Demystifying the GST for Foreign Petroleum Exploration and Production Companies Operating in New Zealand

presented by PL Harper, Paul Harper, Barrister and Solicitor, PO Box 10-061, Wellington

at the 1998 New Zealand Petroleum Conference

Abstract

How GST Works

Foreign Companies - When to Register

Foreign Companies - How to Register

GST Consequences of Specific Transactions

The GST Profile of a Petroleum Project

Conclusion

References

Author

Abstract

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is designed to be a simple tax - i.e. simple for the taxpayer to calculate and pay and simple for the taxgatherer to monitor and collect. That simplicity has largely been achieved for the vast bulk of standard business transactions undertaken in a conventional commercial operation in New Zealand. But problems arise around the boundaries of the tax - i.e. where the taxpayer is non resident or where the transaction is not standard.

One of those "boundary" areas is the GST treatment of foreign petroleum exploration and production companies operating in New Zealand. The paper identifies and explains the GST issues for those companies. It is divided into four main sections.

In the first section, the paper summarises (for those from outside New Zealand) how the GST works and the key concepts that are relevant at each stage of a petroleum exploration, development and production operation.

The second section focuses on the time at which the foreign company should enter the GST regime with respect to its New Zealand exploration operation, and the considerations that are relevant to that decision. Foreign companies with development and production operations in New Zealand are necessarily within the GST regime system but, for a non resident company with an exploration operation in New Zealand, there is a choice as to the time at which, and the form in which, the company registers for GST with respect to the exploration operation.

The third section examines the GST consequences of specific transactions, such as farmouts and transfers of joint venture interests, that take place in the course of a petroleum exploration, development and production project.

The fourth and final section of the paper explains and discusses the impact of the GST, in terms of revenue inflows and outflows, during the life of a petroleum exploration, development and production project. The paper profiles the GST revenue flows throughout the life of the project from inception to abandonment.

How GST Works

GST is a cascade tax, imposed on the value added at each step in the chain of supply of goods or services from the initial producer to the end consumer. It is therefore borne in full by the end consumer, who is generally a private individual or household. A simple example, showing the working of the GST in a standard transaction relating to goods (i.e. the production, distribution and ultimate sale of a pair of shoes) is set out in Table 1.

Table 1.

The key points to note are:

• 
  In the example, the total GST paid to the Government by those in the chain of supply is $6.25; and the GST borne by the end consumer on the purchase of the shoes is the same amount - i.e. $6.25.
• Each supplier earlier in the chain, who pays input GST, is reimbursed from the output GST collected from the next supplier in the chain, until the end of the chain where the end consumer carries the full amount. Each supplier is therefore paying the tax on the value added by its operations.

GST is imposed on the supply of goods or services (other than exempt supplies) made in New Zealand by a registered person in the course of carrying on a taxable activity. The rate of GST is 12.5%, except where the supply is zero rated - i.e. GST is imposed at the rate of 0% rather than at the standard rate. The main category of zero rated supply is the supply of goods or services outside New Zealand (zero rating is intended to encourage exports).

GST applies to the widest possible range of transactions - i.e. to all supplies of goods and services throughout the economy, with the only major exception being financial services (which were excluded because of the difficulties perceived in applying the tax to the varied and complex transactions carried out by financial institutions.)

The term "goods" is defined in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 ("GST Act") to mean "all kinds of personal or real property", but not including choses in action (i.e. rights enforceable by Court proceedings) or money. "Services" is defined even more widely to mean "anything which is not goods or money". (It follows that "services" includes choses in action). The term "supply" is interpreted to mean "to furnish with or provide" and to include sales, leases, licences, gifts, discharges, assumptions of liability and other transactions by which one person confers a benefit on another. A supply of goods or services is taxable unless it is exempt or is made outside New Zealand. The only supplies that are exempt are supplies of financial services, dwelling houses and rental housing accommodation.

The term "taxable activity" includes a business. The key elements of the definition are that:

• There is an activity;
• The activity is carried on continuously and regularly; and
• The activity involves, or is intended to involve, the supply or goods and/or services to any other person for a consideration.

There is no requirement that there must be a profit motive or that the activity must be profit making.

The question whether a supply is made in or outside New Zealand is not determined by the place where the supply is physically made. Instead it depends partly on the residence of the supplier and partly on the place where the goods are situated at the time of supply or where the services are performed. The basic rule is that the supply is deemed to be made at the place where the supplier is resident. It follows that:

• Where the supplier is resident in New Zealand, the supply is deemed made in New Zealand.
• Where the supplier is resident outside New Zealand, the supply is deemed made outside New Zealand.

There are two sub-rules, which deal with aspects of supplies by non-residents. The combined results of the basic rule, and the two exceptions, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

The tests for residence are the same as the residence tests under the Income Tax Act 1994 - i.e. a company is resident in New Zealand if it is incorporated in New Zealand or if it is incorporated outside New Zealand, but:

• Has its head office or centre of management in New Zealand or
• Is controlled by its directors acting in and from New Zealand.

There are two additional, special residence rules for the purposes of GST. They are that, a person is resident in New Zealand if the person carries on any activity in New Zealand while having a fixed or permanent place in New Zealand relating to that activity; and that an unincorporated body of persons is deemed to be resident in New Zealand if its centre of administrative management is in New Zealand.

It follows that supplies by New Zealand companies, or foreign companies with offices in New Zealand, will be made in New Zealand and will therefore attract GST unless they can be zero rated. Supplies of goods are zero rated when the goods are exported from New Zealand by the supplier or when the goods are supplied outside New Zealand. Suppliers of services are zero rated if the services are physically performed outside New Zealand or if the services are supplied to a non resident who or which is outside New Zealand at the time of supply, unless the services are supplied directly in connection with land or movable personal property (except choses in action - i.e. contractual rights) situated in New Zealand at the time when the services are performed.

A person (i.e. an individual, a company or an unincorporated body (including partnerships, joint ventures and trusts, etc)) is required to register for GST from the time when the taxable supplies made in the current year exceed, or are expected to exceed, NZ$30,000. A person may register voluntarily before that time. The rules as to registration are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Two or more companies in common ownership as to 66% or more, whether incorporated in New Zealand or elsewhere, can register as a group for GST if they meet the grouping requirements in the Income Tax Act 1994. When group registration applies:

• Supplies of goods and services between members of the group do not attract GST; and
• All input GST paid, and output GST received, by group members is deemed to have been paid and received by the nominated representative group member.

A registered person must add GST to the value of all goods and services supplied by the person and collect the GST along with the price for the goods and services. GST charged and collected is known as output GST. At the same time, the registered person must pay GST on goods and services supplied to the person. GST paid is known as input GST. The GST return shows output GST received by the taxpayer and input GST paid by the taxpayer. On the filing of the GST return:

• Where the output GST received exceeds the input GST paid for the return period, the taxpayer pays the difference to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR). This is the situation that generally applies in the normal course of business trading.
• Where the input GST paid exceeds the output GST received in the return period, CIR refunds the difference to the taxpayer. This situation arises where major capital purchases are made or where substantial supplies of goods or services are made at export in the return period.

The consequences of registration are shown in diagram form in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Payments and refunds of GST due, but not paid within the time required, carry interest from the due date to the date of payment.

The GST return period is two monthly, except where the annual value of taxable supplies.

• Exceeds, or is expected to exceed, NZ$24 million in which case the return period is monthly; or

GST is essentially ignored for New Zealand income tax purposes - i.e. output GST is not taxable income, input GST is not deductible (unless an input credit cannot be claimed for GST), GST paid is not deductible and GST refunds are not assessable income.

The GST applies to purchases and sales of capital assets, as well as to supplies made and received in the normal course of business. While in a macro sense the GST operates through the whole supply chain, it is necessary for micro purposes to focus on each transaction in the chain in which supplies are made and received, and the GST position of the party on each side of the transaction. If a company is registered, it pays GST on its inputs but recovers that GST from the GST that it charges on its outputs; and it must charge GST on all of its outputs, unless the supply in question qualifies for zero rating. Conversely, a company that is not registered must pay GST on its inputs, but cannot recover that GST. Transactions exempt from GST are less desirable for the supplier in cash flow terms, because the supplier cannot recover its input GST; but a zero rated transaction is beneficial for the supplier, because the supplier can recover its input GST without charging any output GST.

Foreign Companies - When to Register

The GST is a simple tax on standard commercial transactions within New Zealand. But it raises complexities around the boundaries of the tax - i.e. where the taxpayer is non resident or the transaction is non standard. Foreign petroleum companies, operating in New Zealand, are affected by both of those GST boundary issues; and their response is determined partly by GST economics and partly by three special GST rules - i.e. the rules as to residence, the rules as to registration and the rules as to the status of unincorporated bodies for GST purposes.

This section is written with reference to both a foreign petroleum company, conducting exploration activities alone, and to a joint venture involving foreign companies and a foreign operator.

The GST economics of a petroleum exploration and production operation are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

In the exploration and development phases, the operation produces net GST refunds while, in the production phase, it is a net GST payer.

In addition to GST economics, the decision when to register is driven by the GST residence rules and the GST registration rules. The conventional view is that the foreign petroleum company should register for GST at once, so that it can recover the input GST that it pays.

I do not consider that the conventional view is correct. Most foreign petroleum companies, operating in New Zealand, are structured as branches of foreign companies, mainly for income tax reasons. It follows that they are non resident for GST purposes unless or until one of the special GST residence rules applies. Those rules are that:

• a company becomes resident (for GST purposes) if it has an activity in New Zealand and a fixed or permanent place (i.e. an office) here related to that activity.
• an unincorporated body (including a joint venture) is resident here if its centre of administrative management is in New Zealand.

The case law (New Zealand Forest Products NV v CIR) is to the effect that the centre of administrative management of an unincorporated joint venture will be located at the operator's principal office.

By the time production begins, the foreign company participant or the joint venture will inevitably be resident in New Zealand for GST purposes by the operation of one of those special residence rules, because the participant or the operator will have an office in New Zealand; and the operations of the foreign company participant or joint venture will therefore be subject to GST. For the same reason, in the development phase and in the exploration phase after exploration drilling has begun, the foreign company participant or the joint venture will be resident in New Zealand and the GST economics will operate to produce substantial GST refunds. Although supplies will not have begun, the registration rules allow the participant or the joint venture to register voluntarily and recover refunds of the GST paid.

The position in the exploration phase, before exploration drilling has begun, is almost always otherwise - i.e. expenditure will be relatively low, the foreign company participant or joint venture is unlikely to need or have an office in New Zealand, the foreign company participant or joint venture is likely to be buying services more than goods for the purposes of its operations and the foreign company participant or joint venture is likely to be using services from foreign companies more than from companies operating within New Zealand.

In these circumstances, the foreign company participant or joint venture is clearly non resident and should therefore not have any GST liability at all. Goods and services supplied by companies, operating from outside New Zealand, are not subject to GST; and all or most goods and services supplied by New Zealand operations registered for GST will qualify for zero rating. It follows that, during the first part of the exploration phase, the foreign company participant or joint venture will not have to register for GST in order to recover GST inputs because it will be paying little or no GST. If it remains unregistered for this period of time, the foreign company participant or joint venture will not have to cope with GST payments and refunds (including currency differences arising from exchange rate fluctuations between the date of payment and the date of refund of GST) and will not be potentially liable to charge and collect GST on transfers of joint venture interests or farmout payments received.

But zero rating stops from the time when the foreign company participant or joint venture becomes resident in New Zealand for GST purposes by operation of one of the special residence rules, and GST therefore begins to be payable; and the GST registration rules allow the foreign company participant or joint venture to register voluntarily and to collect refunds equal to the GST that has been paid.

My view is that, in almost all cases, the foreign company participant or joint venture should defer registering for GST until it has, or needs to have, an office in New Zealand or until exploration spending begins to become sizeable. (In my experience, these two circumstances generally coincide). The position is summarised in Figure 4.

Foreign Companies - How to Register

In addition to GST economics, the question of how a foreign company participant should register for GST is governed by the specific rules for GST registration of unincorporated bodies (including joint ventures). The GST Act departs from the income tax law, and the general law, by treating unincorporated bodies (including partnerships, joint ventures and trusts) as separate legal entities for GST purposes only and providing for the body to register for GST instead of the members registering separately. When an unincorporated body is registered for GST, section 57 of the GST Act provides that the taxable activity is carried on by the body (i.e. the joint venture) and not by its members (i.e. the participants).

But that approach raises a difficulty in the case of a petroleum joint venture, because of the clear principle that the joint venture locates, develops and produces the petroleum and the participants then take possession of the petroleum in their respective shares and dispose of it separately (i.e. not as a joint venture but as participants), with sales of liquids almost always being made by the participants separately and with gas and LPG generally being sold by the participants jointly to single buyers for logistical reasons. That principle suggests that an important part of the activity of producing and selling petroleum - i.e. the ultimate sale of the production - is in fact being carried on by the participants, and not by the joint venture; and I believe that this is the origin of the current industry practice with respect to GST registration of petroleum joint ventures.

The current practice is that the participants are regarded as having a choice whether to register the joint venture as an unincorporated body, or to register themselves separately for their proportionate shares of the joint venture's activities. On a careful reading of the GST Act and case law, my conclusion is that choice appears not to be available, but the question is not free from doubt. I think that the GST Act intends that the unincorporated body will register for its activity in all cases. But that approach raises a number of difficulties and uncertainties for a petroleum joint venture - some practical and others conceptual or theoretical. I do not see any policy reason why unincorporated bodies should not have the choice as to method of GST registration, which the current industry practice confers upon them - whether the body registers, or the members register separately, the same amounts of GST are payable and refundable, and at essentially the same time.

The current practice is to regard the participants in a petroleum joint venture as having the choice whether:

• To register the joint venture for GST purposes; or
• To include the outputs and inputs, attributable to the joint venture's activities, in their own separate GST returns.

Where the participants elect not to register the joint venture separately for GST, the normal position (reflected in most Joint Venture Operating Agreements) is that:

• The participants are separately responsible for the GST payable on account of joint venture activities and separately entitled to GST refunded on account of joint venture activities, in their respective joint venture percentage interests; and
• The Operator acts as agent for the participants, to make and receive supplies by or to the joint venture on behalf of the participants and to maintain records of those supplies on behalf of the participants.

This is the approach used by most petroleum joint ventures unless the participants decide, unanimously or by the required majority, to register the joint venture separately for GST. Registration by the participants individually means that the participant's taxable activity includes the joint venture interest, as well as the participant's share of the results of joint venture operations, with the consequence that transfers of joint venture interests, and payments received in farmout transactions, are potentially subject to GST.

Where the joint venture is registered separately:

• Supplies by and to the joint venture for the purposes of its taxable activity are accounted for in a separate joint venture GST return, and are consequently excluded from the GST returns that the participants individually file.
• The operator deals with compliance issues - i.e. makes and files GST returns for the joint venture, pays GST for the joint venture (having collected it from the participants in their percentage interests) and collects GST refunds on behalf of the joint venture and pays them to the participants in their percentage interests.
• The participants are made jointly and severally liable, under the GST Act, for the GST payable by the joint venture.

Where the joint venture is registered, the residence rule for unincorporated bodies, which determines the place at which the joint venture's supplies are made, will operate to determine the joint venture's residence regardless of the place where each participant is resident. However the transfer of an interest in an unincorporated body is generally regarded as separate and distinct from the body's taxable activity.

The main benefits of the participants registering individually are that different residence status as between the participants can be preserved, and that there is no joint and several liability for GST payable, which maintains a principle fundamental to most petroleum joint ventures; while the main benefits of registering the joint venture are that transfers of joint venture interests, and farmout payments received, are generally not subject to GST. Although different in their detail, the GST accounting and reporting requirements for the two methods of registration involve essentially the same content. The choice between them, to be made by the foreign petroleum company or joint venture, will depend on a variety of factors - e.g. whether the company holds other exploration or production interests in New Zealand, and the position taken by the other joint venture participants.

My own preference, in most cases where the participants and the operator in the joint venture are foreign companies, is to register the joint venture and not the participants. This approach means that the foreign company participants are kept out of the GST net, and it allows the parties to control the place where the joint venture is regarded as resident, and the time when it becomes resident in New Zealand, for GST purposes.

The uncertainty, as to the available methods of GST registration for petroleum joint ventures, springs from the principle that the production is sold by the participants separately, and not by the joint venture. The term "taxable activity" is defined to mean "any activity which is carried on ... by any person ... and involves, or is intended to involve, in whole or in part, the supply of goods and services to any other person for a consideration ..." (emphasis added); and the term "person" is defined to include an unincorporated body.

Although the production passes from the joint venture to the participants without any payment by them, case law (Case S72) would suggest that the joint venture can nevertheless be said to have been involved in a supply of goods for consideration. In Case S72 the owners of farm land, who made the land available at no rent to a partnership in which they were partners for use in a farming operation, were held to have derived consideration for the supply by reason of their right to share in the profits produced by the partnership.

The difficulty is as to the required relationship between the person (i.e. the joint venture) and the taxable activity (i.e. the production and sale of petroleum). While the joint venture produces the petroleum, it is sold by the participants; and in the context of the GST Act, that raises the questions what is the taxable activity, are there one or two separate taxable activities and who is the person carrying it then on? The case law in this area shows that, in analysing the transactions involved for GST purposes, the Courts will follow and give effect to the legal relationships documented and operated by the parties. Given the interplay between the GST Act as it stands, and the modus operandi of petroleum joint ventures, the correct answer would appear to be that there are two taxable activities and that the joint venture must register (for the activity of locating, developing and producing petroleum) and the participants must also register (for the activity of taking and selling the petroleum produced). That answer makes no sense at all, because it involves double compliance costs for the participants and double return processing and monitoring work for CIR.

I understand that CIR is reviewing the policy and practice in the whole area of the GST treatment of unincorporated bodies. I think that the current industry practice is sensible and appropriate for both the participants and the Crown. I urge the Government to bring both certainty and convenience to this question by amending the GST Act to provide clearly for the current industry practice.

GST Consequences of Specific Transactions

From the point when the joint venture, or the joint venture and the participants, are registered for GST, it is necessary to determine the GST treatment of the various transactions that the joint venture or the participants will undertake during the life of the joint venture. The GST treatment of supplies of inputs by the joint venture for exploration, development and production operations, and of the supplies of petroleum produced by the joint venture, is quite straightforward. But other transactions raise GST issues, which merit discussion. Those transactions are:

• Payment of royalties;
• Transfers of joint venture interests;
• Farmouts; and
• Cessation of joint operations at the end of the production phase.

It seems that royalties, paid by the joint venture on production, are subject to GST even though they are a form of tax imposed and collected by the Crown. There is no exclusion in the GST Act specifically for petroleum royalties or generally for taxes imposed by public authorities. Section 34 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, and the terms of the permits, make it clear that royalties are payable for "petroleum obtained by the permit holder under the permit". Because of the wide definition of the term "supply" for GST purposes, the Crown's grant of rights to take petroleum will be treated as a service supplied to the joint venture in return for which the royalties are paid. I believe it follows that the royalty attracts GST.

The GST treatment of transfers of joint venture interests takes us back into the uncertainties of the GST as it applies to unincorporated bodies.

If the joint venture is registered for GST, the participants are likely to be unregistered. In these circumstances, the transfer of a joint venture interest will almost always be not subject to GST. That is because the supply, represented by the transfer, is being made by the participant and not by the joint venture and is therefore not made in the course of any taxable activity being carried on by the participant. The CIR has confirmed his acceptance of this view in rulings in 1986 and 1987.

In the rare case where the participant, as well as the joint venture, is registered, the transfer of the joint venture interest will be subject to GST because none of the usual exemptions applies. Under most petroleum joint venture, participants hold the joint assets as tenants in common in undivided percentage shares. It follows that a transfer of a joint venture interest by a participant consists of a transfer of an aliquot part of each joint venture asset - i.e. in GST terms a supply of both goods and services. The going concern provisions zero rate the transfer of a going concern by a GST registered seller to a GST registered buyer (so as to avoid the need for a contemporaneous payment and refund of GST), but those provisions only apply to a supply of goods. It has been suggested that an interest in a joint venture might come within the definition of "participatory security" in the GST Act, and therefore constitute a financial service, the transfer of which is exempt from GST under section 14 of the GST Act; but it is generally agreed that that suggestion rests on doubtful grounds. If the transfer of the joint venture interest is subject to GST, the purchaser will be able to register and obtain a refund of the GST paid on the acquisition.

A farmout is a transaction in which the holder of a joint venture interest ("farmor") agrees to transfer (generally) part of that interest to another party ("farmee") in return for the farmee doing, or paying for, stipulated work for the purposes of the joint venture. Farmout transactions can take a number of forms. But all of them involve the transfer of the joint venture interest by the farmor to the farmee, either before the work has been done or after the work has been carried out and completed.

For GST purposes, the farmout transaction involves two separate supplies and payments. The first of those is the supply of goods and services by the contractors carrying out the work, that is to be provided or paid for by the farmee. That work is generally done under contracts with the Operator on behalf of the joint venture, and the resulting supplies will be subject to GST in the normal way - i.e. the contractors will recover output GST from the joint venture and the joint venture will claim an input credit for the GST.

The second supply is the farmor's transfer of the joint venture interest to the farmee in return for the work paid for or provided by the farmee. The transfer may take place before the work is done (with a requirement for retransfer if the work is not carried out and completed as required by the farmout agreement) or alternatively after the work has been carried out and completed in accordance with the terms of the farmout agreement. In a GST context, that transfer of a joint venture interest is governed by the rules for transfers (discussed above) - i.e. this part of the transaction is the supply of both goods and services, in return for an uncertain purchase price to be paid over time, either before or after the transfer is made. If the joint venture is registered and the farmor is not registered for GST, the transfer will fall outside the GST net for the reasons given above. If the farmor is registered for GST, the transfer will be subject to GST.

When the joint operations cease, the assets will be scrapped or disposed of, either to third parties or to the participants. Disposals to third parties will constitute supplies in the course of the joint venture's taxable activity, and will be subject to GST accordingly. Because of the requirements of most joint venture accounting procedures, disposals to participants are likely to be for cash, in which event they will be dealt with for GST purposes in the same way as sales to third parties.

If joint venture assets are distributed to the participants without consideration, it seems that the distribution will be treated in essentially the same way as a distribution in specie by a company to its shareholders. The result, for GST purposes, will depend upon whether the participant receiving the assets is or is not registered for GST. If the participant is not registered for GST, the joint venture will have to account for GST on the fair market value of the assets transferred, under section 10(3) of the GST Act. If the participant is registered for GST and intends to use the assets in its own taxable activity, the preferred view is that the joint venture will have to account for output GST and the recipient participant will be able to recover an equivalent GST input credit.

The GST Profile of a Petroleum Project

The GST profile of a petroleum project is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

In the early phases - i.e. exploration and development - the joint venture is paying input GST on goods and services provided to it; but, because it is producing no outputs, the joint venture is receiving GST refunds (which will be very substantial and continue for several years). It follows that the GST is neutral for the joint venture during this time.

In the production phase, the joint venture is paying GST; and those GST payments will be very substantial because the only inputs will be for operating expenses, which are generally quite low in comparison with the revenue received on sales of production. The joint venture is paying GST only on the value it has added, and the GST amount payable is being generated by the sales of production. In the result, while the GST operates to increase the Crown's overall cash take from the project (to the extent that the production is sold for use or processing within New Zealand), it does not do so at the expense of the joint venture or the participants, because the cascade nature of the tax means that the joint venture pays GST from the GST that is paid by the purchasers of the production.

Conclusion

While many foreign petroleum companies will not have encountered the GST before, I believe they have little to fear from it. Once the joint venture, or the participants have registered at the appropriate time and in the correct way, the receipt and payment of GST is generally quite straightforward.

References

Case P11 (1992) 14 NZTC 4073.

Case S72 (1996) 17 NZTC 7446.

Goods and Services Tax Act 1995.

Hadlee and Sydney Bridge Nominees Ltd v CIR (1991) 13 NZTC 8116.

Income Tax Act 1994.

New Zealand Forest Products NV v CIR (1995) 17 NZTC 12073.

Newman v CIR (1995) 17 NZTC 12097.

Public Information Bulletin 163, May 1987.

Tax Education Office Newsletter No 13, May 1991.

Tax Education Office Newsletter No 117, May 1996.

Tax Information Bulletin Vol 9, No 3, March 1997.

Author

Paul Harper is a barrister and solicitor, practising in Wellington on his own account in the areas of taxation, energy (petroleum, electricity, natural gas and geothermal), contracts, corporate and commercial law. He has had 25 years experience as legal adviser to leading corporates and major projects.

Before establishing his own practice just over five years ago, Paul was a partner in two national law firms in New Zealand and, between firms, spent a period as general counsel and corporate secretary to a financial institution owned by the New Zealand Government. As well as degrees in law and arts from New Zealand universities, he has a degree in law from the University of Michigan and he spent three years in the early 1970s working for a Wall Street law firm in New York and London.

Paul currently provides advice on taxation, contract and corporate law matters to a number of utility companies (in the energy, transport and communications sectors), to a mining company and to several holders of petroleum permits in New Zealand.