ACCforum: Open Letter to Scott Pickering demanding resignation - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Open Letter to Scott Pickering demanding resignation

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:10 AM

Hello all,

This letter has been sent to Mr Pickering and all the agencies that matter. For those who cannot download PDF's this will also be published on Cassandra Complex.

Enjoy. Posted Image

Attached File(s)


1

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:46 AM

View PostLupine, on 14 June 2018 - 11:10 AM, said:

Hello all,

This letter has been sent to Mr Pickering and all the agencies that matter. For those who cannot download PDF's this will also be published on Cassandra Complex.

Enjoy. Posted Image


With regards to your duties as an advocates to maintain a proper understanding and reasoning of the ACC legislation, and particularly when making an allegation against a person, I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication regarding your use of the word income as opposed to earnings in reference to what can and cannot be levied for ACC premiums. Obviously the ACC have no rights with regards to income and only may concern themselves with actual earnings that are identified as being earnings resulting from the individuals actual work task activities that have generated those earnings so as to properly distinguish the difference between earnings and company income given the fact that the income from which both profits are derived for your client has no relationship nor bearing on the earnings of your client.

I read through the open letter to Mr Pickering and would suggest that you should not attempt to blackmail the head of a multibillion-dollar Corporation will carry out any other threatening activities that are in fact illegal. I would imagine for this reason you have been ignored and will quite likely continue to be ignored so as to allow yourself to dig an even deeper hole so they may be enabled to bury you in it. Quite obviously there is quite a big difference between a civil wrong in a criminal wrong and when addressing Mr Pickering's fudiciary duty he will without doubt claim no knowledge of the problem that you have described and that any correspondence that might have been sent to him has been intercepted is threatening communications of an unlawful nature and therefore may be lawfully ignored.

I have been following your line of reasoning and sadly it would appear that both yourself and the ACC have not grasped the true nature of the legislation properly and with that in mind you should have gone through the legal process to affect a solution to this anomaly. The content of your letter would leave the reader in no doubt that you have become overly emotional to the extent that legally you would be a pushover and can be safely disregarded without regard to the point you are trying to make. ACC are going to claim, and any reviewer is going to claim that your argument is incoherent despite the fact that if one uses an enquiring mind when attempting to determine the nature of your complaint both ACC and reviewer's and even some district court judges are going to plead an incapacity to comprehend what you're trying to say. Such individuals will also be sympathetic to anyone on the receiving end of such emotional rhetoric. I would suggest that you involve another ACC professional to help you with the construction of your complaint.

I find it very helpful if you can encapsulate the whole issue in one or two sentences prior to going into the details. Instead you have attacked your mark/target with a big stick prior to your target having an opportunity to understand why you are hitting them and threatening them.
-1

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:58 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 11:46 AM, said:

With regards to your duties as an advocates to maintain a proper understanding and reasoning of the ACC legislation, and particularly when making an allegation against a person, I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication regarding your use of the word income as opposed to earnings in reference to what can and cannot be levied for ACC premiums. Obviously the ACC have no rights with regards to income and only may concern themselves with actual earnings that are identified as being earnings resulting from the individuals actual work task activities that have generated those earnings so as to properly distinguish the difference between earnings and company income given the fact that the income from which both profits are derived for your client has no relationship nor bearing on the earnings of your client.

I read through the open letter to Mr Pickering and would suggest that you should not attempt to blackmail the head of a multibillion-dollar Corporation will carry out any other threatening activities that are in fact illegal. I would imagine for this reason you have been ignored and will quite likely continue to be ignored so as to allow yourself to dig an even deeper hole so they may be enabled to bury you in it. Quite obviously there is quite a big difference between a civil wrong in a criminal wrong and when addressing Mr Pickering's fudiciary duty he will without doubt claim no knowledge of the problem that you have described and that any correspondence that might have been sent to him has been intercepted is threatening communications of an unlawful nature and therefore may be lawfully ignored.

I have been following your line of reasoning and sadly it would appear that both yourself and the ACC have not grasped the true nature of the legislation properly and with that in mind you should have gone through the legal process to affect a solution to this anomaly. The content of your letter would leave the reader in no doubt that you have become overly emotional to the extent that legally you would be a pushover and can be safely disregarded without regard to the point you are trying to make. ACC are going to claim, and any reviewer is going to claim that your argument is incoherent despite the fact that if one uses an enquiring mind when attempting to determine the nature of your complaint both ACC and reviewer's and even some district court judges are going to plead an incapacity to comprehend what you're trying to say. Such individuals will also be sympathetic to anyone on the receiving end of such emotional rhetoric. I would suggest that you involve another ACC professional to help you with the construction of your complaint.

I find it very helpful if you can encapsulate the whole issue in one or two sentences prior to going into the details. Instead you have attacked your mark/target with a big stick prior to your target having an opportunity to understand why you are hitting them and threatening them.


Yes thank you Alan. Carry on. Posted Image
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:04 PM

View PostLupine, on 14 June 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

Yes thank you Alan. Carry on. Posted Image


to assist with the clarity of your letter when referring to income were you in fact meaning earnings?
0

#5 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:09 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 12:04 PM, said:

to assist with the clarity of your letter when referring to income were you in fact meaning earnings?


I am referring to the use of the word income on the IRD document. That is how IRD word it and I am presenting that fact.
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7502
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 June 2018 - 01:18 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 11:46 AM, said:

With regards to your duties as an advocates to maintain a proper understanding and reasoning of the ACC legislation, and particularly when making an allegation against a person, I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication regarding your use of the word income as opposed to earnings in reference to what can and cannot be levied for ACC premiums. Obviously the ACC have no rights with regards to income and only may concern themselves with actual earnings that are identified as being earnings resulting from the individuals actual work task activities that have generated those earnings so as to properly distinguish the difference between earnings and company income given the fact that the income from which both profits are derived for your client has no relationship nor bearing on the earnings of your client.

I read through the open letter to Mr Pickering and would suggest that you should not attempt to blackmail the head of a multibillion-dollar Corporation will carry out any other threatening activities that are in fact illegal. I would imagine for this reason you have been ignored and will quite likely continue to be ignored so as to allow yourself to dig an even deeper hole so they may be enabled to bury you in it. Quite obviously there is quite a big difference between a civil wrong in a criminal wrong and when addressing Mr Pickering's fudiciary duty he will without doubt claim no knowledge of the problem that you have described and that any correspondence that might have been sent to him has been intercepted is threatening communications of an unlawful nature and therefore may be lawfully ignored.

I have been following your line of reasoning and sadly it would appear that both yourself and the ACC have not grasped the true nature of the legislation properly and with that in mind you should have gone through the legal process to affect a solution to this anomaly. The content of your letter would leave the reader in no doubt that you have become overly emotional to the extent that legally you would be a pushover and can be safely disregarded without regard to the point you are trying to make. ACC are going to claim, and any reviewer is going to claim that your argument is incoherent despite the fact that if one uses an enquiring mind when attempting to determine the nature of your complaint both ACC and reviewer's and even some district court judges are going to plead an incapacity to comprehend what you're trying to say. Such individuals will also be sympathetic to anyone on the receiving end of such emotional rhetoric. I would suggest that you involve another ACC professional to help you with the construction of your complaint.

I find it very helpful if you can encapsulate the whole issue in one or two sentences prior to going into the details. Instead you have attacked your mark/target with a big stick prior to your target having an opportunity to understand why you are hitting them and threatening them.


Thomas

From the quick read I have done of the sections and schedules of the Acts, I can only see one glaring mistake that Lupine has made is that he is using the erc instead of weekly compensation and shown no Tax years or earner Levy years to allow for correction of this misley mistake.

you should have read the earlier writings of Lupines in this site which tells some but not as much as now of the lead up to this outcome he has put forward to MR pickering. And this is not the first CEO that would have received a letter demanding a prober investigation into his theory. (Note Lupine has said that he would expect, like or whatever the CEO to prove him wrong.

My only problem is that he is expecting the ACC to do the IRD's work for them. All well and good, but using the 2007 Income Tax Act and the letter erc are rather detracting from the date of the paperwork that should be used as guidance and the Acts of both entities.

It should be easy enough with the assistance of a good ACC/IRD lawyer/s to write an explanation letter to show why Lupine is either Right or Wrong.

Lupine how many years have you been on this now?

Just about coming up to my six years doing the taxing of the b/d w/c all in one year!!

Please let us see the outcome of your letter, as these tri, bi-intertwined sections of Acts etc is awfully confusing for some of our brighter minds on here.

I have not had time to actually take the letter to pieces and check it as correct according to the Act/s But I do note that Schedule/clause 22/4 has been substituted on 1 April 2008, on the income year 2008-2009 in the Income Tax Act. Just an observation. Only you will know if it is important or not!!

Good luck, keep on trucking.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 01:36 PM

View PostMINI, on 14 June 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

Thomas

From the quick read I have done of the sections and schedules of the Acts, I can only see one glaring mistake that Lupine has made is that he is using the erc instead of weekly compensation and shown no Tax years or earner Levy years to allow for correction of this misley mistake.

you should have read the earlier writings of Lupines in this site which tells some but not as much as now of the lead up to this outcome he has put forward to MR pickering. And this is not the first CEO that would have received a letter demanding a prober investigation into his theory. (Note Lupine has said that he would expect, like or whatever the CEO to prove him wrong.

My only problem is that he is expecting the ACC to do the IRD's work for them. All well and good, but using the 2007 Income Tax Act and the letter erc are rather detracting from the date of the paperwork that should be used as guidance and the Acts of both entities.

It should be easy enough with the assistance of a good ACC/IRD lawyer/s to write an explanation letter to show why Lupine is either Right or Wrong.

Lupine how many years have you been on this now?

Just about coming up to my six years doing the taxing of the b/d w/c all in one year!!

Please let us see the outcome of your letter, as these tri, bi-intertwined sections of Acts etc is awfully confusing for some of our brighter minds on here.

I have not had time to actually take the letter to pieces and check it as correct according to the Act/s But I do note that Schedule/clause 22/4 has been substituted on 1 April 2008, on the income year 2008-2009 in the Income Tax Act. Just an observation. Only you will know if it is important or not!!

Good luck, keep on trucking.

Mini


Interesting point Mini. Schedule 4 22 would have been added in when the Income Tax Act 2007 went live so that date of that amendment is the date the Corporation was supposed to start levying PAYE earners through Section 221 and Schedule 4. Sadly for them someone clearly forgot to do so. I have not provided the evidence documents here but be sure they are sitting in the right email boxes.
0

#8 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 03:45 PM

I think its been about 1 and a half years Mini.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 03:57 PM

Mini it is quite common for Different Acts such as ACC and IRD, to have different terminology for the same thing for same terminology for different things etc. When we read the IRD legislation we quickly realised that the IRD seek to extract taxation from the income whereas ACC has no business whatsoever addressing matters of profit and income but are restricted to focus their attention on earnings alone. The essential difference is value being gained by way of earning by the sweat of the brow or by the personal actions of the individual as opposed to the profit of the company the same individual owns et cetera.

It is noteworthy that frontline ACC staff generally have no idea of these differences given the fact that they are not adequately trained. It follows then that the staff used the wrong terminology that even find his way right through the judiciary which in turn generates confusion and mayhem amongst the general population.

The bottom line is that the ACC may neither collect levies or pay compensation based on income but I only collect levies and pay compensation based on earnings. With this in mind I wonder whether the letter addressed to The Chief Executive Officer is going to be sufficiently clear or will be binned with the previous correspondence.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 03:59 PM

View PostLupine, on 14 June 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

I am referring to the use of the word income on the IRD document. That is how IRD word it and I am presenting that fact.


Of course the use of the word and come on IRD document is totally irrelevant to the ACC legislation is the ACC legislation are only permitted to deal with earnings. Your correspondence should distinguish this point very clearly so as to clarify the error of the ACC.
0

#11 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 June 2018 - 04:32 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

Mini it is quite common for Different Acts such as ACC and IRD, to have different terminology for the same thing for same terminology for different things etc. When we read the IRD legislation we quickly realised that the IRD seek to extract taxation from the income whereas ACC has no business whatsoever addressing matters of profit and income but are restricted to focus their attention on earnings alone. The essential difference is value being gained by way of earning by the sweat of the brow or by the personal actions of the individual as opposed to the profit of the company the same individual owns et cetera.

It is noteworthy that frontline ACC staff generally have no idea of these differences given the fact that they are not adequately trained. It follows then that the staff used the wrong terminology that even find his way right through the judiciary which in turn generates confusion and mayhem amongst the general population.

The bottom line is that the ACC may neither collect levies or pay compensation based on income but I only collect levies and pay compensation based on earnings. With this in mind I wonder whether the letter addressed to The Chief Executive Officer is going to be sufficiently clear or will be binned with the previous correspondence.


PAYE Income

Earnings that apply to PAYE Income

Salary and Wages

Schedular Payments

Extra Pay

Three earning classes under PAYE Income. It is not hard Alan. If you want to make comments on tax law go and learn the Income Tax Act 2007.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:36 PM

View PostLupine, on 14 June 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

PAYE Income

Earnings that apply to PAYE Income

Salary and Wages

Schedular Payments

Extra Pay

Three earning classes under PAYE Income. It is not hard Alan. If you want to make comments on tax law go and learn the Income Tax Act 2007.


Yes it would be a mistake to make references of income to the ACC as the ACC terminology must be earnings. While IRD use the word income it is a mistake to use that word with the ACC. I don't exclude the possibility that the ACC deliberately use your word income and apply that word to income that is not earnings in which case they would be correct despite the fact that they are aware that you are confused. I simply taking advantage of you and giggling up their sleeves. If you were to attack the chief executive officer in any way or form you will come off second best particularly since you are trying to rough him up a little. I think more probably than not there not even going to reply to you and/or treat you with contempt.
As I can understand what you are trying to get at quite properly they will be able to understand you as well however because you have used the wrong language they will continue to take advantage of you.

0

#13 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 14 June 2018 - 06:45 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 05:36 PM, said:

Yes it would be a mistake to make references of income to the ACC as the ACC terminology must be earnings. While IRD use the word income it is a mistake to use that word with the ACC. I don't exclude the possibility that the ACC deliberately use your word income and apply that word to income that is not earnings in which case they would be correct despite the fact that they are aware that you are confused. I simply taking advantage of you and giggling up their sleeves. If you were to attack the chief executive officer in any way or form you will come off second best particularly since you are trying to rough him up a little. I think more probably than not there not even going to reply to you and/or treat you with contempt.
As I can understand what you are trying to get at quite properly they will be able to understand you as well however because you have used the wrong language they will continue to take advantage of you.


From the ACC site ;

4 ;;Tell your employer about your injury
Make sure you let your employer know about your situation as soon as you’re injured. With your consent, we'll contact your employer to get your earnings so we can calculate how much to pay you in compensation.

If you’re self-employed or a shareholder-employee, we calculate your compensation based on your earnings listed in your most recent tax return from Inland Revenue. In some cases, if you haven’t lodged your returns with Inland Revenue yet, we can make an estimated payment to you in the meantime.

further down ;;

Receiving your weekly payments
We pay weekly compensation of up to 80% of your earnings. We'll pay your compensation every week, so this may be different to your normal pay cycle. Any tax will come out of your payments as they do with your normal wages.


https://www.acc.co.n...tent-after-navs

from a court case;; under 92 acc act.
"where any payment of compensation based on weekly earnings to which a claimant is entitled is not paid."

can be interpreted so that the interest payable under s72 is itself part of the compensation based on weekly earnings. It is his submission that the interest payable is itself part of the compensation based on weekly earnings and it is that sum to which simple interest can be added.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:52 PM

Greg
What about the ERC on tax free fringe benefit type earnings?At what stage and how is this information collected and acted upon?

0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7502
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 June 2018 - 10:52 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 03:59 PM, said:

Of course the use of the word and come on IRD document is totally irrelevant to the ACC legislation is the ACC legislation are only permitted to deal with earnings. Your correspondence should distinguish this point very clearly so as to clarify the error of the ACC.

Thomas

have a look at the income tax Act and see the definition of Salary. I think from memory you will find the definition of salary will include income tax. BUT then it could say under another section ie PAYE that it is not to be used in that section.

It is up to Lupine to find that out. I recall what he is trying to achieve and it will depend on any alterations that were made in the Acts to accommodate with the sections he is using. As with 221 (3) and all the amendments in the ACC Amendment Acts as I have already written. The IRD will and should carry more weight than ACC amendments if they are different.

As I say like your problems only you have the answers in front of you.

Same with lupine only he has the answers in front of him as none of us has been as deeply into it as we have. BUT I do know what a twist IRD got into when I went them for taxing us for b/d w/c all in the same year. The judge said they were wrong. They tried to make like it made no difference when the Judge got out of the picture, and Kearney interest needed attention for me to obtain mine.

I may be able to help lupine if he puts the two documents up on this site for me to read, without any identification on them.

Mini
0

#16 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7502
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 June 2018 - 10:59 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 June 2018 - 03:59 PM, said:

Of course the use of the word and come on IRD document is totally irrelevant to the ACC legislation is the ACC legislation are only permitted to deal with earnings. Your correspondence should distinguish this point very clearly so as to clarify the error of the ACC.


You must do some catching up on the ACC amendments Acts and other amendments having been made in the ACC January 2018. Keep up to date Thomas, As you must know when the changes have taken place, and also know what periods the documents are for that he is working on.

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 15 June 2018 - 11:15 AM

I have it all covered Mini. Be assured that I have not gone full mongrel on the Corporation unaware of the fact if I got it wrong I would be annihilated. In all honesty if I had got this wrong I would deserve to be. I have gone backwards and forwards through both Acts more times than I can count. Now here is something interesting. Greg pointed something out here.

ACC Website

4 ;;Tell your employer about your injury<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Make sure you let your employer know about your situation as soon as you’re injured. With your consent, we'll contact your employer to get your earnings so we can calculate how much to pay you in compensation.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">If you’re self-employed or a shareholder-employee, we calculate your compensation based on your earnings listed in your most recent tax return from Inland Revenue. In some cases, if you haven’t lodged your returns with Inland Revenue yet, we can make an estimated payment to you in the meantime.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">


So we can see how they calculate it right? Just like they did before the 2005 amendments but what do we see in Clause 38? http://www.legislati.../DLM104848.html


Check out the formulas and in 38 (2)(a) there is only a PAYE employee formula and B and C contain both relevant year (Tax Return) AND PAYE Employee in the formulas. So a tax record cannot apply to A and A B and C all contain PAYE calculations for the current tax year when incapacity commenced. Yet none of this is mentioned on their website (which I have evidenced now by the way ACC). Why? Because they have not been compensating self-employed earners under the PAYE formulas. For Salary and Wage earners who are also eligible for calculation under Clause 38 if they left permanent employment in the same tax years they started their business, ACC wipes them out by unlawfully applying business expenses to those earnings in breach of Section 169 A. While they twist and distort the process they hammer the claimant with allegations of trying to misrepresent their earnings.


Section 221 is merely the smoking gun that exposes a shit load more and I have the goods.




1

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 June 2018 - 02:04 PM

View PostMINI, on 15 June 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Thomas

have a look at the income tax Act and see the definition of Salary. I think from memory you will find the definition of salary will include income tax. BUT then it could say under another section ie PAYE that it is not to be used in that section.

It is up to Lupine to find that out. I recall what he is trying to achieve and it will depend on any alterations that were made in the Acts to accommodate with the sections he is using. As with 221 (3) and all the amendments in the ACC Amendment Acts as I have already written. The IRD will and should carry more weight than ACC amendments if they are different.

As I say like your problems only you have the answers in front of you.

Same with lupine only he has the answers in front of him as none of us has been as deeply into it as we have. BUT I do know what a twist IRD got into when I went them for taxing us for b/d w/c all in the same year. The judge said they were wrong. They tried to make like it made no difference when the Judge got out of the picture, and Kearney interest needed attention for me to obtain mine.

I may be able to help lupine if he puts the two documents up on this site for me to read, without any identification on them.

Mini


Mini the bottom line is that the ACC rely upon people making mistakes so as to enable them to avoid payment will reduce their liabilities. When someone makes a mistake in circumstances whereby ACC has no obligation to correct that mistake the ACC is that the onus upon the individual from themselves. This thread is about one of those occasions. There are no different rules for different individuals or different individuals having different understandings and have an argument rather the legislation is constant and absolute and so we all must learn to sing the same song.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9051
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 June 2018 - 02:06 PM

View PostMINI, on 15 June 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

You must do some catching up on the ACC amendments Acts and other amendments having been made in the ACC January 2017. Keep up to date Thomas, As you must know when the changes have taken place, and also know what periods the documents are for that he is working on.

Mini


The comment I have made is absolute current with the current legislation. Further the principles of the legislation have always been the same from the beginning right up until now. ACC does not ensure company profits and company profits are not the same thing as earnings. Furthermore and partnerships ACC have absolutely no access to the company books and therefore cannot determine reconfigure what are and while not earnings in accordance with their own inventions.
0

#20 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7502
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 16 June 2018 - 01:42 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 June 2018 - 02:04 PM, said:

Mini the bottom line is that the ACC rely upon people making mistakes so as to enable them to avoid payment will reduce their liabilities. When someone makes a mistake in circumstances whereby ACC has no obligation to correct that mistake the ACC is that the onus upon the individual from themselves. This thread is about one of those occasions. There are no different rules for different individuals or different individuals having different understandings and have an argument rather the legislation is constant and absolute and so we all must learn to sing the same song.


Thomas

What the hell are you talking about. As far as I can see Lupine is following the letter of the law. However, apoligies everyone in my date of the year in which I am using 2001 Act, it was updated in 1918, not 1917 as I had previously said. Honest typo it was as I had the correct year sitting on the desk in front of me. So sorry about that, it may have lead some astray. It is a good job I knew what it was meant to be when I re-read it. This version of the 2001 Act has all the substitutions and amendments under the particular section they belong too, but it does make for a real long and tedious rewrite we have to do ourselves which is not normally the way up-dates are written. Talk about trying to save money. There is now many more that will take one look at this act and walk away from it.

Warren should seriously look at this as being a deliberate attack on us to not even try to make an attempt at doing our own legal work and there are barely enough good lawyers with an understanding of ACC and this case IRD law who would be keen to take this on. It would cost mega bucks more for the claimant to hire lawyers. That is against the supposed UN's plea at the time of the overseas trip: section 13 of the UN list of wrongs needing righting.

Cost to claimants to have our rightful entitlements.!!

Mini
2

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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