Talk:Dividend imputation

New Zealand
I put in a Dividend imputation (New Zealand) link to encourage something about that. I think it should be separate, since it's a separate system. (Tax stuff is confusing enough without mixing two countries with separate laws.) -- Kevin Ryde 01:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Internationalise
I think that we should have one page on dividend imputation as a system of taxation. This page is very Aussie centric. I suspect that there may be other countries in the world that also have impuatation systems. Pkearney


 * Yep - e.g. Singapore, Malta... └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 15:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * scrap Singapore as of 1 Jan 2003.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dividend imputation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515044035/http://www.ird.govt.nz/forms-guides/number/forms-200-299/ir274-guide-imputation.html to http://www.ird.govt.nz/forms-guides/number/forms-200-299/ir274-guide-imputation.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103150624/http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=%2Fcontent%2F57285.htm to http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=%2Fcontent%2F57285.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced and possibly incorrect content
Regarding the following sentence: "More specifically, it [dividend imputation] is intended to create a "level playing field" by taxing the same activity in the same way, irrespective of the business structure being used, namely a company or trust, sole trader or partnership."

This does not seem correct to me because of the fundamental difference between a partnership (no separate legal identity from the owner) and a company (intentionally a separate legal entity, subject for example to tax as a separate entity). Also:
 * There is no reference as to the source of this information.
 * A Google search reveals that this text is pasted in lots of places around the Internet, some of which are using it to make political points. I saw nowhere were it was referenced (except in some places back to Wikipedia).
 * Despite a reasonable effort I could not find any other information which makes this point (aside from the unreferenced direct copies mentioned above).
 * This is a very contentious point in Australia at the moment, because whether it is true or not (and I'm pretty sure it is not) affects how one views the dividend imputation policy taken by Labor to the recent election.

It seems to me that for the above reasons this sentence should be removed, but I thought I'd post this comment first to see if anyone can provide a source or otherwise provide evidence one way or the other.

Update 21/5/2019: Removed the sentence after not receiving any feedback.