Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16574] 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 2 November. 
Part 2  Amendments to Income Tax Act 1994  
(continued) 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is a big part of the bill and we intend to take several calls. I start with clause 4 “Non-residents’ exempt income”. 
The Labour Government continues to trumpet about how much it understands the importance of attracting foreign investment into venture capital in New Zealand. We all know that the minority Labour Government continues to talk about an innovative framework to support high-tech industry in New Zealand but all the high-tech industries or start-up companies do have high levels of risk connected with them and usually in other types of countries venture capital funds are there for that type of investment. The Labour Government once again has come up with a half-baked idea in terms of clause 4. It thinks it will make everybody feel good even though 100 percent of the submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that clause 4 is a very very small step. 
In order to attract venture capital into New Zealand first there needs to be a limited liability partnership structure and second the list of so-called foreign countries needs to be extended to the grey list. At the moment the list that qualifies in terms of clause 4 whereby the sale of shares would not be treated as dividends but as capital gain is extremely limited. When we ask the officials what is happening about the limited liability partnership structure that foreign investors would want and also about a common regime between New Zealand and Australia they say they are still working on it. We suggest that they just finish working on the whole structure so it would then at least show a genuine understanding of the venture capital sector and would become really useful to attract investors. We realise that this is just a political game by the Government in terms of announcing this legislation and selling it by saying it will attract venture capital. But there is actually no substance within this legislation. Last week in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 there was an article from the venture capital sector stating that this taxation bill will do nothing to attract any additional foreign investment into New Zealand. 
I have spent a bit of time expanding on this matter in order to demonstrate that day in and day out in this Parliament just as with the bill that we have finished debating this Government continues to bring into this Chamber legislation that has half-baked ideas without understanding the whole concept of getting New Zealand to become competitive in a taxation framework that is transparent that has low taxation rates and that is easy to comply with. Instead the Government likes to play favourites and it keeps saying that today it is doing something to attract venture capital. But submitters to the select committee made it very clear that we have not even set up the right type of vehicle to attract that foreign investment into New Zealand. I use that example to demonstrate that Parliament is continually being presented with legislation that on the surface appears to address an issue but that in substance does not. Submitter after submitter told us that this bill has no substance. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I disagree with giving certain non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies. That disadvantages New Zealand - resident venture capital investors. It will not attract the appropriate capital needed for the purposes for which Part 2 was created. Even the proponents of this part say that it will not attract the capital needed for the purposes it was created for. We have a Government that allows certain non-residents a tax advantage from shares. This Government is selling off Powerco. This Government is paying for hip-hop trips and spending millions of dollars on the arts. Instead of the Government giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies why does it not give the small Kiwi battler a go? That is what we in New Zealand First are asking. Why does the Government not give the small-business owner or the small exporter a go? Why not give them a tax break? 
If we look at the example of the Republic of Ireland we can see how it helped its exporters. The Republic of Ireland exports $48000 per man woman and child compared with New Zealand’s measly $8000 approximately for every man woman and child. Singapore lacks resources when compared with a beautiful resource-rich country like New Zealand yet it exports about $60000 per man woman and child compared with our $8000 per man woman and child. I say and New Zealand First says that instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies we should give the Kiwi battler the small-business owner a go—because even proponents of the bill say that it will not attract the capital that is needed. 
There is another issue that I want to address. I see the United Future member Gordon Copeland in the Chamber. As I said during the second reading debate on this bill United Future has put in a minority report on this legislation. We note that United Future voted for the bill during all stages yet it has written a minority report as we see in the bill. New Zealand First says to the United Future members that this is their last chance. We will give them another chance to vote the bill down. This is their chance to vote against all the things they said they have a problem with like increasing the taxation thresholds and so on. We say that this is their last chance to do that. We say to this Government and to United Future that instead of spending $21 million on a propaganda campaign for the Working for Families package and instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on their profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies we should be helping our exporters. 
There is another issue I want to discuss in relation to Part 2. It was brought up last night I think and it is the issue of the taxation of Maori authorities. When that provision was first put into legislation New Zealand First under my name put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that we have written a minority report in respect of this bill. It is one sentence long: “The ACT Party view is that adopting a low flat rate of tax below those of our trading partners would overcome much of the problems this bill seeks to solve.” Of course the reason this bill is here is that our tax code is extraordinarily complicated because there are all sorts of different tax rates. 
I turn my attention to the complications the Government has got itself into by introducing race into our tax system. It is extraordinary that a Maori authority pays a lower tax rate for the same activity than other New Zealanders are forced to pay and of course that has led to all sorts of problems. I refer in particular to clauses 26 27 and 34. One of the problems will be ascertaining who is a Maori. The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe should give us some guidance on that question. I understand there have been people in this House who have decided they are Maori and then have decided they are not—they are not quite sure. Under clause 26 people can just feel that they are Maori and after they look at the tax rates they can decide they will set themselves up as a Maori authority. 
Pita Paraone 
: You want to be Maori! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The New Zealand First member says that and I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that if we look at the census we see that in the last three censuses the number of Maori in New Zealand has increased faster than is biologically possible. People may wonder why anyone would want to say he or she is Maori. The reason that people want to do so is that Maori pay lower tax. They also become eligible for a whole range of benefits. 
Brian Connell 
: Not immigration. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Not immigration no. That is the sort of mess the Government gets itself into. 
I am not actually opposed to Maori authorities paying a lower rate of tax; I just want everyone else to be able to pay that same lower rate of tax. What I find interesting about this Government is that Dr Cullen has many many reasons as to why average New Zealanders should not have the benefit of lower tax. He even has the United Future party which supports the Government pointing out that there has been a bit of inflation and that people are paying higher rates of tax. The United Future members cannot actually bring themselves to vote in that way but they do make that point. In that respect—flip-flopping—they have got as far as that. I say to the Committee that it should look at the elections in the United States today. Has lower tax resulted in the rejection of the Bush/Cheney Government? No it has not. We have Government members who may think that the public likes paying extra tax. The Labour Party actually has contempt for its own voters and supporters. Labour members say they are in favour of them but what is their record? Their record is that they believe they can spend money better than the public can and they think they have the right to do that. 
I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and tell the Committee first who is a Maori. I ask him to tell us about all the problems of deciding whether someone is Maori. He may have some personal experiences he wants to share with the Committee. Then he can tell us how people decide whether they are a Maori authority under clause 26. That is now an important fiscal question because if a person decides he or she is Maori that person can pay a lower rate of tax than non-Maori. That is what the Government has put into the tax code so it has a duty to tell us who is a Maori. I would be really interested to hear from Mr Cunliffe who I understand has personally looked into that question. Members may know that the number of Maori MPs in this Parliament keeps going up and down. It was up to 20; now it is 19. Apparently members have changed their minds yet again. That is a matter of humour here in Parliament but it is now a matter of fiscal importance in our legislation and I think Mr Cunliffe has a duty to explain to us as he is the Minister in the chair how one decides whether a person qualifies as a Maori authority. Then he can tell us why Maori authorities should pay a lower rate of tax than other people especially when some of them are amongst New Zealand’s largest companies. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to follow the Hon Richard Prebble because he makes a lot of sense. There is an old saying that is certainly appropriate to socialists. It goes like this: “If it moves tax it if it keeps moving tax it a bit more and if it stops moving subsidise it to get it moving again.” That old cliché has been around for a long time but it is as relevant today with a Government like this as it has ever been. 
 I say to the Hon Richard Prebble who has just resumed his seat that there is one plus in having a discriminatory tax regime for Maori and it relates to a bit of an experiment going on in this country at the moment. There has been a lot of argument about whether lower taxes would increase growth. Dr Cullen over there with a PhD in history—certainly not a PhD in tax rates—has said that they would not increase growth. But let us look at what has happened since we have had two tax rates for two different ethnic groups. The Maori incorporations with a 19 percent tax rate have had growth that has outstripped that of any other kind of business in this country particularly in their farming. In farming Maori incorporations—on a 19c tax rate—have had incredible growth compared with the average growth of the rest of farmers who pay up to 39c in the dollar. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask that member—look at the Topp Twins sitting in the whips’ chairs over there heckling away—to study the facts then come back to Parliament and tell me I am wrong. Have Maori incorporations with a lower tax rate—which will of course be reinforced under this piece of legislation—had strong growth rates exceeding those of any other corporation or entity in this country? The answer is absolutely yes they have. That is absolute evidence that lower tax rates will create higher growth rates. 
There are a couple of other points in Part 2 that need to be touched on. One is the fact that the tax rate for horticultural investment is going to be improved. That is a plus. I say good on the people of Hawke’s Bay who clearly lobbied the member who lives there—not their local member but the member who lives there who happens to be Dr Michael Cullen—to get a special rate. Obviously Michael Cullen is thinking of retiring to the Hawke’s Bay and this is the “smooth the way for Michael into the Hawke’s Bay” clause. Good on them for getting it! But why is that rate not applied to all agricultural land-based industries? Let us look at farm machinery. We all know that when we invest in modern agricultural techniques and equipment we get stronger growth rates and higher productivity. Why are the depreciation rates for farm machinery in general not taken into account in this piece of legislation? Why was that left out? Who knows; how would we ever know? 
Let us look at the depreciation rates on things like planting new pasture and on dairy conversions—a lot of which are going on in my colleague’s Rakaia area. What has happened to them? The socialists have said they are not going to have people planting new grass cultivars that achieve higher levels of production. They are not going to have that; they are going to tax them. They are now going to make people depreciate that over a 15-year period instead of claiming depreciation in the first year as they have always been able to do. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister who is carping away as usual should take the call and explain to Parliament tonight how that helps the Prime Minister’s mission statement in her speech from the throne: “We will be about creating higher growth rates in New Zealand.” How will it help in that regard? I am curious to find that out and I am sure anybody listening is. The answer is that it clearly will not. 
I ask the Committee tonight why we do not reduce all tax rates to the level that the Maori incorporations are enjoying. It has been demonstrated overwhelmingly to Parliament that that creates stronger growth. It is there for us to see. Other farming is not growing at the same rate. So why not reduce the whole tax base to 19c in the dollar which is what the Maori incorporations pay? Instead of doing that one of the very first things Dr Michael Cullen did was put it up. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to say how disappointed I am in the Government for vetoing my amendment to Part 2. [ 
Interruption 
] Is Richard Prebble disappointed as well? Good. I was looking forward to his support. I know that the ACT party is very keen on encouraging New Zealanders to save for their retirement and would therefore I am sure have supported our amendment to Part 2. I would have hoped that other parties in the House would be so kind as to do so as well so that New Zealanders particularly those earning less than $38000 a year would have had an incentive to save for their retirement. In fact even those earning up to $60000 a year deserve an incentive to save for their retirement. 
What incentive do they deserve? They deserve exactly the same incentive that all the members in this Chamber have. We are part of a very privileged group of people in New Zealand thanks to the Labour Government. When the Labour Government brought in the 39 percent marginal tax rate on income it kept the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at 33 percent which means that all of us in this Chamber get a 6 percent tax incentive to save for our retirement. I thank the Government for doing that. 
But I do not thank it for initially penalising all of the people earning less than $38000 a year by taxing them at 33 percent no matter what their marginal tax rates were. After many years of pressure—I call it Chinese water torture: drip drip drip—the Government finally succumbed and removed that discriminatory regime and it has now set the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at an employee’s marginal tax rate. I congratulate the Government on doing that but it deserves a brickbat for not extending the very privileged tax status that we all have and that all other people who enjoy an income of more than $60000 a year have. The Government deserves a brickbat for not extending that incentive to everyone earning less than $60000. 
That is why I am so disappointed that the Labour Government has refused to allow my amendment to stand. It would have been a sensible amendment and would have been very consistent with the Government’s claims that it wants to encourage people to save for their retirement. But of course as with many things with this Government it says one thing and does another. The Government is refusing to help the very people who elected it. It is the workers of this country who voted for Labour—particularly blue-collar workers people who earn less than $60000 a year—but they have absolutely no incentive to save for their retirement. 
That is why it is not surprising that fewer than a quarter of a million New Zealanders are currently members of subsidised superannuation funds. That is an indictment not just on the Labour Government but on successive Governments. The number of New Zealanders in subsidised superannuation funds was over 300000 in 1990 and that number has dropped by over 60000 since then. That is not only sad but economically disastrous. It can be seen coming through in the Reserve Bank figures. Members just need to go to the bank’s September Monetary Policy Statement to see that it is projecting negative savings rates of 11 percent for the 2006 year. A household savings rate of minus 11 percent is not good news for New Zealand—it is very bad news—and the Government could be taking a first step by backing our amendment. 
But let us not stop there; let us get into some serious incentives for saving. We look forward to seeing what the Stobo report has to say. We hope it will look at where the t’s and the e’s are in the “taxed/taxed/exempt” regime. We think it is about time the Government seriously looked at making contributions exempt so that they are deducted from gross income and to compensate for that taxing the money that members of those schemes withdraw at the point of retirement. Along the way it should make the middle “t” a lower-case “t” if one likes by taxing the earnings of superannuation funds at 21 percent then deducting the tax paid by members from their final payout at the point of withdrawal. That is the sort of incentive we need to be making to encourage people to save for their retirement and it would give the Government the added advantage of tax deferral because quite clearly the Government does not need the money now given the surplus that it is running but it will need it in 20 to 50 years’ time when the current crop of workers will retire and the Government will be short of income. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that the Government is calling for closure motions. We have just started to debate Part 2. We have had five speakers on Part 2 which has 65 clauses in it. Part 5 has the highest number of clauses with 90. I am seeking from you that we be given a fair go on this legislation which is very important to the well-being of all New Zealanders. The Opposition has a number of members who wish to take calls on this legislation during the Committee stage and I would ask that you take that into account before closure motions are accepted. 
Darren Hughes 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance. 
Darren Hughes 
: I just want to say that I note that the junior Opposition whip is developing a habit when Government members seek the call of giving his view of the world on it. It is not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will reply to Mr Tisch. Thank you for bringing that to my attention but we have had far more speakers than you indicated. National has had five speakers. Part 1 was in fact a much bigger part than this one. Albeit it did not have as many clauses it was the most important part of the bill. I am quite aware of what is needed here. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate getting the call because this is a very important bill and I believe that this is a very very important part. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair a question and to see what his response is. Before I was shut off last time I was starting to elaborate on the fact that when the Government first introduced the 19.5 percent tax rate for certain Maori authorities I had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to make that rate available to all New Zealand organisations or outfits similar to the concept that the Government had put in the legislation. The question I will ask the Minister and I am sure he is able to answer it is whether if I introduce that same Supplementary Order Paper again it will go to the vote or be subject to the financial veto. That is a question I am hoping the Minister will answer for me because I think it is very important that the Government addresses this issue and at least fronts up to the fact that it was a very reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that I put up on behalf of New Zealand First to make this tax advantage available to all New Zealand authorities of a similar type in a similar circumstance. Instead of the Government spending taxpayers’ money on a whole lot of other issues and projects like the arts hip-hop trips or $21 million on advertising the Government’s Working for Families package it could put more money in the pockets of New Zealand authorities that would be available to all New Zealand races not just to Maori. We do not have a problem with Maori authorities having this tax break—we are for it. But we also want to make it available to all New Zealanders. 
As well as allowing more money to be put indirectly into the pockets of New Zealanders by allowing my Supplementary Order Paper the Government could also be helping couples get into their first houses. That is another issue but it is by the by. I am just hoping the Minister will be able to answer my question. If I put up a Supplementary Order Paper making this tax concession available to all New Zealanders will the Minister veto it with his powers of financial veto? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I take pleasure in rising on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Because I am not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe. 
I am aware that the United Future party has put forward some amendments to the tax bill that go for lower taxes I understand. I want to clarify whether United Future has put in an amendment to introduce capital gains tax because I know that Mr Copeland has a particular interest in having a capital gains tax in New Zealand. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call to clarify that. I know he has been in contact with the Minister of Finance over this issue. Hearing from the Minister would put our minds at rest because it would be a change for New Zealand to have a capital gains tax. 
I ask the Minister also to address a second issue which is one that the Hon Richard Prebble raised in his contribution. It is what the Government’s definition of a Maori is. Clause 26 “Election to become a Maori authority” states that “A person who elects to become a Maori authority becomes a Maori authority—” but then it does not appear to define what it is one has to do to become a Maori authority. I think many New Zealanders have real concerns about legislation based on race being in place. This bill is cementing that in place yet there is no definition. I remember that this question of what actually a Maori is has been raised a number of times in the period that I have been in Parliament. For voting purposes if one says that one feels like a Maori one can go on the Maori roll. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Minister feel? 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes how does the Minister feel about that sort of definition? Maybe the Minister would like to clarify whether if any authority decided for the purposes of income tax that it wanted to be a Maori authority there any rules regulations or provisions that it would have to abide by or is it OK just to tick the box and say: “I feel Maori because then I can get a lower tax rate.”? 
I think this is a serious issue. This is the Committee stage and there is a Minister in the chair. The purpose of having the Minister in the chair is to address issues raised in the Committee stage; otherwise this debate is a farce. So far I have not heard the Minister take a call. This is a serious issue. Either he knows the answer and is refusing to tell it to Opposition members or else he does not know the answer. But he has his officials sitting right next to him so I would suggest to the Minister that if he does not know—it sounds like he does not—he should ask his officials seek some advice then explain to the Committee whether an authority has to do more than simply feel that it is Maori to be able to qualify for and gain a lower tax rate. 
 The ACT party did put in a minority report that advocated a low flat tax. I remind the Minister that Treasury produced a paper late last year which came to light this year that explained that if the Labour Government simply gave back to families its surplus—the amount of money it overtaxes New Zealand working families—we could reduce our tax rate to 20c in the dollar. Let us just imagine the incentive it would bring to New Zealand to have a 20c flat tax rate; most of the provisions of this bill we could simply chuck in the rubbish bin. Our tax laws are so complicated because the taxes that this Government has put in place have made taxation in New Zealand more complex still. The average family pays 46 percent of its wages in taxes. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you give the call I point out that United Future has yet to make any contribution to this debate at all. I would like to speak on this part if possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Gordon Copeland. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on this part but I must say I find it very very disappointing in the extreme that Muriel Newman continues to advise members of a completely wrong bit of information—I am being parliamentary here because I know that we are not allowed to use other words in this place. I have already officially informed this House of that on another occasion and the rule of this House is that my word must be accepted but that does not seem to make one iota of difference to the member. 
Let me make United Future’s position clear. Not only have we never advocated a capital gains tax but we have no policy in that regard. I have never advocated a capital gains tax in this country. In fact on the contrary I am on the record both publicly and privately as advocating that a capital gains tax should not henceforth apply to superannuation fund earnings. Superannuation funds at the moment pay capital gains tax if shares and bonds are traded. I have made it clear that it is our policy—and I have been an advocate for it in forums in which ACT members have also participated with me—to remove capital gains tax from superannuation fund savings so that they would be on a level playing field with other elements of the New Zealand tax system to which no capital gains tax applies. I put it on the record that that is the position of United Future. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an official document relating to Mr Copeland’s request in a discussion with Dr Cullen for a capital gains tax. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have not yet had an opportunity to take part in this debate so I have come down here to the Chamber tonight and listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. I have found myself agreeing with most speakers with some notable exceptions. The contribution from Shane Ardern I found to be particularly enlightening. The taxation system that is now in place in this country is terribly complex. I would have thought that this bill would be an opportunity for the Government to do something to try to alleviate the huge taxation burden imposed on hard-working Kiwis. Mr Ardern mentioned an old saying: “If it moves tax it.” and he had an iteration of that. Well there is another iteration of that which I want to share with members: “If it moves tax it and if it still doesn’t move kick it until it does and then tax it.” That is exactly what this Government is doing. 
Michael Cullen is held up to us as someone who is fiscally responsible because he skites about a surplus of $7.4 billion. To anyone who has a half-reasonable understanding of fiscal matters that is not something to brag about. In fact Michael Cullen is being fiscally irresponsible. New Zealanders need tax relief. We have an unlikely ally on that in a member of the Government. John Tamihere believes that we should have tax relief as does the Opposition. Strangely enough he is a very strong proponent of the ACT policy of flatter taxation. In fact John Tamihere has gone so far to the right now that he thinks there should be zero taxation. He will not get a lot of support for that from his colleagues but we on the Opposition side of the Chamber think he is halfway right. 
The New Zealand First member took a call before. I say to the young member that on the issue of venture capital he is quite wrong. Conceptually what has been suggested in this legislation is right. We need to attract more capital to this country and a vehicle like this legislation will assist with that. Unfortunately—and this is where I agree with the member—this vehicle in terms of the way it is constructed simply will not do that. I also side with the member when he says that businesses in New Zealand deserve tax breaks. Small business after small business is being burdened with an ever-increasing level of taxation. That is the issue that John Tamihere when he was a Cabinet Minister articulated. I thought he would do something about de-layering tax. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He’s leading by example. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is leading by example but I was hoping he would do it in a more subtle way rather than by just avoiding the issue. 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has had by my count four questions asked of him this evening: two of them by the New Zealand First member one by the Green Party and one by the ACT party. The Minister has steadfastly refused to get up and respond to those questions. I know he will not disappoint me. I know he will get to his feet and answer some of those questions because it is essential that the people of New Zealand understand what the Minister is trying to do in constructing this legislation. I believe that questions that are fairly put need to be fairly answered. 
The issue around Maori trusts has been debated. I understand that there were issues of double taxation—and I do not for one moment suggest that what was happening was fair—but one does not fix that problem by creating another one. One does not pick out some poor businesses based on race and think that that is a reasonable solution. That is not the way to deal with the issue. The Minister in the chair who has just caught my eye knows that I am right. He should be constructing legislation that takes up the issue with regard to all the businesses that are struggling. I ask the Minister what is wrong with helping out poor non-Maori businesses as well as Maori authorities. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 4 be agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you clarify which one is Supplementary Order Paper 287? Is that the amendment to have a split vote or is that the Minister’s amendment? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This is the amendment that has been on the Table all evening. It is the Minister’s substantive amendment not the amendment to have a split vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 7 and to add new clauses 61B and 67B are ruled out of order as that Supplementary Order Paper was not lodged with 24 hours’ notice. 
The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Now that the real Minister Mr Cullen has resumed the chair I wonder whether he would like to take a call and address all the very serious issues— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. I tell the member that that is not a matter for a point of order. 
Part 3 Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 3 is all to do with amendments intended to improve the working of the Inland Revenue Department and to make it more friendly to taxpayers. But can I just point out—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes but even with advertisements like those stating the Inland Revenue Department is here to help I am afraid there is still a lot of scepticism in the minds of the public. For example one of the large number of amendments in this legislation is to do with how the department could improve the dispute resolution procedure so I want to demonstrate to my colleagues in the Chamber how successful that attempt is. Twelve submissions were made to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the so-called improvement of the dispute resolution procedure. Five submissions supported the improvement but considered the amendment did not go far enough and five noted that the amendment did not address taxpayers’ concerns and that the proposals were weighted heavily in favour of the Inland Revenue Department rather than taxpayers. I think that clearly demonstrates that the majority of submitters comprising taxation consultants and large accounting firms still believe that this is very much one-sided legislation. The Inland Revenue Department for example has introduced time frames as to when taxpayers can dispute how much GST they have to pay if they need to. Four years or 2 years is the time limit for taxpayers yet no time limit is imposed on the Inland Revenue Department. 
I will take the opportunity as Rod Donald has said of the “real Minister” being in the chair to raise an issue about how taxpayers perceive themselves as being helpless when dealing with the Inland Revenue Department. A constituent wrote to me about an issue to do with a child support payment. Through mediation he and his ex-wife came to the arrangement that for 30 percent of the time that taxpayer would look after the children. So over 120 days of the year the children would spend time with their father and over another 200-and-something days they would spend time with their mother. My constituent was very upset though because the Inland Revenue Department adopted the stance that unless parents spend 40 percent of the time with their children they cannot qualify for what the department calls shared custody. I think that that father had a point when he said that in effect he is paying for 400-odd days of child support for his children. 
Then he looked through the Inland Revenue Department website and first of all— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: 400 days in a year? 
PANSY WONG 
: Because he still paid child support when the children were with him—right? For 120 days a year he looked after his children yet he still paid 100 percent of the child support. So it was almost as though he were paying for more than 365 days. I raised that case with the commissioner who said that yes the department has to draw a line in the sand somewhere and that 40 percent sounded like a good line to draw. That is such an arbitrary rule. On the Inland Revenue Department website there is once again a message that the department is friendly and that all people have to do is to write to the commissioner. But when my constituent wrote to the department the standard answer was that it did have that 40 percent rule. 
In that particular case the father was through mediation only allowed to spend 30 percent of his time with his children so should that not be taken into account? How friendly is the department? I do not know whether there is a process whereby that very frustrated person can bring his case. I raise that matter because it does impact on the Inland Revenue Department’s working. Today we looked at the financial review of the department. We saw that child support payments of over $840000000 were outstanding and more than half of that was from penalties. I accept that some people will not pay and they should rightly have penalties imposed on them. But maybe some taxpayers simply find the system so unfair that they refuse to pay. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raised with the Minister in regard to clause 113 whether the problems that we have been hearing about recently with regard to Mr Tamihere were wider than we previously thought. This clause is in regard to the employer and PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions. Is this a wider problem than we had previously thought? Alternatively does this mean that the Government actually knew about the Waipareira Trust situation and was changing the law but had not got around to telling us about it? 
Brian Connell 
: Retrospective! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Retrospective legislation. It does seem to me that— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We have seen it before. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: We have seen it before and I want to know from the Government what it thinks about this tax situation. Indeed I have not actually heard from Dr Cullen with regard to that particular case. Is it typical? If it is not— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: They supported forging paintings so I guess dodging tax is part of it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think the member is being too harsh. It appears to me the Government thinks that employers should pay PAYE. Now that it understands the situation of the Waipareira Trust has it changed its mind? If Government members think that it is a serious problem how do they feel about having a member of their caucus who has not paid tax? Perhaps he has not paid it perhaps it was his employer who had not paid it. How do those members feel about people who knew that their employer had not paid? This is a question we would like to know the answer to. Here we are being asked to change the law with regard to PAYE deductions and the most famous case that we know of is the case of their colleague the honourable John Tamihere—I presume he is still honourable; maybe he is not maybe he is now Mr Tamihere; anyway all members are honourable members. 
What does the member think about that situation? Is that the sort of situation that he was concerned about? Is the John Tamihere situation common or is it uncommon? What does he think the moral position should be? How does he feel about having a caucus member who apparently is going to be a candidate for this Government in the next election who gets up in this House to say: “Even though no tax was paid I am blameless.”? Does the member accept that? Does he think that an employee who knew that no tax had been paid is blameless? Should he have advised the Inland Revenue Department? Should he have taken steps to advise it? What advice does he give to other John Tamiheres out in the community who may discover that their employers have not paid PAYE? Should they just sit back like his colleague did and hope that no one ever finds out or ought they to draw it to the attention of the authorities? 
Here we are as members of Parliament being asked at 9.25 p.m. to change the law with regard to employer or PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions so presumably he thinks it is important enough to change the law. Does he think it is important enough to give us his opinion on the matter? What sort of example does he think the Labour Government is giving to employers and employees when it has in its bosom a member of Parliament who did not pay the tax knew that his employer had not paid it and every one of those members today clapped that member even though they knew he had not paid his tax. What sort of standard is this Labour Government trying to set? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What about a false declaration on a marital settlement? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh I think that would be pretty shocking too. Is the member going to tell us what his settlement was? I have no idea. What I do know is that a false declaration on an electoral return is a shocking matter. When it is fraudulent as the one from Mr Tamihere was from a proven forger I say that it is a serious matter. It seems to me—I do not know—that birds of a feather flock together. Here is a party that clapped a member who said that there was nothing wrong with putting in a forged return. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Only a couple of points have been made. Ms Wong decided to refer to the Child Support Act. This bill actually amends the Tax Administration Act and the question she raised should have been raised in a different debate. In respect of the point made by Mr Prebble—I think that is his name—clause 111 simply corrects a reference error in the Income Tax Act. I would point out that Mr Tamihere has made it clear that he did not know that tax was not paid—nor does any other member in this House— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What kind of fool does he think he is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not as big a fool as Dr Lockwood Smith—that is certainly true! Not as big a fool as that member has proved to be throughout his career! I invite that member to explain to the House how he became a multimillionaire having been an MP for most of his life. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 3 which amends the Tax Administration Act because I want to pick up from where the Hon Richard Prebble left off. I am not yet convinced that there is nothing in this bill designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for cheating on tax. We know this Government. When Harry Duynhoven tried to cheat on citizenship the Government changed the law. We know that the Prime Minister forges paintings and thinks that is acceptable. What kind of mischief is this Government prepared to get up to to change the law to help John Tamihere who cheats on tax? 
Let us have a look at Part 3. Let us have a look at the clauses here. Taxpayer assessment—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to that member! She should think a bit before she gets into that. Let us look at clause 92. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member to apologise for that please. 
Hon Annette King 
: Apologise for what? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Apologise for addressing the Chair in that way. 
Hon Annette King 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been sitting here for the last 10 minutes and we have had a debate that has nothing to do with this bill. It is a continuation of the Wednesday debate and no action has been taken to stop it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will decide what is relevant and what is not. Dr Lockwood Smith was coming to the bill. It was not easy for him because of the noise from the Government side and I would ask members if they want to carry on in that way to take a call but not to do it again from a seated position. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: They are all huddled around because they know they risk a by-election because they know a resignation from Cabinet is not where it stops. They know the Serious Fraud Office will have John Tamihere out and they are worried about a by-election. 
I want to come back to these clauses. Let us have a look at clause 92 “Taxpayer assessment”. Is the Government going to change the law to remove the liability on taxpayers to be honest about the taxes they have to pay? Let us have a look at what they say under clause 92. Will the Government change the law to let John Tamihere off for not being honest about the tax he had to pay? I have to be fair as I look at clause 92(4). Whatever changes the Government is making are to apply from 2004-05 onwards so it appears not to be retrospective to let John Tamihere off the hook. That is clause 92. 
Let me then go to clause 105 “Late filing penalties” and clause 106 “Tax shortfalls”. Is this Government up to sneaky stuff here to get John Tamihere off the hook for failing to pay his taxes? I look at clause 106 and it appears to me—well let us look at late filing penalties because it seems there could be some late filing penalties if nothing more when one dodges one’s tax and does not pay it. It seems that that applies to annual imputations and it would not apply in the other case. 
Again Clause 106 “Tax shortfalls” appears to relate to matters after 1 April 2005. I accept that that clause is not designed to get John Tamihere off the hook. [ 
Interruption 
] He is still a member of Parliament. People who cheat and do not pay their tax do not deserve to be members of this Parliament. 
We go then to clause 116 which is about write-offs by the commissioner. Is the commissioner going to write off what John Tamihere owes? He owes a bit of money. He received $200000 as his golden koha. Even if we do not gross it up there is $80000 in that. But gross it up and it is a lot more that he owes. Is the commissioner going to write it off? No I have to confess that clause 116(2) states that this will apply “after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” I accept that clause 116 looks OK. 
I turn to clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause”. If the Prime Minister says we have to let John Tamihere off the hook is that reasonable cause? Look at clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause” carefully. It states: “Section 183A(1) is replaced by the following: … (f) Maori authority distribution penalty tax … ”. Is that a sneaky one designed to get John Tamihere off the hook? I do not know. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 There have been some interesting contributions. Like the other speakers I am pleased that sitting in the chair is the Minister who might have some relevance to the bill Michael Cullen. If there are some questions we might expect some answers. There has been no evidence so far that that is likely to happen but we might expect some answers. 
I note with a great deal of interest that this legislation has suddenly appeared on the scene as a result of some recent political events. Given some of the assertions that have been made by senior members in the Chamber tonight will the Minister take a call and absolutely deny that there is anything in this part that in any way would help to mitigate the problem that John Tamihere finds himself in? The Minister could easily rule that out. He could easily take a call and say: “Look you are all wrong. There is nothing in here that in any way will influence the outcome as far as John Tamihere is concerned.” Have we had a single peep on that? Not a word! 
I say to the Minister that we are looking yet again at another 212 pages of regulation on what the Government should or should not do in our lives. Can I also say that when we wander around the galleries in this place we see huge rows of books of legislation. I asked the Hon Richard Prebble how many volumes of  
Hansard 
 he has acquired in his time in Parliament. Just think about that—a huge room full of books. The only place I have been recently where I have seen that number of books or a number of pieces of information that would match what we see in this place is my accountant’s office. Members should go to modern accountants’ offices today and have a look at the amount of legislative requirements they have to read through have a look at the amount of tax law they have on their premises at any one time—that is even allowing for digital information; for computers which can store massive amounts of information—and ask them why they go to the expense of having all that information at their fingertips. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance how this bill will help to achieve the goals set down by his Prime Minister in her Address in Reply when she said that this Government is pro-growth. How will it help? That is an easy question for the Minister to answer. He might be able to find some obscure clause in Part 3 that may reduce costs. I do not know where it is; I cannot see where it is. But there is a simple question for the Minister: why do we have to have this level of bureaucratic nonsense dished out over and over again when a flatter tax rate would deal with most of the problems he is trying to overcome in this bill? Why do we have to have so many layers of bureaucratic nonsense when it comes to taxation? 
I have a simple question for the Minister which takes a yes or no answer: has he ever paid PAYE on behalf of an employee in his own right as a businessman? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yes. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister says yes. I am heartened by that. It must have been a mighty long time ago; I know he has been in this place for a long time. I am heartened by that because if I had had to guess I would have said no but maybe the Minister can clear that up. There are a large number of us in this Chamber who do pay PAYE on behalf of our employees on a regular basis like every month. If we do not if we get it wrong somewhere in this part there will be a heavy hammer that comes down on us with 20-plus percent penalties which compound from the point when we do not get it right. 
I ask the Minister how that helps simplify the tax system. My colleague who was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that the debate that took place around Part 3 was about trying to simplify the system. I cannot for the life of me see how Part 3 will simplify it. It certainly does not simplify the PAYE system. I know that my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith certainly pays PAYE on behalf of his employees on a monthly basis and knows what a convoluted mind-boggling process that is. Let me tell the Minister that even if one does not employ somebody for a couple of months or 3 months one still has to fill in a PAYE IR66 form every month. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 There are three great lies in the world. One of them is: “I am here from head office—trust me.” The second is: “I’m from the IRD I’m here to help—trust me.” The third one is: “I didn’t know I had to pay tax.” In fact we might be able to add a fourth one: “I didn’t know it was a golden handshake.”—no it would be: “I didn’t take it.” Have members tried to deal with the Inland Revenue Department when it has come to “assist” them? Do members know what the experience is like? The department turns one over every which way because it has a view that one has done something wrong. That is the position the department starts from. Anyone who suggests that this legislation will try to make the department more user-friendly is engaged in a giant misconception. 
But giant misconceptions come easily to this Government do they not? Clause 105 deals with late-filing penalties and clause 106 deals with tax shortfalls. I have heard a number of arguments mounted that those measures might be retrospective legislation to try to get John Tamihere off the hook. I have to say to those members that they have got it all wrong. They surely were not designed with that in mind because John Tamihere simply does not pay tax. Therefore there are no tax shortfalls. It does not apply to him. The Government is saying to New Zealanders that that is OK. 
Have members ever been in the position where the Inland Revenue Department says they owe it money? If a person says in return: “Well actually no I don’t. You owe me money and by the way I want a 20 percent tax penalty on top of that.” does the department do that? Absolutely not! [ 
Interruption 
] There are a few members calling out over there. I do not know which ones they are but we could pick any one of them and they would be all the evidence we would want to see that the moratorium on GMOs should never have been lifted. 
Let us turn to clauses 112 through to 114. Those people who believe that acting as the Government’s tax collector in terms of PAYE is a good idea should put up their hands. Not even a Government member put a hand up. Not even the Minister put his hand up. This is a person who maintains that he has been in a position of collecting PAYE before and he simply has not done it; he is intellectually dishonest—and that is being very kind to him. Those people who maintain that the collection of PAYE actually helps the productive sector have got rocks in their head. Actually that tells us that those members have never engaged in earning a fair buck for this country in their lives. They have never been part of the productive sector. They have been on the front teat all their lives and they want the hard workers in this country to continue to contribute on their behalf. 
It is compliance costs and red tape costs such as those that this hugely complex piece of legislation is reinforcing that are driving business people in this country to distraction. The cost is hard to measure but when one is spending 1 or 2 days a month acting as the Government’s tax collector one knows that there is a real cost to one’s business. It might be hard to quantify but there is a real cost to one’s business. 
The argument that has been proposed that with this bill the dispute resolution procedures are somewhat streamlined is another one of the fallacies that the Minister in the chair is trying to peddle. Anyone who has engaged with those procedures knows that that is a nonsense. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Let me put my question to the Minister of Revenue in terms that I think he should think very seriously about. The question that was asked by myself and then by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was whether these clauses actually—from the facts that we have seen in the newspapers and from the facts that have been given in this House—result in a change in the tax position of the Waipareira Trust and make a change to the tax position of one of his colleagues Mr John Tamihere. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says “No” and I just invite him to take another look. We have clause 105 “Late filing penalties”. That would appear to me to be applicable. We have clause 106 “Tax shortfalls”. In clause 108 we have section 141FB “Reduction of penalties for previous behaviour”. I think that might actually apply in this case. Then we go on to the clauses that I drew to his attention before: clause 113 “Employer or PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions” and clause 114 “Unpaid tax deductions etc. to constitute charge on employer’s or PAYE intermediary’s property”. Then we get to clause 116 “Write-off of tax by Commissioner” which Dr Lockwood Smith thought was not retrospective but I think that when one reads it ones finds that it does not say that. What subclause (2) actually states is “Subsection (1) applies to tax that is written off on and after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” So it could well be that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is having to look at the facts we are seeing and deciding whether to write off taxes. 
Then we come clause 117 which has the interesting section 181D “Remission of late payment penalties and interest incurred due to obligation by Maori authority to pay further income tax”. Well I am not sure but maybe the Minister knows whether the Waipareira Trust is a Maori authority. I think it is. It would appear to me that that new section might well apply. Then we get to clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause” which states: “Section 183A(1) is replaced by the following: (1) This section applies to—(a) a late filing penalty: (b) a non-electronic filing penalty: (c) a late payment penalty:”. It appears to me that they all might possibly apply. 
The point I am making to the Minister is this. He should understand the position he finds himself in. Here he is a Minister of Finance saying to the country that the Government is levying tax and that every citizen company trust and Maori authority has a duty to pay tax yet we all witnessed earlier today his party applauding a person who apparently now does concede that no tax was paid. The Minister said he believes Mr Tamihere. Did he believe Mr Tamihere earlier when he failed to tell the whole country that he had in fact received a golden handshake? Does not the Minister’s confidence at some point get shaken? Is not a more serious point that the confidence of this House and the country in the tax legislation that we are being asked to pass is questioned? When members ask whether it could be that the tax legislation we are passing today affects a member of Parliament who has had to resign as Minister and who has a peculiar tax position—I hope it is peculiar—in that he has not paid it and nor has his employer surely the Minister can see the impossibility of the position he is in. Of course we all know that he thinks that too but a thing called the foreshore and seabed legislation means that he is prepared to embrace anyone even a person who has failed to pay his tax. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Amendments to other Acts and Regulations 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 This part is to do with the various adjustments— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s very small and very non-controversial. [ 
Interruption 
] 
PANSY WONG 
: Ah! I am sure members of the public are waiting patiently holding their breath and I am sure the Hon Richard Prebble will make his usual forthright contribution in a very appropriate manner in terms of GST. I am not sure whether the trust has anything to do with GST but I do point out that in Part 4—[ 
Interruption 
] There may be invoices and interestingly I understand we are not sure whether GST was properly treated on five or six invoices that were issued by the Waipareira Trust. 
Part 4 relates to GST and who is supposed to account for it and to whether there is an entitlement to a refund of any excess tax paid. New section 45 inserted by clause 134 deals with the refunding of excess tax. I find that quite interesting because we were talking earlier about whether the Inland Revenue Department can present a friendly face to the public in terms of its handling of taxation issues. Certain provisions apply when a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of excess tax. First of all the commissioner has to be satisfied that the amount represents an excess over the amount properly assessed for a taxable period and that it falls within the 4-year period. But there is a catch. Under new section 45(4) the commissioner may refund an overpayment of tax after the end of the 4-year time limit if the commissioner is satisfied that the overpayment of tax is “the result of a clear mistake or simple oversight” by the person concerned. 
 Once again in contemplating that particular section I wonder about the process the commissioner will adopt for determining whether the result is a clear mistake and how that is different from a deliberate mistake. How can the commissioner tell the difference between the two situations and what process will the Inland Revenue Department employ to identify whether the overpayment of tax is a clear mistake or simple oversight on the part of a particular person? Also during the determination period can the individual concerned really present his or her case clearly to the Inland Revenue Department? I certainly find the use of the term “a clear mistake or simple oversight” quite interesting because to make that assessment actually tends to be quite subjective. What does a person have to do to demonstrate that an overpayment is a clerical mistake? How can someone’s intention be assessed if for example one gets a bit mischievous and thinks of the latest high-profile case being debated in the Chamber involving the five famous invoices? When an overpayment of tax is involved I wonder how the commissioner will actually assess whether there is a clear mistake or just a simple oversight—the invoice might be addressed to the wrong person or the address on the invoice itself might not be a true address. 
Progress reported.