Satisfaction with IR 2015

SLIDE | 11Colmar Brunton 2015
Conducted for Chartered Accountants ANZ & TMNZ by Colmar Brunton
Satisfaction with Inland Revenue
November 2015

Background
Every year since 2010
Colmar Brunton has been
commissioned by
Chartered Accountants
ANZ and Tax
Management NZ to
assess member
satisfaction with Inland
Revenue (IR).
The overall objective of the
research is to understand
members’ experiences
with IR and identify areas
for improvement. A
secondary objective is to
understand members
attitudes and preferences
on topical issues at the
time.
The 2015 survey repeats
most of the questions from
earlier measures and also
includes sections on BEPS
and provisional tax.
MEMBER
SATISFACTION OVERALL OBJECTIVE SURVEY QUESTIONS

Method
425
Interviews
6,000 New Zealand members of Chartered Accountants ANZ who hold either a CA or
ACA designation were invited to complete an online survey. Members were screened
to exclude those who hadn’t dealt with IR in the last 12 months. By the close off date,
425 members had qualified and completed the survey.
9 Oct–4 Nov
2015
The survey was open for members to complete between the 19th of October and the
4th of November, 2015. Members were sent two reminders during fieldwork.
±4.8%
Margin of error
The maximum margin of error (at the 95% confidence interval) on the overall sample
size of 425 is: ±4.8%.
CAs / ACAs
Results from 2013, 2014 and 2015 presented here are based on both CAs and ACAs.
Results from 2012 are based only on CAs.

Summary

Experiences
32%
• The overall rating of experiences with Inland Revenue over the last 12 months have improved
from:
37%
2014 2015
rating very good or excellentrating very good or excellent
• The improvement seems to be driven by two factors:
“The telephone call-back service is fantastic and better than holding on the other end of a line listening to rubbish. It
would be better to place a message that could then be direct to the correct person as being transferred around several
times and constantly repeating the information is frustrating.”
“I like the level of automation and the recent introduction of sending statements via secure email/ company sites on the
IRD site. I think we have one of the best tax administration systems in the world in New Zealand, but there can always
be improvement.”
1. Improvements in the phone experience (i.e., the call-back option)
2. Improvements in processing which seem to be driven by the increasing use
of technology

Experiences
• While overall satisfaction with IR has increased, members still identified plenty of areas where
they would like to see improvement. The priorities for improvement are:
1. Consistency of information they are given on the phone
2. Time taken to answer enquiries
“I find staff quite inconsistent in there knowledge and abilities - sometimes I am told something can't be done (I know if can be
done) so I just call back and speak to someone else. I also get very annoyed if I have to chase a return or fix an IRD error. It costs
our client money through no fault of there own. I feel IRD staff need to be much better trained.”
“The current timeframe in which we can expect an answer to a basic email query, from our compliance officer, has recently been
extended to 2 weeks (we are told this is due to her team's commitment to Business Transformation). This is a poor customer
experience, and wouldn't be at all acceptable in a commercial situation. Inland Revenue needs to resource more appropriately.”
3. Finding the right person to talk to
“I have found the call wait time has drastically improved which has been great. The main criticism I have is after saying what I
need to discuss using the automated system I have had to be transferred as the person on the call has only basic knowledge or
authority which makes me question why we are asked for the subject we are calling on in the first place.”
Processing – being straightforward (and, relatedly, the speed)
“Refunds are taking far too long to process. We have had to make numerous calls regarding refunds not being released and
accounts in review. If further information is required it would be preferable for the IRD to call the Tax Agent.”
4.

Business transformation
Is a good idea / sounds okay in
principle
Providing IR with real-
time financial
information
36% 44%21%
Neutral
A little concerned / super
nervous
Your/your clients’
systems talking to IR’s
systems directly 27% 60%13%
• Members are more negative than positive when it comes to providing IR with real-time financial
information and/or having their systems talk to IR’s systems directly.

Base erosion and profit shifting
2.2 out of every 10 members say
they know a lot or a reasonable
amount about base erosion and
profit shifting
Knowledge
they know a lot or a reasonable
amount about the work the OECD
and G20 are doing to address BEPS
(to a great or some extent) NZ
legislation should be driven by
what is best for NZ’s overall
economic interest
Attitudes
4.3 out of every 10 members are
in favour of BEPS legislation
even if it meant they/their
clients had to pay more tax
• Relatively few members know a lot about BEPS but the majority are in favour of legislation to
protect New Zealand’s economic interests even if it has a cost for their organisation/clients.
1.5 out of every 10 members
aren’t in favour of BEPS
legislation if it means more
tax for them/their clients

Overview of experiences

Members’ overall rating of their IR experiences have improved
All CAs
4% 2% 3% 5%
25% 26%
29%
32%
46%
40%
44%
44%
19%
26%
21% 16%
6% 6% 3% 4%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
*Only includes CAs., i.e., no ACAs.
Source: Q32. . . . Overall how would you rate your experience with Inland Revenue?
Base 2015: All members n=425.

. . . and both Public Practice and other members have seen an
improvement
All CAs
2% 1% 5% 8%
28% 30%
31%
33%
46% 47% 41%
40%
21% 16% 21% 16%
4% 5% 1% 3%
2014 2015 2014 2015
Source: Q32. . . . Overall how would you rate your experience with Inland Revenue?
Public Practice members Corporate and other members

The increase in the overall rating of IR seems to be driven by
improvements in the processing of returns and phoning IR
29% 29%
30%
34%
43% 40%
43% 45%
29%
31%
33%
41%41%
26%
42%
43%
2012 2013 2014 2015
Phoning IR Contact for general info Contact for processing Tax audits
Percentageratingexcellentorverygood
Source: Q5/9/12/23/32. And overall, how would you rate your experience in . . .? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: All CAs n=425, who phoned IR n=363, who contacted IR for general information n=383, who contacted IR for processing
n=339, who contacted IR about a tax audit and whose most recent audit has been completed, n=84.

When looking at the changes in individual attributes – the biggest
increases are in the phone experience attributes
Note. Only those attributes that have moved at least two percentage points are shown.
Base 2015: All CAs n=425, who phoned IR n=363, who contacted IR for general information n=383, who contacted IR for processing
n=339, who contacted IR about a tax audit and whose most recent audit has been completed, n=84.
+14
percentage
points
-14
percentage
points
Phone –
consistency of info
Phone –
finding
right
personPhone – relevant info
Auditors – considering fairly any points raised by you
Processing – consistency and accuracy of processing
Overall – info sought or received from IR
Overall –
processing
Overall – phone
Auditors – polite and
well mannered
Auditors – responding promptly
Phone – time taken to
answer your enquiry
Phone – info easy to understand
Processing – speed of processing
Audit timing – time given to respond
Info - relevance to your business / practice
Info – understandability
+2 +4 +5 +6 +7 +13-5-6
All attributes this side of the line
have decreased since last year
All attributes this side of the line
have increased since last year

The call-back option on the phone seems to be at least partly responsible for the
improvement in the perceptions of the phone service. More generally, members
think the use of technology has improved their experience
“The telephone call-back service is fantastic and better than holding on the other end of a line listening to rubbish. It
would be better to place a message that could then be direct to the correct person as being transferred around several
times and constantly repeating the information is frustrating.”
Comments about the call-back option
Comments about technology
“The call back services speeds up the process by not having to wait on the phone. Also including correspondence with online
returns has reduced processing time and questions.”
“I like the level of automation and the recent introduction of sending statements via secure email/ company sites on the IRD site. I
think we have one of the best tax administration systems in the world in New Zealand, but there can always be improvement.”
“Seen a big improvement in Inland revenues customer focus and consistency. IRD are making good use of technology and that is
helping. They should be congratulated on the steps over the last few years , well done.”
“I am self employed through a company and got behind in filing returns. Instead of threatening me I was invited to meet
discuss problems causing delays and shown online tools to assist. Very positive experience.”
Other comments

Priorities for improvement

0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Despite the improvements in the phone experience seen in the previous
section – elements of the phone experience are the priorities to improve
ImportanceofattributestooverallratingofIR
Performance (% rating good, very good or excellent)
Base 2015: All respondents n=425, who phoned IR n=363, who contacted IR for general information n=383, who contacted IR for processing n=339, who
contacted IR about a tax audit, n=147.
Top priorities for IR to focus on – things that are very important
to members that IR is not doing well on
Secondary priorities – things that are either slightly less
important or IR are performing slightly better on
Phone – consistency
of info
Phone – time taken to
answer your enquiry
Phone – finding
right person
Phone – info easy to understand
Phone –
relevant info
Info –
understandability
Info – ease of use
Info - relevance to your
business / practice
Auditors – considering fairly any
points raised by you
Auditors – responding promptly
Auditors – polite and
well mannered
Auditors – keeping
you fully informed
Auditors – clear and concise in
what was required
Auditors –
readily available
for questions
Audit timing – time
taken to respond
Audit timing – time
given to respond
Processing – consistency
and accuracy of processing
Processing –
straightforward process
Processing –
error free
Processing – speed of processing
Overall – info sought or
received from IR
Overall – processing
Overall –
phone
Overall – audits, completing
the process

Examples of issues identified as priorities to improve on the
importance/performance chart
Source: Q33. Is there anything else you would like to say about any of the topics covered in the survey so far?
“I find staff quite inconsistent in there knowledge and abilities - sometimes I am told something can't be done (I know if can be
done) so I just call back and speak to someone else. I also get very annoyed if I have to chase a return or fix an IRD error. It costs our
client money through no fault of there own. I feel IRD staff need to be much better trained.”
“Inland Revenue has a very broad range of staff, some of which are extremely knowledgeable and some who are not so
knowledgeable, and it is disappointing on occasions to end up dealing with an IR staff member who refuses to request help from a
more knowledgeable colleague, but rather just states that something can't be done or sorted.”
“It is a bit hit and miss as to the knowledge of the person at IRD. Some are very helpful and knowledgeable and others give out
wrong information.”
Phone – consistency of info
“I dread any time I need to contact the IRD. Each phone call is at least an hour on hold. Each question submitted online takes a
month to get a response. This would not be acceptable in the commercial world.”
“The current timeframe in which we can expect an answer to a basic email query, from our compliance officer, has recently been
extended to 2 weeks (we are told this is due to her team's commitment to Business Transformation). This is a poor customer
experience, and wouldn't be at all acceptable in a commercial situation. Inland Revenue needs to resource more appropriately.”
Phone – time taken to answer your enquiry

Examples of issues identified as priorities to improve on the
importance/performance chart, cont.
“The telephone call back service is fantastic and better than holding on the other end of a line listening to rubbish. It would be
better to place a message that could then be direct to the correct person as being transferred around several times and
constantly repeating the information is frustrating.”
“There definitely needs to be the ability to have one person dealing with an issue. Having to deal with 8 people is hugely time
consuming and frustrating especially when they say they will do something and it either hasn't been done or what they have done
is not visible to other IRD staff.”
“I have found the call wait time has drastically improved which has been great. The main criticism I have is after saying what I need
to discuss using the automated system I have had to be transferred as the person on the call has only basic knowledge or authority
which makes me question why we are asked for the subject we are calling on in the first place.”
Phone – finding right person
Processing – straightforward process
“Refunds are taking far too long to process. We have had to make numerous calls regarding refunds not being released and
accounts in review. If further information is required it would be preferable for the IRD to call the Tax Agent.”
“Refunds are often held up in account review and would sit there forever unless you ring up. Then when you ring they will askfor
details of "other expenses" in the IR10 before issuing the refund. The "other expenses" figure in the IR10 is made up of allother
expenses not specifically entered in the IR10 so why ask for this.”
“When you contact the IRD to follow up a refund they have had for 10 weeks to find it was in error but no one has contacted us and
then they still take another 15 working days to fix and release a $11,000 refund - frustrating.”

Phoning IR

Satisfaction with the phone experience continues to improve
6% 4% 5% 6%
23% 25% 25% 28%
37% 32%
38%
38%
23%
26%
26% 19%
12% 14%
6% 9%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Source: Q5. And overall, how would you rate your experience in telephoning Inland Revenue?
Base 2015: All members who have telephoned IR in the last 12 months n=363.
2013 2014 20152012*

3%
4%
4%
6%
5%
3%
5%
5%
7%
7%
14%
26%
21%
25%
22%
19%
26%
31%
24%
30%
37%
37%
34%
31%
36%
33%
43%
38%
45%
40%
28%
23%
30%
24%
26%
28%
19%
18%
20%
17%
18%
11%
11%
15%
12%
16%
7%
7%
3%
6%
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
Improvements in ‘ease of finding the right person’ and ‘time taken to answer your
enquiry’ appear to driven the improvement in the overall telephone experience
Source: Q4. Thinking about the occasions when you have phoned Inland Revenue in the last 12 months, how would you rate them on each of the
following? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: All members who have telephoned IR in the last 12 months n=363.
Providing information that is easy to
understand
Providing information that is
relevant
Time taken to answer your
enquiry
Ease of finding right person
Consistency of information from
different people at IR

Consistent with a general overall improvement, those who were unhappy with their telephone
experience or rated it merely good, were less likely to suggest improvements this year (an average
of 4.8 improvements per unhappy member this year compared to 5.3 last year)
5%
18%
33%
33%
38%
42%
53%
60%
56%
62%
64%
69%
8%
21%
28%
32%
38%
39%
45%
50%
52%
52%
57%
62%
Other
Improve customer service/staff attitude
Provide more staff training
Get rid of the answering system/have a real person
Have more call centre staff available
Provide consistent service/answers
Refer callers to the right person/relevant person
Make more technical staff available
Provide a list of individuals to contact (DDI and email)
Provide direct dial numbers/dedicated lines
More experienced staff/more knowledgeable
Answer phones quicker/improve response times
2015 2014
Source: Q6. Thinking about your experience, how could Inland Revenue improve your experience when contacting them by phone?
Base 2015: Respondents who phoned IR and rated their overall experiences phoning IR as good, fair or poor, n=239.
The largest
reductions in
suggested
improvements
are all to do
with staff
availability

Comments about phoning IR
“NZ has a good tax system and a good tax department. Having worked with both the UK and Irish tax systems we have a
high calibre of employee in our tax departments, they provide a high level of service and have high levels of accuracy.
After 15 years away from NZ it was great to make contact with the IRD again and see that the high levels of service and
great telephone manner from the IRD staff had not deteriorated in my absence.”
General comments
Other suggested improvements
“Accept calls from cellphones to 0800 numbers.”
“Allow contact by mobile phone to 0800 numbers.”
“Have one person deal with the issue, we had to dealt with 8 different
people.”
“Refer to notes on system before making needless calls to clients/tax
agents.”
“Update your hold music and turn down the volume.”

Contacting IR for general information

Members’ experience seeking general information from IR hasn’t
changed from last year
6% 3% 6% 5%
37%
37%
37% 40%
44%
42%
45% 42%
12%
16%
10% 11%
1% 2% 2% 2%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Source: Q9. And overall, how would you rate your experience of seeking or receiving this information from Inland Revenue?
Base 2015: All members who contacted IR for general information n=383.

The overall rating of seeking and/or receiving general information from IR didn’t
differ greatly by the type of information sought . . . mainly because most
members sought multiple types of information*
5% 6% 6% 7% 6%
42%
44%
40% 36% 40%
Excellent Very good
Source: Q7. Which of the following sources of general information did you seek or receive from Inland Revenue? Q9. And overall, how would you rate
your experience of seeking or receiving this information from Inland Revenue?
Base 2015: All members who contacted IR for general information n=383.
% sought and/or
received each type 94%
% rating overall
experience of
seeking and/or
receiving good
Info on
website
Tax alerts
Tax info
bulletins
Public
rulings
Other publications
and brochures
57% 65% 27% 43%
*Members were not asked to rate their experience seeking and/or receiving each item separately, instead they just provided an overall rating of their
experience seeking and/or receiving.

The ratings of the information sought/receiving from IR are very similar
to last year
6%
7%
5%
7%
5%
6%
39%
40%
39%
36%
39%
40%
45%
40%
43%
41%
44%
41%
9%
11%
12%
12%
10%
11%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
Source: Q8. Thinking about the occasions when you have sought or received general information from Inland Revenue, how would you rate the
information received on each of the following? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: All members who contacted IR for general information, n=383.
Understandability
Ease of use
Relevance to your
business / practice

The most frequently mentioned improvement is to improve the website
search function
“Improve searchability for key topics. It regularly lack basic searches parameters. It is at times almost impossible to get
guidance from the website and at others it takes a huge amount of lateral thinking to find the appropriate words to search
on.”
“Interestingly I always use Google to search the IRD web site. Using the search on IRD website turns up irrelevant results or
leads you in the wrong direction.”
Improve website search functionality
Have experienced/knowledgeable staff more available
“Being able to talk to someone higher up the food chain so an issue an actually be resolved.”
“Have more experienced technical staff available.”
“Need access to the right people who have the authority to make decisions and correct technical knowledge.”
Source: Q10. How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants seeking or receiving information from them?
Base: Respondents who contacted IR for general information and rated their overall experiences as good, fair or poor, n=210.
21%made comments
like this
7%made comments
like this
Provide faster responses
“Process applications for GST numbers and IRD numbers with more speed - the current delay of several weeks is
unacceptable when we are trying to get businesses up and running.”
“Response time for answering calls and call back is too long.”
“Less time on hold – time is money for us and it isn’t fair on our clients.”
4%made comments
like this

The most frequently mentioned improvement is to improve the website
search function, cont.
“Have staff that are able to answer your queries with the correct information, if you ring back you get a different answer!”
“Consistency of call centre staff.”
Consistent responses
Other comments
“Email with the previous emails linked and allow attachments. Allow me to cut and paste into an email from Word.”
“Make available bulk decisions for clients of tax agents with the same tax issue such as debt relief arrangements.”
“In one case was advised needed to talk to someone else - but no one was available, needed to ring back - same number.
Another case working with someone to deal with client arrears, but was not able to get to talk to the same person, so went
around in circles. Another case working on write-offs with a person, but notices kept coming through the mail, including a
court action notice - why couldn't they be held/pending.”
“Most examples given are for sole traders.”
“Make it easy to file client returns online using IRD online forms. E.g., one-off GST returns for a client, not via accounting
practice software.”
Source: Q10. How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants seeking or receiving information from them?
Base: Respondents who contacted IR for general information and rated their overall experiences as good, fair or poor, n=210.
3%made comments
like this

Contacting IR for processing

Satisfaction with the processing of returns, assessments, and payments
has improved
5% 3% 6% 5%
24% 28%
27%
35%
44% 41% 39%
39%
19% 21%
26% 17%
8% 8%
2% 5%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Source: Q11. And overall, how would you rate your experiences of contacting Inland Revenue for the processing of returns, assessments and/or
payments?
Base 2015: All members who contacted IR for processing in the last 12 months n=339.

There have been slight increases in three of the four aspects of
processing
8%
5%
5%
4%
7%
8%
10%
6%
25%
29%
24%
29%
25%
25%
27%
33%
37%
37%
32%
31%
35%
36%
39%
36%
21%
20%
26%
25%
27%
24%
20%
19%
9%
8%
13%
12%
7%
8%
4%
6%
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
Source: Q11. Thinking about the occasions when you have contacted Inland Revenue about the processing of returns, assessments and/or payments
in the last 12 months, how would you rate them on each of the following? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: All members who contacted IR for processing, n=383.
Having a straightforward
process
Consistency and accuracy
of processing
Being error free in their
processes
Speed of processing

While there has been a reduction in the percentage suggesting IR improve the
information about the status of a return/review – it is still the aspect of processing
that is most frequently mentioned as needing improvement
35%
35%
38%
39%
42%
49%
50%
58%
72%
32%
32%
42%
36%
40%
45%
48%
60%
65%
Improve Working for Families processing times
Improve call centre service
Faster payment of refunds
Employ more knowledgeable / better trained staff
Reduce amount of errors / improve checking processes
Improve website functionality
Improve follow up times
Faster processing of returns
Provide more information about the status of return / review
Source: Q13. How could Inland Revenue improve the experience of Chartered Accountants contacting them about the processing of returns,
assessments and payments?
Base 2015: Members who contacted IR about processing and rated their overall experiences as good, fair or poor, n=206.

Tax audits

There are high levels of dissatisfaction with the time given to provide information
and also the time it takes IR to respond about information given
3%
5%
3%
7%
16%
14%
17%
17%
25%
26%
34%
33%
31%
32%
32%
28%
25%
24%
14%
15%
2014
2015
2014
2015
Source: Q18. Still thinking about Inland Revenue’s tax audit timelines, how would you rate them on the following? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: Respondents who contacted IR about a tax audit, n=135.
Time given by IR to respond to
information requests
Time taken by IR to respond to
information provided by the
audited organisation

Ratings of the auditors are fairly consistent with last year, and remain
much better than they were in 2013
Source: Q19. How would you rate the auditor on each of the following statements? Excl. Don’t know.
28%
28%
39% 40%
37%
27%
36%
32%
22%
20%
33% 32%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Clear and concise in what was required Responding promptly to issues Keeping you fully informed

Ratings of the auditors are fairly consistent with last year, and remain
much better than they were in 2013, cont.
52%
49%
54%
50%
37%
31%
40% 40%
30%
26%
35%
37%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Polite and well mannered Readily available for questions Considering fairly any points raised by you

However, when looking at the ratings of auditors across the full scale,
there does appear to be an increase in the percentage rating fair or poor
9%
8%
10%
10%
11%
10%
7%
7%
13%
11%
18%
16%
24%
24%
25%
27%
25%
22%
32%
33%
27%
29%
36%
34%
27%
26%
36%
22%
28%
28%
37%
29%
35%
30%
31%
32%
24%
25%
15%
28%
20%
26%
15%
23%
15%
20%
11%
13%
16%
18%
14%
13%
16%
15%
9%
8%
9%
10%
3%
5%
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
Being readily available for
questions
Responding promptly to issues
Being clear and concise in what
was required from you
Being polite and well mannered
Keeping you fully informed
throughout the audit process
Considering fairly any points
raised by you

There has been an increase in the proportion of members rating their
satisfaction with ‘completing the audit and agreeing any adjustments’ good or
better
9% 5% 8% 10%
32%
21%
34% 33%
33%
49%
26%
42%
17% 19%
24%
11%
9% 7% 8% 5%
2012* 2013 2014 2015
Source: Q23. Thinking about the completion of this most recent audit, how would you rate the process of completing the audit and agreeing any
adjustments with Inland revenue?
Base 2015: All members who’ve had contact with IR about a tax audit in the last 12 months and it has been completed n=84.

The primary reason for the increase in satisfaction with ‘completing the audit and
agreeing any adjustments’ is an improvement in the time taken to complete the
audit
26%
28%
39%
35%
30%
25%
14%
17%
18%
21%
21%
16%
5%
4%
2%
2013
2014
2015
Source: Q16b. Thinking about the length of time it took from start to finish, approximately how long did this most recent tax audit take? Q16c. How
long has the audit been going for?
Base 2015: Members whose most recent audit has been completed n=84, respondents whose most recent audit hasn’t been completed n=63.
Time taken –
most recent
complete audit
Time taken so far
– most recent
incomplete audit
20%
28%
16%
23%
30%
19%
25%
17%
22%
25%
21%
29%
8%
4%
14%
2013
2014
2015
3 months or less 4 to 6 months More than a year Don’t recall7 to 12 months

Members are much more satisfied with the audit process if the estimate of
the time it will take is accurate
2% 31% 15% 9% 44%
Don’t recall an
estimate being given
Time audit took compared to
time IR estimated*
Less than
estimate
*Analysis is base don 2014 and 2015 data.
Source: Q16b. Thinking about the length of time it took from start to finish, approximately how long did this most recent tax audit take? Q17. before
commencing this tax audit what indication did Inland Revenue give you for the length of time it would take to complete?
Base 2014/5: Members whose most recent audit has been completed n=126.
Same as
estimate
3 months
longer than
estimate
>3 months
longer than
estimate
64% 33% 34%Percentage rating the
audit process very good
or excellent*

The most frequently suggested improvements to the audit process were
to: (1) only request relevant information and, (2) speed up the process
“Not take so long, be a bit more practical and understand there are some timing differences that come out at the end of
the day. Hours and hours of work and time and they have a few thousand in timing difference that is made up the next
year.”
“Clearer timelines - information gathering and responding.”
“Speed of audit. Resource was transferred from our audit to another audit. Some of the positions taken by the IRD lacked
commercial reality. For example lending rates from non-banking institutes and settlements on employee disputes.”
Source: Q24. How could Inland Revenue improve the tax audit experience . . .?
Base 2015: Members who rated their overall audit experience as good, fair or poor, n=48.
Speed up the process
Only request relevant information
“After months and months of providing information, my boss talked to a higher up manager who took a look at the audit and
concluded that there was nothing to look at. We had been telling the auditor that and had provided ALL invoices and
information requested. And still he kept looking for something. It was an expensive exercise for our client which served no
purpose. If someone with more specialist knowledge of the area we were in had looked at it earlier. It would have saved us a lot
of time and our client a lot of money.”
“Ask questions that materially affect the financials of a company.”
“Things could be done in a more timely manner, the relevance of information being requested needs to be considered more
closely when initiating the audit or when additional information is requested during the audit.”

The most frequently suggested improvements to the audit process were to: (1)
only request relevant information and, (2) speed up the process, cont.
“Read the notes from previous queries and reviews before asking the same questions again every time. There are good
reasons why our companies swing from profit to loss or GST payable/refundable given the nature of the business we are in.
Time and time again we have to explain to yet another fresh IRD clerk why this is so. TAKES NOTES, MAKE THEM ACCESSIBLE
TO ALL IRD STAFF AND READ THE NOTES BEFORE CONTACTING US!!!”
Source: Q24. How could Inland Revenue improve the tax audit experience . . .?
Base 2015: Members who rated their overall audit experience as good, fair or poor, n=48.
Other comments

A third of members think the audit they were involved in had an impact on
the normal running of the business/organisation being audited
31% 57% 11%
No impact
Don’t
recall
Impact of audit on running
business/organisation
Yes, had an impact on the
normal running of the business
Source: Q21. During the audit period did Inland Revenue have any impact on the normal running of business [for your client/company/organisation]?
Q22: What impact did Inland Revenue have on your [client’s] business/organisation?
Base 2015: Members who were involved in a tax audit in the last 12 months, n=147.
“The stress on the client is huge. They may not have done anything wrong, but it still is a very stressful process. Perhaps some graphical timelines as to
the process would be useful at the start of an audit.”
“Took up a crazy amount of time, they just seemed to keep asking and digging for ages. Overall it was a painful experience, they have no idea of the
commercial realities of running a business and the constraints we operate in the real world. Listening to our auditor talk of the glide time and never
more than 40 hours a week is great when you work 60 hours most weeks! Not that I would change to be an IRD auditor!”
“Extensive information requirements but not excessive given complexity of issues and quantum of tax at issue.”
“Requesting information at the end of financial year when the team was very busy.”
“The audit was administration intensive from our perspective. I recently went to a presentation from an Australian CFO (also responsible for a large NZ
company) who stated that the ATO has an objective to help/assist where as the NZ IRD take a more investigative approach. I thought he was bang on.”
“The phone responses to late returns and late payments has been excellent of late. The IRD staff have taken good notes (you can tell when you call
back that the information on file is accurate) and the staff have been very professional is discussing and agreeing a follow up date for action. The
acknowledgement that some things just take time has been appreciated.”
Examples of the impact

The proportion of Public Practice members’ client base involved in an
audit in the last 12 months is similar to the proportions last year
63%
25%
3%
1% 1%
3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
2% 2%
65%
24%
3%
1%
4% 3%
1%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11%+
2014 2015
Source: Q14a. Now thinking about tax audits, what percentage of your client base has been involved in an Inland Revenue audit in
the last twelve months? Excl. Don’t know.
Base 2015: Public Practice CAs, n=224.
Percentage of Public Practice members’ client base involved in audit that has started in the last 12 months

31%
29%
33%
7%
20%
25%
40%
16%
Less than half of Public Practice members who’ve been involved in an audit think the
frequency or perceived frequency of audits affects their clients’ behaviour
2014 2015
Yes, for all or most of
your clients
Yes, but just for a
few of your clients
No Don’t know / NA
Source: Q14b. Do you think the frequency, or perceived frequency, of Inland Revenue’s audits affects your clients compliance behaviour?
Base 2015: Public Practice CAs who have had contact with Inland revenue about a tax audit in the last 12 months, n=102.

Involvement in disputes processes
Caution: results in this section based on very small sample sizes

The proportion of members involved in a disputes process is similar to
the proportion in 2014
1%
2%
2%
5%
6%
5%
8%
89%
1%
2%
2%
5%
4%
4%
7%
87%
Other
Case being filed in court
Adjudication
The issue or receipt of a Notice of Response
(NOR)
The issue or receipt of Statements of Position
Taking part in a conference
The issue or receipt of a Notice of Proposed
Adjustment (NOPA)
No involvement / none of these
2015 2014
Source: Q30a. In which, if any, of the following ways have you been involved in a Disputes Process [on behalf of a client/your company/your
organisation]?
Base 2015: All respondents, n=425.
Amongst Public Practice
members the incidence of
involvement is 19%, amongst
all other members it is 5%
>

Nearly two-thirds of disputes have been settled by mutual agreement
*This sub-group analysis is based on 2014 and 2015 data.
Source: Q30d. Which party agreed to settle the dispute? Q30e. What were the main reasons the taxpayer decided to settle the dispute?
Base 2015: All members who have been involved in a completed disputes process, n=34.
6% 62% 32%
Inland Revenue
agreed to settle the
dispute It was by mutual agreement
Taxpayer agreed to settle
the dispute
3%
6%
13%
44%
44%
47%
Other
Inland Revenue had the better position
Unwilling to suffer reputational damage by going to court
Settlement considered appropriate
Cost of continuing too great
Time commitment too great
Reasons the taxpayer agreed to settle
Caution: small sample size
>
>
The ‘settlement considered
appropriate by the taxpayer’
was more often mentioned
by those who said it was
settled by mutual
agreement (47% cf. 21%*).
The ‘cost of continuing was
too great’ was more often
mentioned by those who
said the taxpayer agreed to
settle (58% cf. 43%).

Nearly two-thirds thought IR understood the taxpayer’s position but
less than half thought IR fairly considered it
Source: Q30f. To what extent do you think Inland Revenue did the following before the taxpayer decided to settle the dispute?
Base 2015: All members who have been involved in a completed disputes process where the taxpayer fully or partially decided to settle the dispute,
n=32.
18%
13%
12%
9%
38%
50%
36%
34%
32%
34%
42%
38%
12%
3%
9%
19%
2014
2015
2014
2015
To a great extent To some extent Not very much Not at all
Understood the
taxpayer's position
Considered fairly the
taxpayer's position

17%
40%9%
17%
17% 17%
51%
23%
6% 3%
Dispute processes are less likely to be decided in favour of the taxpayer
this year (although please note this section is based on very sample sizes)
Source: Q30g. In whose favour was the matter finalised?
Base 2015: All respondents who have been involved in a completed disputes process, n=35.
2014 2015
Entirely in
IR's
Predominantly
in IR's
Approximately
evenly
Predominantly
in the taxpayer's
Entirely in the
taxpayer's

17%
17%
23%
29%
14%
26%
17%
17%
26%
14%
There is little change in when the dispute was resolved
Source: Q30h. At what stage of the disputes process was the matter resolved?
Base 2015: All respondents who have been involved in a completed disputes process, n=34.
2014 2015
After the NOPA After the NOR At the conference
After the statements
of position
After the case had
been filed at court

The point at which the dispute is settled doesn’t have a major bearing
on whose favour it is resolved in
Source: Q30f. To what extent do you think Inland Revenue did the following before the taxpayer decided to settle the dispute?
Base 2012 to 2015: Members who been involved in a dispute that was settled: after the NOPA n=32, after the NOR n=23, at the conference n=25, after
the statements of position n=43, after the case has been filed with the court n=12.
Analysis based on combined 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 data.
Caution: small sample sizes.
After the NOPA
% resolved entirely or
mostly in favour of IR
% resolved entirely or
mostly in favour of the
taxpayer
After the NOR At conference
After statements
of position
After case has
been filed
59% 57%
52% 51%
67%
16%
30% 32% 33%
0%

Business transformation

94%
28%
84%
Relatively few organisations are calculating tax within their
finance/accounting software
Source: Q37/40. Does your organisation use accounting software?/How many of your client use accounting software? Q38/Q41. Does your organisation
calculate your tax within your accounting/finance software or is it done separately?/How many of your clients . . .? Q39/Q42. does your organisation
use payroll software, either in-house or via an external provider?/Q42. How many of your clients use payroll software?
Base 2015: All Public Practice members n=224, all non-Public Practice members n=201.
Public Practice
clients
54%
13% 20%
22%
7%
16%
13%
7%
15%
8%
36%
43%
2%
38%
7%
>80% of clients >50% to 80% of clients 50% of clients >0% to 49% 0%
Corporate, public
sector, and not-for-
profit members
Use payroll softwareUse accounting software Tax is calculated within
accounting software
% yes

Public Practice members are more concerned about providing real-time
information to IR than corporate and other members
Source: Q43. How would [ . . . your organisation / your clients . . .] feel about providing Inland Revenue with real time financial information?
Base 2015: All members n=425, Public Practice members n=224, all non-Public Practice members n=201.
Providing IR with real-time
financial information is a good idea
/ sounds okay in principle
All members
Corporate and other
members
Public Practice
members
36% 44%21%
Neutral
A little concerned/super nervous
about providing IR with real-
time financial information
24% 55%21%
49% 30%20%

Members are less keen for their systems or their clients’ systems
talking direct to IR’s systems
Source: Q44. How would [ . . . you feel about your organisation’s financial systems / you feel about your clients’ financial systems . . .] talking directly
to Inland Revenue’s systems?
Your/your clients’ systems talking
to IR’s systems directly is a good
idea / sounds okay in principle
All members
Corporate and other
members
Public Practice
members
27% 60%13%
Neutral
A little concerned/super nervous
about your/your clients’ systems
talking to IR’s systems directly
20% 69%11%
34% 51%15%
“If client's accounting software 'spoke' to IRD in real time the information provided may not be accurate as
there are a number of changes made at year end for most clients. There would have to be a change in the
relationship between Accountants and their clients to ensure this information is correct.”

Members are only interested in paying provisional tax six times a year if there is a
significant benefit for doing so (i.e., no exposure to interest and penalties)
Source: Q45. What would . . . think about paying provisional tax six times per year (instead of current system of three times per year)? Q46. What
would . . . think about paying provisional tax six times per year if the payments were based on the two-monthly GST returns? Q47. What would . . .
think about paying provisional tax six times per year if there was no exposure to interest and penalties as a trade-off for paying more frequently?
3%
14%
40%
25%
18%
Six times a year
Very keen on the idea Quite keen Neutral Not that keen Not at all keen
Six times a year
(if payments based on 2 monthly GST returns)
Six times a year
(if no exposure to interest and penalties)
3%
16%
39%
25%
17% 19%
42%
27%
7%
5%

Suggestions for changing one thing about the tax system
“Make it as simple as possible.”
“Improved clarity and simplification around areas of recognised uncertainty and complexity especially where the impact is
relatively minor in revenue terms in order to reduce compliance costs and exposures to penalties.”
“Removal of spurious complexities, e.g. IRD approval for DC12 schemes, Buyer-created tax invoices, allow use of say 43% FBT rate
for benefits available to all staff in a widely-held company, allow wider use of "IFRS basis" for measurement of investment
income (at least) for companies producing audited financials.”
Simplify it
Align business, trustee, and personal tax rates
“Align marginal personal rates with both corporate and trustee rates.”
“Align trustee and personal tax rates with the company rate!”
Source: Q48. If there is one thing you could ask the Government to change about the tax system, what would it be?
Base: All members n=425.
5%made comments
like this
3%made comments
like this
Remove or simplify fringe benefit tax
“Drop FBT – it is complicated, confusing and I doubt it is a revenue earner.”
“Further simplification. FBT can be difficult due to the intricate detail involved.”
3%made comments
like this

Suggestions for changing one thing about the tax system, cont.
“A more efficient and effective IT system is needed. There are a lot of things that could be done online that aren't. Returns
and payments take more time to process than necessary and queries could be addressed online. Also, a better system could
utilise the information to prevent tax fraud and evasion.”
“Keep making the on-line processes and tools more user friendly and streamlined. Great progress.”
Improve online tax system or keep improving it
Reduce interest and penalties/be more forgiving of mistakes
“More understanding for mistakes that are made in filing returns or forgetting to file.”
“The structure and rates of penalties and interest. The nature of penalties and interest is a huge barrier for tax debts being
resolved with IRD.”
“Less penalties and interest, they are grossly unfair.”
3%made comments
like this
3%made comments
like this
Flat tax rate on income tax and increase GST
“Flat rate for all income tax.”
“If the government really wants to do something to improve the tax system, they should tax more fairly, equally to
everyone, I am for the increase GST and reduce the individual personal tax.”
2%made comments
like this

“Ensure multinational and charities with commercial operations (Sanitarium, property portfolio churches) are captured in the
tax base.”
“Do change the tax system to tax companies operating in NZ so that they pay tax in NZ. I have worked for multi national
companies in London and know from first hand experience that most of these companies base themselves in tax neutral
countries.”
Make sure everyone is paying their fair share
2%made comments
like this
“Broad based capital gains tax.”
“Capital gains tax.”
Introduce capital gains tax
1%made comments
like this

“Allow GST input on 50% deductible entertainment to be calculated ONCE per ANNUM rather than on every transaction within every GST
Period. Total additional KEY STROKES per transaction caused by having to do it the present way is approximately 20 extra. We probably
have 30-50 a month.”
“Have a $10,000 claimable rule for Accountancy similar to Legal Fees.”
“Have less payments due in December and January when income is low for most clients.”
“There is a huge demand on them as employers, costs are high. There needs to be a better system of rewarding businesses who are
employing people to help them grow. Spend more time working on their business to grow and innovate. Needs to be a focus on helping
good business owners while having barriers to poor business owners who damage others. My answer - have a growth in turnover, profit and
wages based tax rebate/incentive. N/A for first year in business and have exemptions around acquisition. N/A to NZX and scaled to larger
businesses. This will encourage businesses grow while employing people who spend more money locally. Free up cash for good business to
grow and employ more people.”
Other comments

Base erosion and profit shifting

The majority of members know a little or nothing about BEPS and the work
being done by the OECD and G20 to address BEPS
Source: Q34. How would you rate your knowledge of this issue? Q35. How aware are you that the OECD and G20 are doing work on how to address
the challenges associated with these practices?
5% 5% 6%
17% 16% 18%
50% 49%
51%
28% 30%
25%
All Public Practice
members
Corporate and other
members
Know a lot Know a reasonable amount
Know a little Know nothing
7% 8% 6%
19% 17% 21%
44% 50%
38%
30%
25%
35%
All Public Practice
members
Corporate and other
members
Heard a lot Heard a reasonable amount
Heard a little Know nothing
Knowledge of BEPS Aware of work by the OECD and G20 to address BEPS

When looking at BEPS knowledge by size of Public Practice firm, those in
larger firms know more
Source: Q34. How would you rate your knowledge of this issue? Q35. How aware are you that the OECD and G20 are doing work on how to address
the challenges associated with these practices?
5% 2% 4%
12%
16%
13%
16%
24%
49%
50%
49%
43%
30% 34% 31%
22%
All Public
Practice
members
1 or 2 partner
firm
3 to 5 partner
firm
6 or more
partner firm
Know a lot Know a reasonable amount
Know a little Know nothing
8% 4%
10%
16%
17%
12%
14%
29%
50%
53%
53%
41%
25%
31%
22%
14%
All Public
Practice
members
1 or 2 partner
firm
3 to 5 partner
firm
6 or more
partner firm
Heard a lot Heard a reasonable amount
Heard a little Heard nothing
Knowledge of BEPS Aware of work by the OECD and G20 to address BEPS

Most members think the New Zealand government’s decision to legislate
on BEPS should be driven by New Zealand’s overall economic interest
Source: Q36a. To what extent should the New Zealand Government’s decision to legislate for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting be driven by what is
best for New Zealand’s overall economic interest?
Base 2015: All members, excluding don’t knows, n=376.
41% 47% 10% 2%
To some extent
To a
small
extent
Not
at
all
Extent to which the NZ govt’s
decision to legislate on BEPS should
be driven by NZ’s overall economic
interest – all members
To a great extent
Public Practice members
Corporate and other members
Members aged 25 to 34
41% 42% 14% 4%
41% 52% 7% 1%
Members aged 55+
29% 54% 13% 3%
54% 37% 5% 4%

Most members are in favour of or neutral towards BEPS legislation even if
means they/their clients will end up paying more tax
Source: Q36b. If the BEPS legislation meant [ . . . your organisation / your clients . . .] had to pay more tax than they do now, would you be in favour of
or against legislation to address BEPS?
Base 2015: All members, excluding don’t knows, n=384.
22% 21% 43% 10% 4%
Slightly in
favour
Slightly
against
Not
at all
Reaction to BEPS legislation if it
meant you/your clients had to pay
more tax – all members
Strongly in
favour
Public Practice members
Corporate and other members
Members aged 25 to 34
24% 19% 42% 4%
20% 23% 45% 3%
Members aged 55+
8% 15% 62% 4%
38% 25% 26% 2%
Neutral
10%
10%
11%
8%

Comments about BEPS
“In case of the BEPS legislation, balance our New Zealand interests against the rest of the world. We are part of globalisation, and any BEPS
regulations can only work if all actors globally are in accord and can put aside their national interests for the greater good. If we don't we
will continue to have major corporations arbitraging between national tax systems, and we can only collectively blame ourselves.”
“In relation to BEPS issues, NZ has a strong broad base low rate tax system in place so the government should not reactively change the NZ
system and impose further compliance obligations or disincentives to doing business in NZ if these are not necessarily required compared to
other countries around the world.”

For further information please contact:
MICHAEL DUNNE
Colmar Brunton, a Millward Brown Company
Level 9, Lambton Quay House | 101 Lambton Quay | Wellington
PO Box 3622, Wellington 6140
Phone (04) 913 3004
www.colmarbrunton.co.nz

Appendix

Sample details
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Designation
CA 513 516 501 304 385 377
ACA 3 0 0 58 53 48
Provisional CA 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sector
Public Practice 495 434 299 181 247 224
Corporate 15 83 (CFOs only) 157 120 132 145
Not for profit 12 5 11 23 21 14
Other 7 0 14 17 24 21
Not employed 2 0 0 0 0 0
Public Sector 2 0 20 21 14 21
Total 517 516 501 362 438 425

Satisfaction with IR 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Satisfaction with IR 2015

Similar to Satisfaction with IR 2015 (20)

More from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand

More from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Satisfaction with IR 2015