• What we do
  • Who we are
  • Media & insights
  • Contact

Home > Media & Insights > Insights

IRD’s credit reporting of business debt is ready to scale

Written by

Related Tags

Get in touch

Please contact us via email or the form below to discuss business queries.

reception@waterstone.co.nz

Contact Form

From where I sit in the insolvency industry, I get a front-row view of how IRD’s enforcement decisions ripple through the business community. And right now, everything I’m seeing points in one direction: Inland Revenue is about to dramatically scale up its use of credit reporting against companies with serious tax debt.

The evidence, from pilot results, quarterly reporting, the legislative pipeline, and IRD’s own language, all converges on the same conclusion. What was launched as a modest pilot in October 2025 is going to become a permanent enforcement tool, and for many businesses it will serve as the final warning before a statutory demand and liquidation proceedings.

This matters immediately for accountants and tax agents. The first sign of trouble may be a Notice of Intent arriving in your clients myIR portal, and the 30-day clock starts ticking from delivery to the company’s registered office. Understanding how this tool works, what triggers it, and where it now sits in IRD’s escalation pathway isn’t optional anymore.

A dormant power

The credit reporting regime was introduced in 2017 as part of a wider tax law reform package. It carved out a limited exception to Inland Revenue’s normal secrecy rules, allowing IR to share information about certain serious unpaid company tax debts with an approved credit reporting agency.

The Tax Administration (Reportable Unpaid Tax) Regulations 2017 prescribed two alternative thresholds: either the debt exceeds $150,000, or it has been unpaid for 12 months and equals 30% or more of the company’s assessable income. The regime applies only to companies. Before reporting, the Commissioner must have made “reasonable efforts” to recover the debt and must have given the company formal notification with a 30-day response period.

On paper, this looks like a useful compliance lever. In practice, IRD’s own published guidance (a General Article issued on 1 May 2017) set the operational bar so high that it was almost impossible to deploy at scale. That guidance said “reasonable efforts” meant IRD had to have had one or more actual discussions with the company’s directors and tax agent about resolving the debt. Sending automated reminders wasn’t enough. And “formal notification” had to be served on all the company’s directors, not just the company itself.

The result? The power gathered dust. IRD’s annual reports show no credit reporting activity at all in the years ending June 2021, 2022, or 2023. A December 2023 OIA put the cumulative total at 12 customers since 2017. An August 2025 ministerial briefing raised the all-time tally to 27.

Two interpretive shifts

On 8 October 2025, the Commissioner formally withdrew the 2017 guidance. The withdrawal notice stated that the Commissioner was “reviewing his approach to the credit reporting legislation … to give full effect to Parliament’s purpose for the credit reporting rules.” It made two specific changes to the legal interpretation.

First, on “reasonable efforts”: the Commissioner’s new position is that where a taxpayer has been told it owes debt but does not engage, IRD may still have made reasonable efforts to recover. Direct engagement with the taxpayer is no longer a prerequisite. Standard overdue reminders and repayment options now count, even if the business has never responded to a single one.

This is the critical shift. Under the new interpretation, IRD’s existing automated reminder systems can satisfy the test.

Second, on “formal notification”: the legislation requires notification to the company, not to every director. The Commissioner’s updated approach is that a Notice of Intent delivered to the company’s myIR account and couriered to its registered office is sufficient. Individual directors need not be separately notified.

Neither the $150,000 threshold, the 30-day notice period, the limitation to companies, nor the underlying legislation was changed. This was achieved entirely through a reinterpretation of existing law.

The pilot and its results

Five days after withdrawing the old guidance, on 13 October 2025, IRD launched what it described as a pilot. Selected businesses received a Notice of Intent simultaneously appearing in their myIR account and couriered to their registered office, with a 30-day window to take positive action.

IRD’s quarterly debt report for October to December 2025 published the results. Sixty notices of intent were issued to businesses owing over $150,000 in overdue business tax, covering a collective debt value of $23 million. Of those 60 businesses, 34 were credit reported to Centrix. IRD stated it is pursuing liquidation against them. The remaining 43% engaged with IRD and are working to resolve their debt.

Will this become standard practice?

Several signals point to credit reporting becoming a permanent part of IRD’s enforcement toolkit, not a bounded experiment.

The language has shifted. When IRD announced the initiative in October 2025, it used the word “pilot”. By the December quarterly report, that word had disappeared entirely. Credit reporting was presented as a standing section alongside liquidations, statutory demands, and S-157 deduction notices. These are routine enforcement metrics, not a trial exercise.

The legislative pipeline supports this. The Public Remedials Log for November 2025 shows an item (R&R-1126) titled “Update credit reporting formal notification requirements,” received 30 September 2025, discussed at the R&R meeting on 15 October 2025, and recorded as “Progressing towards Bill.” The timing is telling: the remedial item was lodged eight days before the old guidance was withdrawn and two days after the pilot launched. The Commissioner moved first with interpretive guidance to make the power immediately operational; the legislative process is following to codify those changes into statute.

Then there are the pilot results themselves, which IRD will almost certainly view as a resounding success. Of the 60 businesses that received a Notice of Intent, 43% engaged with IRD and began working to resolve their debt. From IRD’s perspective, that is an extraordinary conversion rate for a single letter. It is unlikely that IRD looks at these numbers and concludes the experiment should be wound back.

We also note that IR2025/398, a ministerial report titled “Policy options to reduce tax debt” sent on 20 November 2025, has not yet been publicly released. This is the document most likely to contain IRD’s formal assessment of whether and how to scale credit reporting. We await its release with interest, but given the trajectory of every other public indicator, it would be surprising if the recommendation were anything other than expansion.

What this means for your clients, and your practice

For accountants, the practical implications are immediate. The 30-day clock on a Notice of Intent starts ticking from delivery to the company’s registered address. Your client may not see the myIR notification promptly if they don’t check regularly. That makes accountant the early warning system, and the best conduit for IR engagement.

The enforcement pipeline is now clearly visible: credit reporting is the on-ramp to liquidation. IRD’s own reporting states that the 34 businesses credit reported in the first quarter are now subject to liquidation enforcement. For any client carrying overdue tax debt above $150,000, or potentially above the alternative 12-month/30% threshold, a Notice of Intent should be treated as a clear signal that liquidation enforcement is the next step if the debt is not addressed.

The 43% engagement rate from the pilot’s first quarter also offers a practical lesson. Nearly half the businesses that received a notice took positive action. For accountants advising clients who receive one, the message is clear: engage immediately. An instalment arrangement or meaningful payment is the circuit breaker. Ignoring the notice is the path to credit reporting and then liquidation.

Why only Centrix?

IRD’s activation of credit reporting is, on its merits, a useful step toward giving businesses better visibility of who they’re trading with. But there’s an uncomfortable structural issue that deserves attention.

Under the current legislation, IRD may only disclose this information to an “approved credit reporting agency.” The sole approved agency is Centrix. If you want to check whether a company you’re about to extend credit to, subcontract to, or take employment with has been flagged by IRD for serious tax non-compliance, you need to pay Centrix for a credit check, currently around $50 per report. For businesses making regular credit decisions, this is a manageable cost of doing business. It’s undoubtedly a boon for Centrix, which now has an exclusive channel of government-sourced debt information feeding into its commercial product.

But consider who bears the cost when a business with serious unpaid tax obligations eventually fails. For employees, small trade creditors and subcontractors, are unlikely to be running regular credit checks. An employee starting a new job does not pay $50 to check whether their employer is remitting PAYE. A sole-trader electrician subcontracting to a builder doesn’t subscribe to Centrix.

We have, in effect, created a two-tier system: sophisticated creditors who already manage credit risk get better information, while the vulnerable parties who most need protection remain in the dark.

This stands in contrast to how we handle other forms of insolvency-related disclosure. When a liquidation application is filed, it appears in the New Zealand Gazette, freely searchable, publicly available, accessible to anyone. When a statutory demand is served, the debtor company is required to either pay or apply to set it aside within the statutory timeframe, and any resulting court proceedings are public record. The rationale is sound: the public interest in knowing that a company may be insolvent outweighs the company’s interest in keeping that information private.

If IRD’s credit reporting of serious tax debt is now, as all the evidence suggests, becoming standard operating procedure, the same logic should apply. If the information is important enough to share with Centrix, it is important enough to share with the public. The employee whose PAYE is being misappropriated has at least as strong a claim to that information as the bank considering whether to extend a line of credit.

Unfortunately, the Tax Administration Act permits this disclosure only within a narrow statutory exception for approved credit reporting agencies, not to the public. Broader public disclosure, whether through a searchable register, gazette notices, or some other mechanism, would require legislative change.

Given that the government is already in the process of codifying the credit reporting regime’s operational changes into statute, there is an opportunity to go further. If Parliament is going to legislate to confirm the Commissioner’s power to credit-report companies with serious tax debts, it should also consider whether that information ought to be publicly accessible, not locked behind a commercial paywall that serves only those who can afford to pay for it.

Sources

Legislation:

IRD official documents:

Tax policy:

OIA responses:

Third-party sources:

See all insights

IRD’s credit reporting of business debt is ready to scale

Protecting yourself when dealing with an insolvent company

Case Study: United States insolvencies in turbulent times

The risk of asset dissipation, and what can be done?

Advantages of Liquidation

Phoenix companies: Facts over folklore

Subscribe to our newsletter

Hi there,

Once a month, the staff at Waterstone compile an informative newsletter with interesting news, views and statistics from the insolvency sector. Just one a month! No spam and no advertising!

Please consider subscribing to get your copy. You can easily unsubscribe if it is not for you.