canter- one of the intentions behind bury Chamber of Commerce the imposition of the tax was last evening. to correct inefficiencies in

The report endorsed recommendations from the Auckland and Associated Chambers of Commerce:

(a) That non-profit bodies now taxed should not be liable for more than the proportion of their payroll tax that their taxable income bore to their subscription income.

(b) That bodies now exempt from taxation should be exempted from payroll tax. As examples of anomalies and inequities created by the payroll tax, the committee cited the following examples: (1) Firms who had contracts at firm prices for erecting buildings, manufacturing plant and equipment, were unfairly penalised as there was no provision in contracts for adjustments apart from wages or material costs. Payroll tax did not come under this heading. (2) The Christchurch Civic Orchestra, a non-trading body exempted from income tax, was liable for payroll tax. I There would be many bodies placed. (3) Meat processing companies were exempt but wool processing companies were not.

(4) Among the exemptions listed in Appendix I to the Budget were the Reserve Bank and the State Advances Corporation. These were regarded by members as trading organisations, similar to the Post Office and Public

business, but said this did not apply in every case. For example, in the case of a professional firm, the payroll tax was income tax in a different guise.