ACCforum: ACC Section 221 Response - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

ACC Section 221 Response ACC finally presents its um reasoning. I respond in turn.

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 27 June 2018 - 03:52 PM

Here it is people. You are the first to read it. ACC v Cassandra now goes into it's end game now that the Corporation has finally presented its so called position.

Paragraph 36 had a small error. It should read

36. I note that ACC is considered an Employer despite the Corporation paying its infamous 80% of Nil Calculation. We see that ACC is paying 0.00 but it is evident that this taxpayer is showing up on the IRD process as a person entitled to be receiving Claimant Compensation.

I still have to send the email response so I picked it up.

For the record the final and actual copy is in the ACC v Cassandra post.
1

#2 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:28 AM

I must say the silence is interesting.

I will be making a couple of small adjustments and sending that missive out this morning. Glad I took a moment as it will allow me to cover the issue Grant has raised which I am certain is cured by the Section 6 definition linking straight to RD3 (1) as opposed to RD 3 as a general consideration. I also note there was a view that my last letter would not achieve what I wanted. It very much has. What I was wanting was for the Corporation to provide its legal interpretation so I could pin it down and get my fangs into it. This has been achieved. Apparently someone decided to educate me on the legislation. More fool them. 8 months of stone walling is now over and I can now unleash a rolling waves of legal and political processes which will result in this matter being fully exposed to the wider public.

The Corporation's reasoning is so flawed it beggars belief. The result I believe of ACC Legal and Accounting having a fondness for constructs. Posted Image
1

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:00 AM

I note that the IOA Response has no individual named on it and it is an official document. So I will post it here so everyone can see the full official response. My updated response will be ready soon.

Here you will see among a lot of other things that apparently it is not up to ACC to determine the intent of the legislation. Refreshingly honest of them I thought Posted Image

Attached File(s)


1

#4 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9053
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:17 AM

View PostLupine, on 28 June 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

I must say the silence is interesting.

I will be making a couple of small adjustments and sending that missive out this morning. Glad I took a moment as it will allow me to cover the issue Grant has raised which I am certain is cured by the Section 6 definition linking straight to RD3 (1) as opposed to RD 3 as a general consideration. I also note there was a view that my last letter would not achieve what I wanted. It very much has. What I was wanting was for the Corporation to provide its legal interpretation so I could pin it down and get my fangs into it. This has been achieved. Apparently someone decided to educate me on the legislation. More fool them. 8 months of stone walling is now over and I can now unleash a rolling waves of legal and political processes which will result in this matter being fully exposed to the wider public.

The Corporation's reasoning is so flawed it beggars belief. The result I believe of ACC Legal and Accounting having a fondness for constructs. Posted Image


Your doing a great job, it's not easy being a whistle blower. Keep up the Good work,

Kia Kaha
2

#5 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:23 AM

Understanding schedular payments
Schedular payments are payments made to contractors who perform certain activities. These payments are required to have tax deducted but they’re different to salary or wage payments.




It's not only individuals who receive schedular payments. Those that can receive them include:

  • self-employed contractors
  • sole traders
  • partnerships
  • trusts
  • companies operating in the agricultural, horticultural and viticultural industries, and
  • companies paid under labour hire arrangement in the industry.
The person or entity making the schedular payments is often referred to as the "payer".




ACC required to pay ERC which is as if it were earned for actual work. Any other payments that are not treated as if for work can not be paid as erc and therefore taxed under paye


Is someone receiving erc considered to and teated as if working and earning? Yes.Therefore ACC levies must be paid from those erc earnings to cover the insurable risk.
See that is not hard to understand

0

#6 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:28 AM

View PostBrucey, on 28 June 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

Your doing a great job, it's not easy being a whistle blower. Keep up the Good work,

Kia Kaha


Thank you Brucey.
0

#7 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 09:59 AM

Lupine it appears that you have deleted a portion of my posting and added your own comments as if it was mine. Please make the necessary corrections so as not to cause any misunderstandings by the readership As the portion of my comments you have deleted is an important contribution to this discussion and does require serious thought.
0

#8 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:31 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

Lupine it appears that you have deleted a portion of my posting and added your own comments as if it was mine. Please make the necessary corrections so as not to cause any misunderstandings by the readership As the portion of my comments you have deleted is an important contribution to this discussion and does require serious thought.


Fair enough Alan.

As I said PAYE Income Payments are not limited to Salary and Wages.

Also despite the fact I have in no way implied otherwise "EARNINGS" is not limited to PAYE. That is why Section 222 exists.

The argument is whether ACC has missed a class of PAYE Income Payment being Schedular Payments from the entire levy process thus unlawfully denying the entitlements that correspond to that levy process. The answer is YES.
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:34 AM

View PostBrucey, on 28 June 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

Your doing a great job, it's not easy being a whistle blower. Keep up the Good work,

Kia Kaha



Well said Brucey :)

Keep on keeping on Lupine :)
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:42 AM

View PostLupine, on 28 June 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

I note that the IOA Response has no individual named on it and it is an official document. So I will post it here so everyone can see the full official response. My updated response will be ready soon.

Here you will see among a lot of other things that apparently it is not up to ACC to determine the intent of the legislation. Refreshingly honest of them I thought Posted Image


Lupine

Woo that's a good one. They just about did any legal stuff you need for review or court. Good read and excellent outcome for your client.

Probably got them going that by answering that they good let Mr Pickering off the hook.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:50 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

Understanding schedular payments
Schedular payments are payments made to contractors who perform certain activities. These payments are required to have tax deducted but they’re different to salary or wage payments.




It's not only individuals who receive schedular payments. Those that can receive them include:

  • self-employed contractors
  • sole traders
  • partnerships
  • trusts
  • companies operating in the agricultural, horticultural and viticultural industries, and
  • companies paid under labour hire arrangement in the industry.
The person or entity making the schedular payments is often referred to as the "payer".




ACC required to pay ERC which is as if it were earned for actual work. Any other payments that are not treated as if for work can not be paid as erc and therefore taxed under paye


Is someone receiving erc considered to and teated as if working and earning? Yes.Therefore ACC levies must be paid from those erc earnings to cover the insurable risk.
See that is not hard to understand


Thomo

Not hard once you have it laid out for you by the so called professionals eh?

ACC probably went to IRD of the answer.

Besides Lupine is still working on it, so the outcome is not here yet.

Mini
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:55 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

Lupine it appears that you have deleted a portion of my posting and added your own comments as if it was mine. Please make the necessary corrections so as not to cause any misunderstandings by the readership As the portion of my comments you have deleted is an important contribution to this discussion and does require serious thought.


Alan Thomas

It is interesting that such a move can be made by others on our posts. That used to be an admin job. Considering you are looking for information of the nature of illegal harassment against you, it would be well worth you following suit. In face I have some of mine that has been changed by yourself.

Mini
0

#13 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:56 AM

View PostLupine, on 28 June 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

Fair enough Alan.

As I said PAYE Income Payments are not limited to Salary and Wages.

Also despite the fact I have in no way implied otherwise "EARNINGS" is not limited to PAYE. That is why Section 222 exists.

The argument is whether ACC has missed a class of PAYE Income Payment being Schedular Payments from the entire levy process thus unlawfully denying the entitlements that correspond to that levy process. The answer is YES.


I am troubled by your use of the word "income" in ACC context in reliance upon PAYE interpretation of the meaning of the word as the ACC may only involve itself with earnings which of course which is only part of income that is capable of being taxed. It seems to me that you are considering that ACC are entitled to levy income that is not earnings. Please clarify your understanding by using the correct terminology is the starting point so as we may properly understand what your viewpoint is rather than just guess what your viewpoint is as I think the ACC seem to have done.
0

#14 User is online   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:59 AM

View PostMINI, on 28 June 2018 - 10:50 AM, said:

Thomo

Not hard once you have it laid out for you by the so called professionals eh?

ACC probably went to IRD of the answer.

Besides Lupine is still working on it, so the outcome is not here yet.

Mini


With the letter that Lupine wrote to the ACC one would have thought that he already understood what he was trying to say. Now you are trying to say that he has not properly formed his rationale yet which I find incredible given the ferocity of the letter as if he did have a valid legal argument.
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:05 AM

View PostLupine, on 28 June 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

Fair enough Alan.

As I said PAYE Income Payments are not limited to Salary and Wages.

Also despite the fact I have in no way implied otherwise "EARNINGS" is not limited to PAYE. That is why Section 222 exists.

The argument is whether ACC has missed a class of PAYE Income Payment being Schedular Payments from the entire levy process thus unlawfully denying the entitlements that correspond to that levy process. The answer is YES.


Lupine

BUT they have just told you that scheduler payments are similar to Progressive payments therefore it would be three times a year to the tax dept with the income from the business. That would mean no ACC Levy until the end of the final year or even the beginning of first part of the next year as under provision tax, ACC Levy cannot be claimed as an expence until it has been paid to IRD. Although, I think I saw where ACC said that they collect your clients data, not the IRD. BUT check it out, because it needs to be.

Good Luck

Mini
0

#16 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 June 2018 - 11:17 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 June 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

With the letter that Lupine wrote to the ACC one would have thought that he already understood what he was trying to say. Now you are trying to say that he has not properly formed his rationale yet which I find incredible given the ferocity of the letter as if he did have a valid legal argument.


Thomas

Lupine has not given us his complete argument. Concerning the last part he has said here if I remember correct is "dah dah dah and if so the answer is Yes". Meaning has Acc missed a meaning for x type of taxation on income.

So as I see it he is still working on his problem. BUT obviously he knows in what direction he is going and what the discrepancy he has there. As I said previously the answer is in front of him and more so now, just like the answer to your problem is in front of you.

Mini
0

#17 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1542
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 28 June 2018 - 06:00 PM

the person has to overturn , his convictions . . to then report back in a timely manner , which raises , the question , why has he not achieved the result :lol:
0

#18 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 June 2018 - 09:41 AM

View Posttommy, on 28 June 2018 - 06:00 PM, said:

the person has to overturn , his convictions . . to then report back in a timely manner , which raises , the question , why has he not achieved the result :lol:/>

Because Tommy Alan Tommy is too busy trying to glean answers to his problems from others post. As no one problems are identical, this is foolish, he should be doing the exercise of collecting his own data from his own discrepancies he has found, having being made from the ACC or anyone else.

It appears he is hoping that all the answers will just appear up here, from others hard work.

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