ACCforum: More on Taxation of Excess Benefit Payments - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

More on Taxation of Excess Benefit Payments Justice Dobson upholds status quo

#1 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 19 May 2015 - 01:42 PM

At least the judgment is clear. Lobby your friendly local MP accordingly.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:11 PM

View PostMG, on 19 May 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

At least the judgment is clear. Lobby your friendly local MP accordingly.


I answer this to you MG as you are an advocate and have a responsibility to your clients. I am not here for any deep and meaningful.

Firstly, I find it interesting that they only mention Buis and Ong (is it as case law) When in actual fact mine went to the High Court in front of Justice Randerson (then the chief High Court Justice. I ;have been told by the people who provide my caselaw that they cannot get a copy of my case and indeed all I find is a IRD speel in one of their information documents in their own wording.

I have a copy of my case in front of Randerson of course, but no one else seems to be able to get a copy. Maybe you would like the try, and see if you have any luck. Justice Randerson was quite scathing of the fact that we did not get taxed in the years the ACC would have been paid, instead of all in the year it is actually paid after the ACC have repaid WINZ. The other great problem is that ACC never paid us because they made a screw up, not because we did something wrong. And when you don't get 'interest' on all or even part of the monies owed you by ACC during those years you go without your right amount of income, this is grossly unfair.

I have always found that when people hide things away, it is usually for the reason that others will be able to pick up the flaws that arise in them that are never answered.

For instance in my case there was never any mention of double taxing from me. I always state 'Overtaxing' (as it covers any eventuality, whereas 'double taxing' is very precise.
You need my case law to actually make sense of what I am saying. I could only get it with a determined effort on my part, so I would ask for the sake of complete agreement of any case like this, that effort from all involved should be forthcoming.

You would probably find the 'overtaxing' as they call it issue is only a small part of what is wrong with the finally sorting out our affairs after winning our cases in the DC for w/c.

The argument you would get from IRD would be well over a polititions head.

The Cullen case is only one of many that are coming up concerning 'interest' and the payment of BD w/c.

As you see in this case, the IRD ACC WINZ having a tri departmental agreement is said out here as though it is perfectly OK for govt depts. to do us harm and then huddle together to make sure they do not get held accountable for it . They all actually make money out of putting us off w/c or not giving it to begin with.

Cheers
Mini
2

#3 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 19 May 2015 - 06:08 PM

Mini is that the H..... v CIR 2009 case ???????

I do have a copy here which I must have downloaded from the law site some time ago........so it must have been publicly available at some stage and if so.........I am happy to send this to MG if you want.
0

#4 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 20 May 2015 - 02:28 AM

I've found two HC judgments which seem to be the ones you refer to, Mini. I've also written to the current Minister regarding the "Pfenniger" decision. Beyond that, I won't make any further comment or posts on this issue.

Attached File(s)


0

#5 User is offline   kittyhawk 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 27-July 10

Posted 20 May 2015 - 01:08 PM

View PostMG, on 20 May 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

I've found two HC judgments which seem to be the ones you refer to, Mini. I've also written to the current Minister regarding the "Pfenniger" decision. Beyond that, I won't make any further comment or posts on this issue.


There is a very recent ruling and it was on line but appears to have disappeared. Should be able to be obtained as an unreported judgement?? I steal mini's thunder it was a win to her!
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 May 2015 - 01:47 PM

View PostMG, on 20 May 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

I've found two HC judgments which seem to be the ones you refer to, Mini. I've also written to the current Minister regarding the "Pfenniger" decision. Beyond that, I won't make any further comment or posts on this issue.


These look right MG.

Im am glad someone found both copies.

This is imperative to the answer that I have here, which has never taken Justice Randerson's remarks into consideration.

The problem with the latest case is it is only relating to the overtaxing of the reimbursement to WINZ.

It doesn't mention what the b/d w/c gets taxed at!

Or the fact that if you change a non-taxable amount of reimbursement off then it cannot be taken off any gross amount. It has to be put back into the years it was deemed to be taken off the WINZ payment, if that does not happen you are being overtaxed.

ie If the Net amount of b/d w/c is used to take a non taxable amount of, say, rental assistance back, then you would be 'overtaxed' not double taxed cause it never is taxed, but if the claw it back off the net, that net has already been taxed by ACC so that is incorrect. A non-taxable amount of reimbursement must be taken off the gross, therefore saving you tax. It is in theory an adjustment.

Off to pool

There is much more to the taxing issue of reimbursement than this as you will see,but the greater amounts are taken from the b/d w/c being taxed all in the one year, instead of being spread out over the years it was supposed to be paid in. Justices in Kearney had much to say about this anmololy. (theft, rip off, call it what you like but there is an answer to it.) I just need someone brave enough to take it to h/c if need be.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 May 2015 - 01:52 PM

View Postkittyhawk, on 20 May 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

There is a very recent ruling and it was on line but appears to have disappeared. Should be able to be obtained as an unreported judgement?? I steal mini's thunder it was a win to her!


Not yet it is not completely a win to me kittyhawk. If someone wants to pick up where Randerson ended off and put into being what he actually said to save others money, good on them I say. I don't need reminding I spend six years on it...............

I only went into to save us in this situation money and it happened in my case so it can happen in others. But it certainly takes on a whole new lease of life for anyone attempting it.

Good Luck you all, Ask if you need,

Mini
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users