ACCforum: Open Letter to Scott Pickering demanding resignation - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Open Letter to Scott Pickering demanding resignation

#61 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:52 AM

I'm coming to this discussion very late and have not been following it until yesterday when I checked in to see what was happening. As such, I may be [way] off base here:

Issue

That ACC are treating earnings [classes] as different when assessing for compensation. Because of that, ACC are illegitimately [re] classifying claimant's earnings with the result of underpaying them: specifically 'schedular payments'.

The Law

There is a variety of legislative material provided underpinning the argument put forward.

1. The first piece of legislation that is of interest is RD3 PAYE income payments.

It is important to pay attention to the words: "Meaning Generally". This is because RD3(5) allows the CIR discretion in deciding whether the PAYE rules apply to ALL or PART of a payment. Thus, the rules in RD3(1) are not exhaustive, there is wiggle room and possibly a lot of wiggle room.

2.The second piece of legislation is RD5.

Of interest here is: RD5(1)©, which excludes a number of forms of income from being considered as 'earnings'. These include 'schedular payments' which are included in the [discretionary] RD3.

3 Third, RD8

Schedular payments are further defined here in RD8(1)(a) and those that are exempt in RD8(1)(b]. The payments are defined in Schedule 4.

4 Schedule 4

So Schedule 4(1)(a) requires that the payment be classified as 'earnings' as an employee.

Summary

RD5(1)(c] prevents schedular payments from being classified as earnings. Schedule 4(1)(a) requires for deductions to be made pursuant to s221 ACA to 'earnings'. The schedular payments are not earnings and are therefore not subject to the deduction.

On that basis, unless I have missed something really fundamental, it would seem that at this point ACC is correct. I'll be very interested in the responses and if I have further time today I'll look at it again and see if I have made any errors.

Grant
0

#62 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 June 2018 - 11:24 AM

Grant I think in essence we need to be looking at the purpose of income tax and the purpose of earnings compensation is the starting point for understanding the requirements and criteria of each legislation and how the authors of the ACC legislation intended what they have written to be interpreted. Income tax of course is global in the sense that the IRD seeks a percentage of all earnings whereas the ACC legislation overriding a global intention is that we are compensated for all earnings generated by personal activity as opposed to income that has been generated by way of third parties such as investments or other forms of payment that have no connection to the individual mental or physical exertions resulting in earnings. After all it is earnings compensation that we are talking about with regards to loop and is intent when writing to the ACC.

Earnings compensation relates tothe earnings enjoyed prior to being injured. A person may be an employee but that does not mean that the earnings are exclusively and only in relation to that form of employment as there can be multiple earning streams of which the ACC must compensate when the person is injured.

Earnings compensation of which the ACC has a duty to pay includes all forms of compensation that relate to what the earnings compensation calculation includes which naturally excludes all other forms of income coming from the ACC or indeed other forms of income that have no relationship to actual earnings compensation such as disability allowances and other forms of payments.

So we need to ask yourself the question whether or not 'schedular payments' Has ever had any connection whatsoever to the original activities from which the claimant generated earnings of which the ACC is now compensating.

So what precisely are we talking about when we are referring to 'schedular payments'? What are the components that make up this payment? What actually is initiated these 'schedular payments' funds? I believe that this is what will define the answer to the current issue




0

#63 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 June 2018 - 11:29 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 27 June 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

I'm coming to this discussion very late and have not been following it until yesterday when I checked in to see what was happening. As such, I may be [way] off base here:

Issue

That ACC are treating earnings [classes] as different when assessing for compensation. Because of that, ACC are illegitimately [re] classifying claimant's earnings with the result of underpaying them: specifically 'schedular payments'.

The Law

There is a variety of legislative material provided underpinning the argument put forward.

1. The first piece of legislation that is of interest is RD3 PAYE income payments.

It is important to pay attention to the words: "Meaning Generally". This is because RD3(5) allows the CIR discretion in deciding whether the PAYE rules apply to ALL or PART of a payment. Thus, the rules in RD3(1) are not exhaustive, there is wiggle room and possibly a lot of wiggle room.

2.The second piece of legislation is RD5.

Of interest here is: RD5(1)©, which excludes a number of forms of income from being considered as 'earnings'. These include 'schedular payments' which are included in the [discretionary] RD3.

3 Third, RD8

Schedular payments are further defined here in RD8(1)(a) and those that are exempt in RD8(1)(b]. The payments are defined in Schedule 4.

4 Schedule 4

So Schedule 4(1)(a) requires that the payment be classified as 'earnings' as an employee.

Summary

RD5(1)(c] prevents schedular payments from being classified as earnings. Schedule 4(1)(a) requires for deductions to be made pursuant to s221 ACA to 'earnings'. The schedular payments are not earnings and are therefore not subject to the deduction.

On that basis, unless I have missed something really fundamental, it would seem that at this point ACC is correct. I'll be very interested in the responses and if I have further time today I'll look at it again and see if I have made any errors.

Grant


Hi Grant

Am off to chiropractor, so quick post. I haven't got the new tax act to check your thoughts re the payment of claimants in dual working relationship.

Have very bad feelings of the ACC admendment act 2001 though. Means going through each one on the end of the Act to see what has been amended and what has been changed or gotten rid of all together. It is horrific. I haven't long had the newest model of the 2001 Act January 2001. But am having a terrible time with getting to the answer at this time. The Treatment Injury for instance, is quoting 32 and 33 and you read under and it relates to section 12 and 13 and then the other parts that follow with it. I guess I will have to use both to make sure I have the right one.

Have you had any treatment injury ones to do yet?

Good to see you up here again, your information is a life line.

Mini
0

#64 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 27 June 2018 - 03:45 PM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 27 June 2018 - 08:52 AM, said:

I'm coming to this discussion very late and have not been following it until yesterday when I checked in to see what was happening. As such, I may be [way] off base here:

Issue

That ACC are treating earnings [classes] as different when assessing for compensation. Because of that, ACC are illegitimately [re] classifying claimant's earnings with the result of underpaying them: specifically 'schedular payments'.

The Law

There is a variety of legislative material provided underpinning the argument put forward.

1. The first piece of legislation that is of interest is RD3 PAYE income payments.

It is important to pay attention to the words: "Meaning Generally". This is because RD3(5) allows the CIR discretion in deciding whether the PAYE rules apply to ALL or PART of a payment. Thus, the rules in RD3(1) are not exhaustive, there is wiggle room and possibly a lot of wiggle room.

2.The second piece of legislation is RD5.

Of interest here is: RD5(1)©, which excludes a number of forms of income from being considered as 'earnings'. These include 'schedular payments' which are included in the [discretionary] RD3.

3 Third, RD8

Schedular payments are further defined here in RD8(1)(a) and those that are exempt in RD8(1)(b]. The payments are defined in Schedule 4.

4 Schedule 4

So Schedule 4(1)(a) requires that the payment be classified as 'earnings' as an employee.

Summary

RD5(1)(c] prevents schedular payments from being classified as earnings. Schedule 4(1)(a) requires for deductions to be made pursuant to s221 ACA to 'earnings'. The schedular payments are not earnings and are therefore not subject to the deduction.

On that basis, unless I have missed something really fundamental, it would seem that at this point ACC is correct. I'll be very interested in the responses and if I have further time today I'll look at it again and see if I have made any errors.

Grant


I am glad you are here Grant. As it happens I finally managed to force the Corporation out of its rat hole and produce some actual legal reasoning. I have just finished my response. But first in relation to RD 5. It does not say schedular payments are not "earnings" is states it is not "PAYE Salary and Wages."

Schedule 4 notes RD 5 as its own separate consideration. So Schedule 4 AC Act notes RD 5 as its own consideration. All Salary and Wages are PAYE but not all PAYE is Salary and Wages. I will have my full response up in a couple of minutes.

any amount included in the earnings as an employee of an employer as if such amount were a PAYE income payment (or, as the case may require, salary or wages under section RD 5 of the Income Tax Act 2007) of the employee for the purposes of the PAYE rules; and
0

#65 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:59 AM

View PostLupine, on 27 June 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:


I am glad you are here Grant. As it happens I finally managed to force the Corporation out of its rat hole and produce some actual legal reasoning. I have just finished my response. But first in relation to RD 5. It does not say schedular payments are not "earnings" is states it is not "PAYE Salary and Wages."



That is true and I should have referred to them as such. So working backwards this time:

Pursuant to Schedule 4(1): the PAYE rules of the ITA 2007 apply with all necessary modifications to Schedule 4(1)(a): which takes us to RD 5.

RD 5(1)(c] excludes schedular payments from salary and wages.

In RD 3(1)(a)(iii) that schedular payments become subject to the PAYE rules, pursuant to RD 8.

RD 8(1)(b] excludes 'salary wages'.
RD 8 (1)(a) allows those [pursuant] by Schedule 4.

Which is circular and takes us back once again to our starting point: which is that schedular payments are excluded by RD 5(1)(c]. The key to this lies in RD 3 and the words "Meaning generally", which makes the list in RD 3 non-exhaustive and subject to exceptions, additions, etc in other areas of the legislation.

Therefore, if the legal argument lies within these areas of the legislation and cannot be modified by some additional legislation, then the schedular payments look to be excluded.

Grant
0

#66 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 28 June 2018 - 06:18 AM

View PostLupine, on 27 June 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:



Schedule 4 notes RD 5 as its own separate consideration. So Schedule 4 AC Act notes RD 5 as its own consideration. All Salary and Wages are PAYE but not all PAYE is Salary and Wages. I will have my full response up in a couple of minutes.

any amount included in the earnings as an employee of an employer as if such amount were a PAYE income payment (or, as the case may require, salary or wages under section RD 5 of the Income Tax Act 2007) of the employee for the purposes of the PAYE rules; and



So this is where RD 5(1)(a) [and why I referred to 'earnings' rather than wages and salary] refers to both earnings and wages/salary. The question becomes: are earnings the same or equivalent to wages/salary, or are they something different? Can you use the (....) to differentiate the two concepts?

This could become an exercise in statutory interpretation pursuant to the Interpretation Act. The case law is Investors and Lord Hoffmann cited in Vector Gas. For your position to succeed, 'earnings' cannot be equivalent to wages/salary, as, pursuant to RD 5(1)(c], schedular payments are excluded from a wages/salary definition.

The problem is: where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose?

Grant
0

#67 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 07:25 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 28 June 2018 - 06:18 AM, said:

So this is where RD 5(1)(a) [and why I referred to 'earnings' rather than wages and salary] refers to both earnings and wages/salary. The question becomes: are earnings the same or equivalent to wages/salary, or are they something different? Can you use the (....) to differentiate the two concepts?

This could become an exercise in statutory interpretation pursuant to the Interpretation Act. The case law is Investors and Lord Hoffmann cited in Vector Gas. For your position to succeed, 'earnings' cannot be equivalent to wages/salary, as, pursuant to RD 5(1)(c], schedular payments are excluded from a wages/salary definition.

The problem is: where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose?

Grant


OK. The question is what is ACC supposed to Levy?

There are two Sections involved. Section 221 which levies PAYE INCOME PAYMENTS at the time of payment and Section 222 which levies taxed EARNINGS received as as self-employed person in the previous (relevant year). The definition of EARNINGS applies to Section 222 claimants.

The issue is Section 221 / Schedule 4 which requires ACC to levy all PAYE INCOME PAYMENTS. So the question at hand is what constitutes a PAYE INCOME PAYMENT? My argument is that a Schedular payment is a PAYE INCOME PAYMENT as it is listed under RD 3 which Section 6 and Schedule 4 22 both point to.

Now I see your argument. You are saying that RD 3 in in itself may not be specific enough due to its meaning generally qualification. I get that. But the legislators thought of that as I will now demonstrate.

I noticed this earlier and thought it was weird but your arguments have revealed there is a purpose.

Section 6 is solely focused on interpretations for the AC Act. RD 3 has wider considerations for IRD. ACC has to ask what is a PAYE INCOME PAYMENT and Section 6 provides.

PAYE income payment has the same meaning as in section RD 3(1) of the Income Tax Act 2007


Can you see it? The meaning is specifically found in RD 3 (1) not RD 3 in the general sense. To answer the question we are required to go to RD 3 (1) specifically. Only the information in RD 3 (1) applies to the consideration because Section 6 takes us straight to the specific meaning in the sub section to the exclusion of the wider RD 3 consideration. This keeps ACC pinned to the specific consideration while leaving the wider RD 3 considerations available for IRD process.


0

#68 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1593
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 07:33 AM

In addition the wording of Schedule 4 1 demonstrates that the definition of PAYE INCOME PAYMENTS is NOT confined to Salary and Wages as the Schedule notes them as an either or consideration.


1
Subject to this schedule, the PAYE rules of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the PAYE rules) apply, with all necessary modifications, with respect to—


(a)
any amount included in the earnings as an employee of an employer as if such amount were a PAYE income payment (or, as the case may require, salary or wages under section RD 5 of the Income Tax Act 2007) of the employee for the purposes of the PAYE rules; and




As they are listed there as either or they cannot be defined as a singular consideration.

0

#69 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 867
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:38 AM

View PostLupine, on 28 June 2018 - 07:33 AM, said:

In addition the wording of Schedule 4 1 demonstrates that the definition of PAYE INCOME PAYMENTS is NOT confined to Salary and Wages as the Schedule notes them as an either or consideration.


1
Subject to this schedule, the PAYE rules of the Income Tax Act 2007 (the PAYE rules) apply, with all necessary modifications, with respect to—


(a)
any amount included in the earnings as an employee of an employer as if such amount were a PAYE income payment (or, as the case may require, salary or wages under section RD 5 of the Income Tax Act 2007) of the employee for the purposes of the PAYE rules; and




As they are listed there as either or they cannot be defined as a singular consideration.





As this is the easier issue in the first instance:

Section 6 ACA defines 'employee'.
Employee is defined pursuant to the ITA as: (a) means a person who receives or is entitled to receive a PAYE income payment.

Take 1 step back to Section 6 ACA: earnings means (a) earnings as an employee
This takes us to the definition of 'employee' as defined above.

Therefore, earnings and wages/salary, could very well have the same meaning, in that 'earnings' as defined in the ACA now fall as defined in the ITA, which takes us to [back to] RD 3, where income is defined as wages/salary, schedular payments and extra pay.

Schedular payments are defined via RD 8. Which essentially puts us back on the circular path around the various sections. I know your earlier post addresses argument as to why it is restricted to RD 5, which I'll get to, it is just altogether a more involved post.

Grant
0

#70 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:02 AM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 28 June 2018 - 06:18 AM, said:

So this is where RD 5(1)(a) [and why I referred to 'earnings' rather than wages and salary] refers to both earnings and wages/salary. The question becomes: are earnings the same or equivalent to wages/salary, or are they something different? Can you use the (....) to differentiate the two concepts?

This could become an exercise in statutory interpretation pursuant to the Interpretation Act. The case law is Investors and Lord Hoffmann cited in Vector Gas. For your position to succeed, 'earnings' cannot be equivalent to wages/salary, as, pursuant to RD 5(1)(c], schedular payments are excluded from a wages/salary definition.

The problem is: where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose?

Grant


Indeed. Yes we must determine whether way are dealing with something that is derived from earnings under the ACC legislation or whether the ACC are permitted to disregard the meanings of words under the ACC legislation in favour of interpretation of words within the IRD legislation.
Once we can answer this question then we can determine whether or not ACC is restricted to dealing with matters of earnings to the exclusion of other income that is not Earnings.

0

#71 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 04:03 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

Indeed. Yes we must determine whether way are dealing with something that is derived from earnings under the ACC legislation or whether the ACC are permitted to disregard the meanings of words under the ACC legislation in favour of interpretation of words within the IRD legislation.
Once we can answer this question then we can determine whether or not ACC is restricted to dealing with matters of earnings to the exclusion of other income that is not Earnings.


Alan

Your quote: "Once we can answer this question then we can determine whether or not ACC is restriced to dealing with matters of eanings to the exclusion of other income that is not Earnings."

The IRD and the ACC are both in this together, BUT it is known that it can be in the favour of one or the other, as has been already shown. Of course ACC does not only deal with earners, they are working with injured Directors of Companies and other entities. However, because earners are the largest amount of workers we have paying tax and most of the ones getting hurt, it simply looks like they are the most claimants because they are.

Others have also been the hardest to do as their income is sparotic and unlike w/c is actually hardly ever w/c. Therefore the figures are harder to gather and this is exactly what is the problem in this case. From the one form put up there by Lupine that says IRD have a form that shows, w/c put in under scheduler and the shedular with tax taken off. BUt no mention of ACC levies kept by anyone (lose money). It would have to shown of official documents to see who has what coming in and where it came from. I would love to see those documents in the flesh.

Mini
0

#72 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 04:57 PM

View PostMINI, on 28 June 2018 - 04:03 PM, said:

Alan

Your quote: "Once we can answer this question then we can determine whether or not ACC is restriced to dealing with matters of eanings to the exclusion of other income that is not Earnings."

The IRD and the ACC are both in this together, BUT it is known that it can be in the favour of one or the other, as has been already shown. Of course ACC does not only deal with earners, they are working with injured Directors of Companies and other entities. However, because earners are the largest amount of workers we have paying tax and most of the ones getting hurt, it simply looks like they are the most claimants because they are.

Others have also been the hardest to do as their income is sparotic and unlike w/c is actually hardly ever w/c. Therefore the figures are harder to gather and this is exactly what is the problem in this case. From the one form put up there by Lupine that says IRD have a form that shows, w/c put in under scheduler and the shedular with tax taken off. BUt no mention of ACC levies kept by anyone (lose money). It would have to shown of official documents to see who has what coming in and where it came from. I would love to see those documents in the flesh.

Mini


When you refer to a director and income in the one sentence what type of income a you meaning?Keep in mind that position of Director is not a job but fudiciary duty as specified by The Australian New Zealand Centre Classification of Occupations and other source material.Of course some directors attend directors meetings and received directors fees which of course is quite clearly earnings and not income as defined by the ACC legislation. Obviously IRB don't distinguish the difference.





0

#73 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 June 2018 - 10:21 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 June 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

Grant I think in essence we need to be looking at the purpose of income tax and the purpose of earnings compensation is the starting point for understanding the requirements and criteria of each legislation and how the authors of the ACC legislation intended what they have written to be interpreted. Income tax of course is global in the sense that the IRD seeks a percentage of all earnings whereas the ACC legislation overriding a global intention is that we are compensated for all earnings generated by personal activity as opposed to income that has been generated by way of third parties such as investments or other forms of payment that have no connection to the individual mental or physical exertions resulting in earnings. After all it is earnings compensation that we are talking about with regards to loop and is intent when writing to the ACC.

Earnings compensation relates tothe earnings enjoyed prior to being injured. A person may be an employee but that does not mean that the earnings are exclusively and only in relation to that form of employment as there can be multiple earning streams of which the ACC must compensate when the person is injured.

Earnings compensation of which the ACC has a duty to pay includes all forms of compensation that relate to what the earnings compensation calculation includes which naturally excludes all other forms of income coming from the ACC or indeed other forms of income that have no relationship to actual earnings compensation such as disability allowances and other forms of payments.

So we need to ask yourself the question whether or not 'schedular payments' Has ever had any connection whatsoever to the original activities from which the claimant generated earnings of which the ACC is now compensating.

So what precisely are we talking about when we are referring to 'schedular payments'? What are the components that make up this payment? What actually is initiated these 'schedular payments' funds? I believe that this is what will define the answer to the current issue


Thomas

I have already told you, scheduler payments are a form of income and how it is treated by tax from a solo tradesperson, partner in a business and others. This used to mainly be called a progressive payment to IRD. In the first year of payment, there is no way to calculate what has not been made, for ACC levy purposes, so the payments of income are made each four months or so, of actual Invoices being written for payment, or actual payment, dependent on what GST system you are on. ACC is difficult to work out in the first year as these type tax payers, pay it in progressive payments only when it can get worked out properly and until they have a yearly income done, there is little way for this to be completed. It cannot be claimed as an expense anyway, until it has been paid. I am going back to the 1994 Income Tax Act, so it could be changed now and that is why I urge Lupine to do his own research on his thoughts about this. It looks to me as though we do not have all documentation necessary to make comments about anything other than what 'could' be, because of the special situation his clients are in. Progressive/scheduler payments have been around for years and are a risk payment to IRD because some of them do not bother in doing the documents that need doing, and some have very little expenses
, so do not think it is necessary. Some in fact think the employer/contracting manager has done it by removing 20% from the income and paying it to IRD. As I said it is a minefleid of which way they should be handling their tax affairs. In fact it is obviously worse when ACC are involved, which they always are, same as IRD.

Mini
0

#74 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 June 2018 - 10:48 AM

View PostMINI, on 29 June 2018 - 10:21 AM, said:

Thomas

I have already told you, scheduler payments are a form of income and how it is treated by tax from a solo tradesperson, partner in a business and others. This used to mainly be called a progressive payment to IRD. In the first year of payment, there is no way to calculate what has not been made, for ACC levy purposes, so the payments of income are made each four months or so, of actual Invoices being written for payment, or actual payment, dependent on what GST system you are on. ACC is difficult to work out in the first year as these type tax payers, pay it in progressive payments only when it can get worked out properly and until they have a yearly income done, there is little way for this to be completed. It cannot be claimed as an expense anyway, until it has been paid. I am going back to the 1994 Income Tax Act, so it could be changed now and that is why I urge Lupine to do his own research on his thoughts about this. It looks to me as though we do not have all documentation necessary to make comments about anything other than what 'could' be, because of the special situation his clients are in. Progressive/scheduler payments have been around for years and are a risk payment to IRD because some of them do not bother in doing the documents that need doing, and some have very little expenses
, so do not think it is necessary. Some in fact think the employer/contracting manager has done it by removing 20% from the income and paying it to IRD. As I said it is a minefleid of which way they should be handling their tax affairs. In fact it is obviously worse when ACC are involved, which they always are, same as IRD.

Mini


Like all Law, it is bought down to what the taxpayer intended it to be and that is on the papers they fill in at the beginning of their business. As that is indeed what these persons are aren't they Lupine?? The documents we should be seeing is the registration for tax is it a partnership a company or a sole entity. What is the business they intend to carry out? Are they registered for GST and ACC levy?? We need to have the answers to all these questions to see what the intent of the person/s are.

Then we can see where they sit in the tax act. And the ACC Act and even the good old Gst Act.

Could you please answer the questions I ask Lupine, so I can at least assist you better by seeing where the Judge would be coming from.

I think you have a point about the ACC not being shown of IRD papers, But there are a few lawful reasons for that not to be happening if this is the first year papers of the client.

Mini
0

#75 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 June 2018 - 11:24 AM

View PostMINI, on 29 June 2018 - 10:21 AM, said:

Thomas

I have already told you, scheduler payments are a form of income and how it is treated by tax from a solo tradesperson, partner in a business and others. This used to mainly be called a progressive payment to IRD. In the first year of payment, there is no way to calculate what has not been made, for ACC levy purposes, so the payments of income are made each four months or so, of actual Invoices being written for payment, or actual payment, dependent on what GST system you are on. ACC is difficult to work out in the first year as these type tax payers, pay it in progressive payments only when it can get worked out properly and until they have a yearly income done, there is little way for this to be completed. It cannot be claimed as an expense anyway, until it has been paid. I am going back to the 1994 Income Tax Act, so it could be changed now and that is why I urge Lupine to do his own research on his thoughts about this. It looks to me as though we do not have all documentation necessary to make comments about anything other than what 'could' be, because of the special situation his clients are in. Progressive/scheduler payments have been around for years and are a risk payment to IRD because some of them do not bother in doing the documents that need doing, and some have very little expenses
, so do not think it is necessary. Some in fact think the employer/contracting manager has done it by removing 20% from the income and paying it to IRD. As I said it is a minefleid of which way they should be handling their tax affairs. In fact it is obviously worse when ACC are involved, which they always are, same as IRD.

Mini

0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 June 2018 - 12:56 PM

View PostMINI, on 29 June 2018 - 10:48 AM, said:

Like all Law, it is bought down to what the taxpayer intended it to be and that is on the papers they fill in at the beginning of their business. As that is indeed what these persons are aren't they Lupine?? The documents we should be seeing is the registration for tax is it a partnership a company or a sole entity. What is the business they intend to carry out? Are they registered for GST and ACC levy?? We need to have the answers to all these questions to see what the intent of the person/s are.

Then we can see where they sit in the tax act. And the ACC Act and even the good old Gst Act.

Could you please answer the questions I ask Lupine, so I can at least assist you better by seeing where the Judge would be coming from.

I think you have a point about the ACC not being shown of IRD papers, But there are a few lawful reasons for that not to be happening if this is the first year papers of the client.

Mini


I have already raised what the starting point is on this matter from which all interpretation from all other law must follow. That is whether or not these additional payments have any relationship to actual work task activities resulting in an as opposed to income as a result of ownership. While the tax due to the IRD is and affected by this differentiation the ACC does require this point to be distinguished. So answer my question and then work from there
0

#77 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:26 PM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 28 June 2018 - 06:18 AM, said:

So this is where RD 5(1)(a) [and why I referred to 'earnings' rather than wages and salary] refers to both earnings and wages/salary. The question becomes: are earnings the same or equivalent to wages/salary, or are they something different? Can you use the (....) to differentiate the two concepts?

This could become an exercise in statutory interpretation pursuant to the Interpretation Act. The case law is Investors and Lord Hoffmann cited in Vector Gas. For your position to succeed, 'earnings' cannot be equivalent to wages/salary, as, pursuant to RD 5(1)(c], schedular payments are excluded from a wages/salary definition.

The problem is: where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose?

Grant


Grant

You ask where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose.

I would look at the PAYE schedule that is printed each time there is a change in the % of tax to be deducted from income of any kind. Being an advocate/lawyer that needs to know how payroll is done, holiday pay included, you will find it is not too much bother to get one from IRD. They should post you one out. Mind you having said that I have not looked at anything other than the 1994 Income Tax Act BUT I do know that the 2004 IT Act came out just to make 1994 Act easier to read. So it wont have many changes in it. The 2007 Act has been used largely in here as the newer IT ACT, BUT I would still ask for a copy of the Payroll schedule from IRD which will give you what you need for the scheduler and PAYE payment, and Income tax generally. Good luck Mini
0

#78 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10121
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:31 PM

View PostMINI, on 30 June 2018 - 12:26 PM, said:

Grant

You ask where are 'earnings' defined or referred to in the legislation for this purpose.

I would look at the PAYE schedule that is printed each time there is a change in the % of tax to be deducted from income of any kind. Being an advocate/lawyer that needs to know how payroll is done, holiday pay included, you will find it is not too much bother to get one from IRD. They should post you one out. Mind you having said that I have not looked at anything other than the 1994 Income Tax Act BUT I do know that the 2004 IT Act came out just to make 1994 Act easier to read. So it wont have many changes in it. The 2007 Act has been used largely in here as the newer IT ACT, BUT I would still ask for a copy of the Payroll schedule from IRD which will give you what you need for the scheduler and PAYE payment, and Income tax generally. Good luck Mini


Mini the issue of contention is the scheduler income. Are you able to describe what that is? Obviously as a former IRD employee you are the primary person on this site that should be able to readily access this information and explain it to the members of the site? Are you able to go further than just that and describe whether or not schedule and come is a form of income that the ACC would be referring to is earnings income as opposed to non-earnings income?
0

#79 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:55 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

When you refer to a director and income in the one sentence what type of income a you meaning?Keep in mind that position of Director is not a job but fudiciary duty as specified by The Australian New Zealand Centre Classification of Occupations and other source material.Of course some directors attend directors meetings and received directors fees which of course is quite clearly earnings and not income as defined by the ACC legislation. Obviously IRB don't distinguish the difference.


"Drawings." Like using company building as residential property. would be classed as drawings, even if it were to move it from the director as a payment to the company who owns or leases the building.

Directors Fees are in the IRD Act as a type of Drawings.

Not going to look for it, but you can, as you have shown you are not doing much else, but I have two on the go at this moment. So it is do your own research time. I don't mind supplying suggestions but I do mind having to do the 'stick work' when it doesn't benefit me.

Mini
0

#80 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7807
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 30 June 2018 - 01:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 June 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

I have already raised what the starting point is on this matter from which all interpretation from all other law must follow. That is whether or not these additional payments have any relationship to actual work task activities resulting in an as opposed to income as a result of ownership. While the tax due to the IRD is and affected by this differentiation the ACC does require this point to be distinguished. So answer my question and then work from there


Thomas

I was not speaking to you, I was speaking to Lupine. If he does not want to show the intention of his clients then he has no need too, But there is not much we can do without it.

Do some work and answer your own questions.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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