ACCforum: claiming a lum sum payout for weekly compensation whilst owning a company but not earning wages - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

claiming a lum sum payout for weekly compensation whilst owning a company but not earning wages

#21 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:53 PM

View Posttommy, on 11 July 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

overturn your convictions , of being found guilty of receiving entitlements , allen , and hence report back in a timely and responsible manner to the forum :lol:/>

if one can :D
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:08 PM

View Posttommy, on 11 July 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

overturn your convictions , of being found guilty of receiving entitlements , allen , and hence report back in a timely and responsible manner to the forum Posted Image


REPORTED
Off topic again
0

#23 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:34 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 06:08 PM, said:

REPORTED
Off topic again

to be off topic , allen is to be on topic :D
0

#24 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:


If we look at section 6 we will see that employment means engaging in work for the purposes of earnings. We are insured therefore to have cover a capacity to earn.

If we look at earning wages you are dealing with two separate things, earning and wages. It is necessary to break down the meaning of both words to properly understand how those words fits within the ACC scheme of things.


hhhmmmm IMHO you are being very loosey goosey with a very inaccurate wordgame there Alan ....

You do know that the word *wages* is only mentioned twice in the ACC Legislation Contents. Compare this to the fact that *Income* is detailed 62 times while *earnings* only has 16 mentions.

I have also looked at Section 6 more closely too ALan to see if I can find your interpretations but still not managed to find your personal opinion or ideas yet in there etc However I did find an excellent critique with examination of caselaw concerning " Receipts from Personal Exertion or Gifts versus Gross Income" online but this MastersThesis is over a 100pages so yeah I only scanned it today in between other activities etc :wacko:

Anyways to give you the ACTUAL legislation statements ...

employment

(a) means work engaged in or carried out for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit; and

(b} in the case of an employee, includes a period of paid leave, other than paid leave on the termination of employment

earnings means—

(a) earnings as an employee:
(b} earnings as a self-employed person:
(c} earnings as a shareholder-employee
earnings as an employee has the meaning set out in sections 9 to 13
earnings as a self-employed person has the meaning set out in section 14
earnings as a shareholder-employee has the meaning set out in section 15


weekly earnings, in relation to an earner, means the weekly earnings of that earner determined in accordance with Part 2 of Schedule 1


One of the main issues which arises from this definition Alan is that you may be excluded from the Class of Permanent Employment category for the ERC calculations ...



33
Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee immediately before incapacity commenced: application of clause

34
(1) Clause 34 applies to a claimant who—

(a) was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(b} was in permanent employment at that time; and
(c} had earnings as an employee from that permanent employment at that time.


(2) If the claimant had permanent employment with more than 1 employer at that time, the weekly earnings of the claimant, in respect of each employer he or she had at that time, are as calculated separately under clause 34 and aggregated under clause 41.

(3) For the purposes of this clause and clause 34, the claimant is regarded as having been in permanent employment if, in the opinion of the Corporation, he or she would have continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous period of more than 12 months after the date on which his or her incapacity commenced, if he or she had not suffered the personal injury.

(4) Subclause (5) applies if—

(a) the claimant was in permanent employment (that was full-time employment) as an employee immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(b} before the employment, the claimant was employed by the same employer for less than 30 hours per week.


(5) The weekly earnings of the claimant is the greater of—
(a)the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 34:
(b} the claimant’s weekly earnings calculated in accordance with clause 36, as if the claimant were not in permanent employment immediately before his or her incapacity commenced.



36
Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee not in permanent employment immediately before incapacity commenced: calculations


(1) This subclause applies to each of the 4 weeks after the first week of incapacity. The claimant’s weekly earnings for each of the 4 weeks are calculated using the following formula: a/b

where—
a = is the claimant’s earnings as an employee (from all employment that was not permanent employment) in the 4 weeks immediately before his or her incapacity commenced
b = is the number of full or part weeks during which the claimant earned those earnings as an employee in the 4 weeks immediately before his or her incapacity commenced.


(2) This subclause applies to any weekly period of incapacity after the 4 weeks described in subclause (1). The claimant’s weekly earnings for any such weekly period are calculated using the following formula: a/ b

where—
a = is the claimant’s earnings as an employee (from all employment that was not permanent employment) in the 52 weeks immediately before his or her incapacity commenced
b = is 52 or such smaller number, if adjustments are required under subclause (4).


(3) For the purposes of this clause the following must be disregarded in calculating weekly earnings:
(a) any period during which the claimant was entitled to weekly compensation:

(b} any continuous period of unpaid sick leave, during a period of employment, of more than 1 week:
(ba) any period during which the claimant was within a payment period under the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016:

(c} any period during which—
(i)the claimant did not receive earnings as an employee; and
(ii)the claimant did receive earnings as a self-employed person or as a shareholder-employee; and
(iii)those earnings ceased before the commencement of the claimant’s incapacity:


(d) any earnings in respect of any period under paragraph (a), (b}, (ba), or (c}.

(4) In item b of the formula set out in subclause (2), the expression 52 is adjusted by deducting from it any number of weekly periods that subclause (3)(a), (b}, or (c} applies to.

(5) For the purposes of subclause (3)(c}, the Corporation may determine the number of weeks that fairly and reasonably represent the period during which the claimant received earnings as a self-employed person or as a shareholder-employee.



View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Wages imply a regular or routine payment. For convenience the IRD tax earners of wages as they are earned. However if we look at earnings in the broader context earnings does not even need to be money. For example earnings could be lots and lots of fringe benefits as well as money or fringe benefits of their own. If example and ACC claimant were getting 80% of their previous earnings as earnings compensation and thought that they could engage and work task activities for the purposes of gaining fringe benefits instead of wages or money and not inform the ACC of this they would be depriving ACC of the value of those fringe benefits to enable the ACC to carry out an abatement of earnings calculation of which the ACC would most certainly do for the purposes of offsetting what would otherwise be double dipping. Do not declare this to the ACC would be an act of fraud.


Rather than guessing what wages are implying Alan ...I strongly suggest that you actually check out the NZ Legislation again ..here is some helpful Caselaw analysis ...

Receipts from Personal Exertion: Mere Gifts or Gross Income?:

It is good to also see that you clearly realise your responsibilites to ACC and WINZ in regards to declaring various non monetary benefits etc etc Cheap housing is one which particularly can trip up claimants if it is not being declared ...





View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Having that in mind we now must look out the nature of earnings prior to being injured and the value of those earnings is what is good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words the rules are exactly the same regarding the measurement of earnings that are not wages. If you feel you have not grasped this principle precisely please expand upon this by asking the ACC prior to asking for earnings compensation in relation to your above question.


IMHO it is this kind of thinking which got you into so much strife and your convictions because IMHO you went off way off with various zebra games Alan. ie loopholes which had little to do with real world ie the facts of the cases such as living on premises or claiming you were living off girlfriends efforts while ignoring your own activities etc etc

Or your other attitude which seems to be encapsulated in the following legal observation within Tax Judgements etc

"… I cannot think that income tax is due or not according to the manner in which the person making the profit pleases to deal with it."




View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Wages is a function of reward from a third party such as a company. If you are the sole owner of the company and receive wages from that company that is only one form of earnings. So if you have not been paying yourself wages there is no need to worry but rather focus on the work that you have done it has created value or added value to the company of which you own which has increased your assets, the company is matters quite clearly earnings that aren't wages.


Check your thinking at the door ALan and I suggest you actually go and read some ACC Legislation and all correlated Tax Legislation & Caselaw ...

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

As above if you are on ACC and continued to work in your company to build the company up such as building machines that are going to be more productive once you have returned to work so you can make even more money then that work and value of that work is of interest to the ACC as there would be a direct proportion of abatement of earnings that would be deducted.


You are mixing things up here again Alan ... Capital is not the same as Income ...


View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

Otherwise you could be on ACC continue working for your company carrying out work that does not generate wages and be free to do so without abatement of earnings from places taken place. ACC can't have it both ways for the row financial gain as the ACC would be committing insurance fraud against you if that is what they were doing.


This is IMHO part of the reason why you got into trouble and ended up in jail too Alan ...



View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 July 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

If however you were not working for the purposes of generating earnings and therefore not generating any added value while owning a company With your only form of income being the profits of the company which was generated by other people working then of course you could not claim yourself to be an earner and therefore would not be entitled to earnings compensation is the only income would have been from company profit which of course is none of the ACCs business.


Agreed ... and of course if a person is living off another person too then this is a similar question of fact .. plus even more so and particularly this issue is significant with WINZ Benefit Entitlements &or Fraud convictions Alan ie it is ACC & WINZ business . There was a whole lot of ACC legislation concerning husband & wife activities but I am way past this let alone caring about your timeline on those shenanighans now Alan

IMHO you got into trouble because you tried to have your cake and eat it too ... regardless of your medical status ..the issue I see that tripped you up is because you deliberately set about taking money from the Crown to build up an empire of assets ... and expecting to keep such activity secret PLUS avoid all responsibilities therein such as taxes, levies & abatements ... is the simply POV that I hold about your wrongness in your behaviour as a law abiding citizen Alan. I am not referring here to your business failures and bankruptcy as they are different competence issues and that financial hardship suffered by investors or innocents is on your conscience ie the Crown was able to act to stop the train running off the tracks etc etc
0

#25 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2100
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:35 PM

thomas never ever had any of his own cake to eat
he just took acc's cake and used that
until acc decided they were short on afternoon tea feasts and took their cake back
1

#26 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 11 July 2018 - 09:21 PM

View PostHemi, on 11 July 2018 - 08:35 PM, said:

thomas never ever had any of his own cake to eat
he just took acc's cake and used that
until acc decided they were short on afternoon tea feasts and took their cake back


ROMFLMAO :D

Thanks Hemi ... I am distracting myself online at the moment with some stuff that is utterly irrelevant to me ... so yep think I needed a chuckle until I am able to get out of the kitchen again :)
0

#27 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 12 July 2018 - 05:39 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 July 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

The ACC scheme is to compensate the loss of earnings so the question is not about wages but about earnings.
Wages with PAYE is only one mechanism by which you provide evidence of earnings.The majority of owner operators for example don't pay themselves wages but rather arrange for their accountant to determine the income of the company and then deduct expenditure which then leaves the level of profit. Of course the company needs money to survive or you might need to invest in further equipment so it may be necessary to leave money in the company account for the safe operations of the company or planned expansion. The balance is available to be paid out as earnings. Indeed it is quite possible that a person may have taken drawings out through the year but this in itself does not necessarily mean earnings as someone might have been taking out money from a company that has not generated much income and that the drawings have come out of invested funds. But if it is agreeable with the investor, even if it is just yourself, you might want to treat these drawings as earnings.
However at the end of the day funds are drawn out from the company that are being treated as earnings and then from that money personal taxes paid. For myself these types of things were always worked out by an accountant.
If there has been an accident within a tax year you might need an accountant to work out what is reasonable earnings given the circumstances.
Some people have tried to do for the ACC by artificially creating earnings by first lonely money to the company and then arbitrarily deciding how much to pay themselves at a rate far higher than they otherwise would have been capable of earning or what would be normal for the particular work tasks. Doing that would be insurance fraud. So you would need to work out what is reasonable and best sorted out by professionals who know how to work out these things. ACC are not decision makers on how much your earnings were but only may question the earnings if they are unreasonable and as such it is none of their dam business unless you are being dishonest.

If you find yourself being challenged by ACC from the get go or the ACC not providing relevant information in order that you determine a fair and reasonable portion of earnings from the company then you need to be writing to the ACC asking for the relevant information under the official information act and if they refused to tell you or mislead you in any way or form it would be appropriate to prosecute the individual you are dealing with for ACC fraud. In as much as they would be producing documents for your pecuniary disadvantage and the pecuniary advantage of the ACC.

At the moment I'm going much through much the same situation after being injured and unable to earn followed by surgery and then restarting my original business while still partially injured which is meant that during the setting up phase of the business which includes all manner of mechanisms and devices to assist me with my disabilities there has not been a lot of opportunity to generate income despite the fact that I have been working. If for example someone was investing in me and my company and was to insist that I pay myself from the start a fair and reasonable wage we have to ask ourselves how is this different from my circumstances whereby one would normally rely upon earnings from the company income alone.
If you look at this on the flipside when someone is injured and cannot work but still only company in the company is not generating any income because you are not working on income generating work but you proceeded to work On various devices and mechanisms to assist you compensate for your injury so as you can take on outside work and generate company earnings from which your wages become then look at this scenario through the ACC eyes they would prosecute for fraud claiming that you were working and not deserving of earnings compensation. So using the same line of reasoning that the ACC use for prosecuting for fraud you should be applying to your current situation to justify paying myself from the companies reserves at a reasonable rate just as if you were in that situation.

earnings , v/s drawings . is where many get confused , as in taxable activities
0

#28 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:56 PM

am sure , mini is \up, to to speed on these ird related matters , which as in such , where is the man , ie allen Gordon Thomas , as in retrieving lost entitlementsa , as in being restored,
0

#29 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:59 PM

View Posttommy, on 12 July 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

am sure , mini is \up, to to speed on these ird related matters , which as in such , where is the man , ie allen Gordon Thomas , as in retrieving lost entitlementsa , as in being restored,

must add the ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :P
0

#30 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7725
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:15 AM

View Posttommy, on 12 July 2018 - 06:59 PM, said:

must add the ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :P/>


To all

It is interesting to see that the starter of this thread has not come back on here.

At no time did he/she give you enough information to make any type of decision which was correct, Therefore, unless Arty is willing to put more information up here, I am not wasting my time on any type of advice.

Have you lot thought of my Parliamentary Notice I put up here. Most of you will know someone who has had their backdated w/c overtaxed, and they may be missing out on something if they do not form part of the ones that write into parliament about this issue and how it has affected them. I cant even find it now, so that is how seriously it has been taken.

Mini
0

#31 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:16 AM

View Posttommy, on 12 July 2018 - 05:39 PM, said:

earnings , v/s drawings . is where many get confused , as in taxable activities


Those people who are not involved in either management of companies or are an accountant usually have no idea about what they are talking about, particularly if they are socialists.


Because any commercial activity has a degree of risk attached to it and owner of a business may not know how much profit the company is going to make and therefore find it impossible to set an appropriate wage. This means that quite frequently they take drawings instead and wait until the end of the tax year to determine what is reasonable to take from the company to represent their earnings. Sometimes they will take less than what they deserve because they wants the company to expand and rather than draw out earnings, have a taxed and then reinvest the money back into the company they simply leave their money in the company so as to avoid taxation. This does not infer that the total earnings is only reflected in the wages they have elected to pay themselves is all too often this is far lower than what the staff have been paid doing much the same activity but with no responsibility. Generally when a company is up and running and successful and owner operator or otherwise known as a shareholder employee may enjoy the benefits of their hard work and risk in former years by enjoying far more fringe benefits from the company such as a more expensive automobile business trips that are combined with pleasure, the most expensive telephone money can buy which is used both the company and personal use, clothing allowance and all manner of other benefits that are not taxable but I still earnings that have not gone through the PAYE system either.

This level of complexity needs professionals to work out and should never be left up to a front-line employee of the ACC is all too often we find that they are socialists with a mindset that everyone must share the rewards and benefits that companies generate equally which of course is a ridiculous notion. Obviously business owners working for the companies deserve no less ACC insurance than their workers and more often than not deserve far more.

The legislators wisely recognised that some people earn more than others and therefore pay more insurance in the event of an injury. We appreciate that it is very difficult calculating earnings compensation for those who are setting up businesses and are working for very little during this phase.

At the other end of the spectrum we have Business minded people who have been injured and are returning to the workforce while still injured trying to generate a capacity to earn with the individual having a far higher work ethic than the ordinary worker. Reasons was also generally frustrated with the incompetence of front-line staff of the ACC who seek to control their lives when these people have been throughout their working history the captains of industry. The circumstances we find ACC staff attempting to punish such individuals for no other reason than they have a hate For us and them relationship between what they view as the worker and the boss. I note that a large number of members of the site also suffer from this form of hatred that is prevalent in countries that have been infested with socialism.

0

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 11:23 AM

View PostMINI, on 13 July 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

To all

It is interesting to see that the starter of this thread has not come back on here.

At no time did he/she give you enough information to make any type of decision which was correct, Therefore, unless Arty is willing to put more information up here, I am not wasting my time on any type of advice.

Have you lot thought of my Parliamentary Notice I put up here. Most of you will know someone who has had their backdated w/c overtaxed, and they may be missing out on something if they do not form part of the ones that write into parliament about this issue and how it has affected them. I cant even find it now, so that is how seriously it has been taken.

Mini



Perhaps Arty is recognised the prevalence of hate crime amongst those who have posted with a focus on matters other than the issues he has raised.

Mini did you even make a post of any sort?
0

#33 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 13 July 2018 - 12:57 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 July 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:


Quote

earnings , v/s drawings . is where many get confused , as in taxable activities

Those people who are not involved in either management of companies or are an accountant usually have no idea about what they are talking about, particularly if they are socialists.

Quote

Perhaps Arty is recognized the prevalence of hate crime amongst those who have posted with a focus on matters other than the issues he has raised.

.


This all depends on the accountant.

When I first started to work for my self way before I had my accident I was advised to take DRAWINGS as WAGES. The TAX MAN accepted that the DRAWINGS were wages and when ACC came into firce in 1974 I also paid ACC levy on those DRAWINGS.

So depending how and why there is drawing it is taxable or not . The general rule is that if the amount is for personal then it is taxable.

As for the second part who is Arty. Could be any one including an ACC staff member inquiring to see if some one in your situation is entitled to loss of earnings.

It is nothing about hate speech. It about a claimant who worked in companies that he/she owned and received no wages from those companies therefore paid not ACC levies as he had no income.

I agree with Mini in that the question does not give enough information or enough back ground.

Mr Thomas your decision 330/2004 shows that you believed that you had a new incapacity when you were discharged from prison and are the person who claimed that fact. You haven't admitted that you made a mistake there or advised the forum members that you made that mistake. You need to fix that mistake. Go back to your own thread and ask how do you fix that mistake. That is after you show that you were not deceiving ACC
0

#34 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 02:54 PM

Doppelgänger accountants will go to the same school and adhere to the same laws and as such it does not depend on the accountant as they are all the same. If you find that one accountant is different to another regarding the means by which funds can be transferred from the company account to a personal account you might need to address their competency.
Just because you do not understand that wages and drawings are not interchangeable words that is no excuse for not learning the relevance of such information is ignorance is not an excuse to lawbreaking by taking drawings thinking they are wages. You will find that your accountant may not have satisfied themselves that you understood what was actually happening is in such cases an accountant might estimate a budgeted amount you can safely withdraw from the company for you to live off and then settle up the book work at the end of the financial year and which time a book entry will be made to identify the funds you have taken possession of by way of drawings and convert that into a taxable sum of which the IRD are satisfied or if your company is not as profitable as you had hoped to enter the amount as a loan from the company to you and then once your company becomes profitable ensure that your actual earnings reflect reality by a portion of those earnings being repaid to the company as you must not under any circumstances end up in a position whereby you will be accused of stealing from your own company.
You cannot seriously entertain the idea of paying levies on drawings. What you can do however the set aside an approximate amount of levies for the time when the books are balanced at the end of the financial year when your actual earnings have been calculated and the books squared away.

With regards to Arty it is clear that he has not provided enough information to provide a sensible answer however my responses have been brought enough for him to have got the sense of it in order that the ask his accountant.
Just because someone has not paid their levies, for example someone who are started business but within six months has an injury and cannot work with the result that the business fails without paying either levies or the IRD any form of tax the claimant is still 100% covered by the ACC legislation is there is a portion within the act that confirms that cover and entitlements are not dependent upon the payment of levies like other insurances.
However I don't think this is actually Arty' s concern.



0

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 03:02 PM

View Postarty, on 09 July 2018 - 02:49 PM, said:

Is one allowed to claim and get paid for backdated weekly comp for a period of incapacitation which included a period that one owned a company but not earning wages
what do you reckon the chances of winning would be


Arty if you are injured while working you are covered for an ACC claim. That part is not complicated.The issue you have little concern about as whether or not you can receive backdated weekly compensation of which a portion of that time you will not earning wages. The first question is whether your accountant or yourself have set up a routine wage to be paid to you from your company and whether or not those wages were paid out of a loan and the company was never profitable. Obviously you cannot set up a scheme whereby you pay yourself $5000 a week when the company and you have only been earning a fraction of that is that would be producing a false document even though you have received $5000 from the company per week. Unless of course the work you are doing was worth $5000 a week in relation to the value of the work that was being done and that the expectation was but for your injury tthat work would have been paid for and the company would have been profitable. In my own case for example all of my projects would take anywhere between six months and two years before payment with the result that I would be receiving back in the 80s thousand dollars per week plus many friends benefits with a very large top up payment upon the success of the project. In my own case the ACC paid 80% of only the salary proportion of a part-time job disregarding the fact that I have put through over $250,000 worth of work quite separately from a part-time job. When asking the ACC about almost the same request that you are asking ACC have refused to answer the question right up until the present.
What you need to do is make a list of the tasks that you were doing and work out the value of those tasks and then ask your accountant how much you should have been earning and whether or not the company you did would have the expectation of bringing another enough funds to pay the company overheads and the value of your labours on top. Then you would have some form of documentation to go to the ACC with. You also may find yourself having to pay backdated levy payments in accordance with that sum.

0

#36 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 13 July 2018 - 03:49 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 13 July 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:



This all depends on the accountant.

When I first started to work for my self way before I had my accident I was advised to take DRAWINGS as WAGES. The TAX MAN accepted that the DRAWINGS were wages and when ACC came into firce in 1974 I also paid ACC levy on those DRAWINGS.

So depending how and why there is drawing it is taxable or not . The general rule is that if the amount is for personal then it is taxable.

As for the second part who is Arty. Could be any one including an ACC staff member inquiring to see if some one in your situation is entitled to loss of earnings.

It is nothing about hate speech. It about a claimant who worked in companies that he/she owned and received no wages from those companies therefore paid not ACC levies as he had no income.

I agree with Mini in that the question does not give enough information or enough back ground.

Mr Thomas your decision 330/2004 shows that you believed that you had a new incapacity when you were discharged from prison and are the person who claimed that fact. You haven't admitted that you made a mistake there or advised the forum members that you made that mistake. You need to fix that mistake. Go back to your own thread and ask how do you fix that mistake. That is after you show that you were not deceiving ACC



Some good points doppel :)

I also note what you are saying about the issues of incapacity for Alan ...so my question might be a little bit different perhaps...as I am exploring another correlated issue as best able ...

Do you know when or if any changes happened with the legislation concerning *permanent employment* and any caselaw in regards to claimants not meeting this qualification perhaps?

I spotted in Schedule 1 of the Act this clause and I am wondering if this issue happens to many injured people?

Employee not in permanent employment
35
Weekly earnings if earner had earnings as employee not in permanent employment immediately before incapacity commenced: application of clause 36
(1) Clause 36 applies to a claimant who—
(a)was an earner immediately before his or her incapacity commenced; and
(b} had at that time earnings as an employee (from employment that was not permanent employment)
.


(2) For the purposes of this clause and clause 36, employment is not permanent employment if, in the opinion of the Corporation, the claimant would have not continued to receive earnings from that employment for a continuous period of more than 12 months after the date on which his or her incapacity commenced, if he or she had not suffered the personal injury.

Schedule 1 clause 35: substituted, on 1 July 2010, by section 47(1) of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).

I am asking for an unrelated reason doppel ... so hope I am explaining my POV right ...

Many years ago with my first ACC claim and injury under the 1974 Act ... I believe that my employer was convicted of ??something due to the employment conditions and OSH issues involved. Both the Dept of Labour and ACC were involved in this prosecution but I am not sure of all the details as I was a teenager and it is many years ago. From what I remember with this employer that they were underpaying staff, and not maintaining equipment plus dismissing people who lodged an ACC claim basically...

So I have rarely explored this issues in here due to various matters but I also see this issue may be relevant to Alans case too perhaps? I am not 100% sure of his Trigon experience and claims therein how they will all interface doppel ... but I would have see him as not being in *permanent employment* for a continuous period of 12 months after his hernia ... however I am just speculating here + I have no idea if there was any legal case involving Trigon themselves basically :unsure:

I am not sure if arty's circumstance has any relevance but IMHO if a person is self-employed or a company owner, then I agree with your statement,
"The general rule is that if the amount is for personal then it is taxable..."


I see this as very similar to the legal quote I used too,

"… I cannot think that income tax is due or not according to the manner in which the person making the profit pleases to deal with it."


So my thinking is that if claimants have their *record of PAYE or Levy payments* available then this acts to protect against unscrupulous employers or other congames happening ...
0

#37 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 13 July 2018 - 03:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 July 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

Those people who are not involved in either management of companies or are an accountant usually have no idea about what they are talking about, particularly if they are socialists.

Because any commercial activity has a degree of risk attached to it and owner of a business may not know how much profit the company is going to make and therefore find it impossible to set an appropriate wage. This means that quite frequently they take drawings instead and wait until the end of the tax year to determine what is reasonable to take from the company to represent their earnings. Sometimes they will take less than what they deserve because they wants the company to expand and rather than draw out earnings, have a taxed and then reinvest the money back into the company they simply leave their money in the company so as to avoid taxation. This does not infer that the total earnings is only reflected in the wages they have elected to pay themselves is all too often this is far lower than what the staff have been paid doing much the same activity but with no responsibility. Generally when a company is up and running and successful and owner operator or otherwise known as a shareholder employee may enjoy the benefits of their hard work and risk in former years by enjoying far more fringe benefits from the company such as a more expensive automobile business trips that are combined with pleasure, the most expensive telephone money can buy which is used both the company and personal use, clothing allowance and all manner of other benefits that are not taxable but I still earnings that have not gone through the PAYE system either.
This level of complexity needs professionals to work out and should never be left up to a front-line employee of the ACC is all too often we find that they are socialists with a mindset that everyone must share the rewards and benefits that companies generate equally which of course is a ridiculous notion. Obviously business owners working for the companies deserve no less ACC insurance than their workers and more often than not deserve far more.
The legislators wisely recognised that some people earn more than others and therefore pay more insurance in the event of an injury. We appreciate that it is very difficult calculating earnings compensation for those who are setting up businesses and are working for very little during this phase.
At the other end of the spectrum we have Business minded people who have been injured and are returning to the workforce while still injured trying to generate a capacity to earn with the individual having a far higher work ethic than the ordinary worker. Reasons was also generally frustrated with the incompetence of front-line staff of the ACC who seek to control their lives when these people have been throughout their working history the captains of industry. The circumstances we find ACC staff attempting to punish such individuals for no other reason than they have a hate For us and them relationship between what they view as the worker and the boss. I note that a large number of members of the site also suffer from this form of hatred that is prevalent in countries that have been infested with socialism.


IMHO you have confessed to deliberate tax evasion here Alan ...

You also appear to be insulting many other tax and levypayers who properly contribute to society - and worse even bragging about taking luxuries as some reward for your earlier tax avoidance activities too

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 July 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

... they simply leave their money in the company so as to avoid taxation ...

... Obviously business owners working for the companies deserve no less ACC insurance than their workers and more often than not deserve far more....

... and all manner of other benefits that are not taxable but I still earnings that have not gone through the PAYE system either....


I would like to make sure that you understand that I am not interested in your political views or toxic mindreading games that you try to play in here Alan ... I simply am disgusted by your clear contempt and selfishness for being part of our same society sometimes.

I am referring to folks like me where we do actually support our communities by shouldering our fair share of taxes & levies eg hospitals, police, roads, schools, WINZ, and so on ...

If you truly think avoiding your fair contribution by knowingly avoiding personal taxation inside your own business to advance your personal capital assets ... which you then clearly are motivated and intending to exploit at a later date with fancy fringe benefits like overseas holidays & the latest telephone ...then I have zero respect for such leeching & IMHO such abhorrent behaviour should always be loudly condemned IMHO...

BTW I do appreciate that there will likely be a huge difference between your failed businesses as a design engineer or whatever yoursecret squirrel preinjury occupation was ...and the later unrelated different businesses exploiting cultural differences with your girlfriends ie ORAC by using their connections and cashrich clients Alan.

I am not sure if you ever repaid any of the investors who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in your risk-taking occupational endeavours or not Alan but it appears to be that you are blinded with a very disturbing mindset IMHO. Basically it is my POV that if you wish to share the rewards and benefits of the NZ taxpayer and levypayer contributions ...then you should make a much better effort to lawfully contribute to the system that you are taking from 24/7 etc etc

"... a mindset that everyone must share the rewards and benefits that companies generate equally which of course is a ridiculous notion ... "


FYI I would probably reframe your sentence in this way ...

"... a mindset that everyone must can share the rewards and benefits that companies society generate equally which of course is a ridiculous notion ... "


Now I understand more about your motivations to deny information and avoid paying PAYE and ACC Levies Alan ...
It is not because you may have been ignorant ...or even found an accountant specifically to exploit loopholes... but because you are nothing but a particular type of leech that was & still is sucking resources from other workers and successful business owners who are responsible citizens ... and they always pay all of their lawful taxes & levies in order to fund these resources for others as well as themselves Alan ...
1

#38 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 04:53 PM


anonymousey

REPORTED


You are completely and totally off topic
Further you have engaged in the most gross and disgusting defamation of character with your outrageous lies.
Keep in mindThat your imagination is not a substitute for real facts and that if you want to understand what someone is written you need to read what they have written and not just look at words and match those words with your imagination as to what you think this being said. People like you are the most ridiculous individuals don't deserve any place in society. Incidentally it is not society that creates wealth but rather the innovators and risktakers of which because of your mindset there would be no chance that you could contribute to the greater good of mankind. Just to give you an indication of how ridiculous you are in the last year of business I paid $43,000 in ACC levies and most certainly will have paid far more tax per year than you will pay in your lifetime. You most ridiculous person

0

#39 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 13 July 2018 - 05:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 July 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

anonymousey

REPORTED


You are completely and totally off topic
Further you have engaged in the most gross and disgusting defamation of character with your outrageous lies.
Keep in mindThat your imagination is not a substitute for real facts and that if you want to understand what someone is written you need to read what they have written and not just look at words and match those words with your imagination as to what you think this being said. People like you are the most ridiculous individuals don't deserve any place in society. Incidentally it is not society that creates wealth but rather the innovators and risktakers of which because of your mindset there would be no chance that you could contribute to the greater good of mankind. Just to give you an indication of how ridiculous you are in the last year of business I paid $43,000 in ACC levies and most certainly will have paid far more tax per year than you will pay in your lifetime. You most ridiculous person


Just exactly what PERSONAL ACC Levy do you think the company paid on your behalf Alan? Remember this quantum is based on your preinjury occupation ...
1

#40 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9732
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 July 2018 - 05:54 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

Just exactly what PERSONAL ACC Levy do you think the company paid on your behalf Alan? Remember this quantum is based on your preinjury occupation ...


Reported
Off topic

0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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