This Question We’ve Been Asked considers whether a personal services company can register for GST where it provides the services of a director or board member.

The Commissioner previously issued three Public Rulings (BR Pub 23/01 – 23/03) on the GST treatment of directors’ fees and board members’ fees. 

Following a recent amendment to s 6(4) of the GST Act, parts of BR Pub 23/03 are now incorrect. See Tax Information Bulletin Vol 37, No 5 (June 2025):97.

Consequently, the Commissioner has decided to withdraw, update and reissue all three Rulings as they share a single Commentary.  The associated Fact Sheet and QWBA (QB 23/07) have also been updated.  All items have also been updated to reflect the change from tax invoices to taxable supply information, and for general clarity. A new summary table and flowchart have also been added to the Commentary and Fact Sheet.

See Notice of Withdrawal of Public Rulings – BR Pub 23/01 – 23/03

This fact sheet accompanies Public Rulings BR Pub 26/01 to 26/03, which explain the GST treatment of directors’ fees and board members’ fees. This fact sheet summarises the conclusions in those Public Rulings and the associated Commentary.

This Revenue Alert sets out the Commissioner’s response to concerning practices Inland Revenue has identified in the horticultural sector which may result in the incorrect amount of tax being accounted for or paid. The Commissioner is increasing his focus on growers, contractors and subcontractors in the horticultural sector. Where behaviours of concern are identified a range of options will be considered to respond, including prosecution and/or shortfall penalties.

The Tax Information Bulletin is a monthly publication which contains information about changes to tax-related legislation, proposed legislation, judgments, rulings and other specialist tax topics including many of the publication-types.

L (the taxpayer) sought deductions for education expenses, motor vehicle expenses, and home office expenses. The taxpayer also challenged the Commissioner’s imposition of a shortfall penalty for not taking reasonable care.

The Authority denied the deductions sought on the basis that the deductions were not incurred as part of the taxpayer’s business, the taxpayer had failed to keep adequate records or otherwise show the deductions had been incurred, or the deductions had been incurred prior to the taxpayer’s registration for GST. The Authority agreed that the taxpayer had failed to take reasonable care in taking the tax positions.

Under s YB 21, if a person holds something or does something as a nominee (including as a bare trustee) for another person, the other person is treated as if they hold or do that thing, and the nominee is ignored for tax purposes. Where a bare trust exists, the trustee’s only duties are to transfer the trust property as the beneficiary directs and, in the meantime, to take reasonable care of the trust property. This question we’ve been asked (QWBA) considers whether a bare trust can exist where the property held has a mortgage over it.

This item replaces IS 23/02: Income tax – Application of the s CZ 39 5 year bright-line test to certain family and close relationship transactions to the extent the interpretation statement is not consistent with this QWBA. This is discussed in more detail at [19].

This item summarises a private ruling that considered whether an agreement for the supply of products is a “short-term agreement for sale and purchase” and therefore an excepted financial arrangement.

This item summarises an adjudication that considered whether the sale of property was subject to s CB 6 of the Income Tax Act 2007 and whether the Taxpayer was liable for a shortfall penalty for gross carelessness or taking an unacceptable tax position.

This item summarises a private ruling about the income tax and PAYE treatment of various employee allowances paid under employment agreements, including whether those allowances are exempt income to employees and whether the payer has PAYE withholding obligations.