[anonymousey]

I have transfered these postings from another thread and snipped the original however audit tags remain ...

anonymousey, on 10 July 2018 - 02:55 PM, said:

doppelganger, on 10 July 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

Following this information would more than likely end up with the TAX MAN. This is what is called tax evasion and there is a number of accountants being investigated for tax evasion. Judith Collins is a Tax Lawyer before her present position and she would confirm that this is correct.

I agree doppel

I have also seen a few wee signals in various MSM media reports that some of these issues are being scrutinised more closely ... and there has always been advocates exposing the huge differences between penalties for tax fraud versus benefit fraud circumstances so I think there is a bit more caselaw coming through too

One other thing which relates to some stuff I have dipped into previously too & then given up on discussing would have related to the ACC Levies for companies as essentially being different to the ACC Levies for individuals etc I personally would expect this duty to then be expanded into the drawings of directors too etc However I rarely look at these legal matters and only have a basic overview which is still all a bit woolly sorry ...

For example, years & years ago, with the books for a trucking company ... in their annual Profit & Loss calculations there was always provision in there somewheres for ACC Levy payments being identified on vehicles & petrol usage if I remember right. ie Regos etc I just have vague recall that there was a bit of flexibility in there due to farm vehicles, but the Transport Manager stayed on top of all such variable expenses etc This Company would have paid lots of ACC Levies back then ...

Then there were the ACC Levies being deducted for all the employees depending on their roles etc This was treated as a separate expense and not actually part of the Company finances as such ie the $$ were held on behalf of IRD ...

I am not sure if I am explaining it right doppel ...but I sometimes found it difficult to discuss direct ACC Levy payments for a selfemployed or waged individual ... and I always was very clear in my mind that this was or should be easily identifiable. That is we pay this money much the same as PAYE ... and I always believed that IMHO there must be lifetime records kept by IRD etc

but not our indirects eg I would have no clue how many cars I have driven personally in the past 40 years let alone any other payments there. I would also have never included any of this $$ from a brief time of self-employment when I was a consultant ....

I do know I have had many past discussions about this issue with various claims being made but with zero follow through ... so I ended deciding that I was banging my head on a brick wall etc I have had similar frustrating conversations with occasional beneficiaries who insist the law should change and they must get ERC if in an accident ... because their motorvehicle is legal ...but they fail to recognise they are then excluding non-drivers from their POV ie they only want the $$ themselves so tunnel thinkers etc

Apologies for going offtopic arty ... I can delete this later for you as think I am in brain overload here

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 10 July 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:

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

.... 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. ...

This is extremely misleading IMHO ...

For example, I do know that ACC and other agencies will help fund devices & mechanisms alongside various workplace modifications ... therefore if a person is needing such assistance then there are choices here. All claimants can let ACC and their medics know of their *need* for any device &or apply for help within regular processes etc Funding decisions will then be made by the appropriate authority Alan. I am not sure though of any auditing issues on this pathway as I would expect if a claimant gets $ABC entitlement for a specific purchase, then there would likely be an implicit expectation that it is used for the purpose sought ie device is not sold or chucked away etc

If the claimant is now generating company earnings from outside work, and wages are included here Alan, then both ACC & WINZ have a range of legislated processes available here too that relate to earnings compensation ...

IMHO if there is a fraud prosecution that has been started due to the situation you described above, then it should be quickly resolved by the claimant clearly demonstrating all ACC & IRD responsibilities have been properly met; and of course abatements will apply too Alan ...

However you may need to correct your convoluted sentences because some of it is not making sense Alan ie a problem separate to typos etc

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

.... 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.

IMHO this is a bit woolly however I would agree that if a person is working in their own company, then there is an expectation that this activity will be remunerated lawfully &or taxes paid too.

I think what you might be trying to discuss is if a person is essentially undertaking repairs & maintenance on their own company assets Alan. This is of course different to significant repairs & maintenance on supplied devices Alan. If this is a profit making project then I am not sure how long ACC or indeed any Agency would stand back if there is never any actual profit generated etc This is probably where the Cash Forecasts and other tools for company projections need to be really clear IMHO.

IMHO if there is a device which has been supplied to assist a person work then any problems therein should be recorded & tasked back to ACC or manufactuer etc Devices can also be replaced under warranty here too...

Certainly it is my POV that if a company is not profitable Alan ... then there should not be unlimited investments into such a business by the taxpayer. TBH I would not care if the owner is injured or a pokie-gambler or a hotair balloon maker because in this event as I would expect to see some interventions at different stages if required etc I would also have quite strong feelings about repeat failures and bankruptcy issues too Alan ... so yep I would support far greater controls over incompetent directors and business owners with any such history ie if they specifically seek funding from others then perhaps greater scrutiny of their books &or guarantors or secured loans over personal assets etc Of course this would not apply if a business wannabee saves up their own money or sells their own assets or borrows from family or wins the lotto and loses everything ie they should have appropriate business insurance + they will have not harmed others with any mismanagement or unforeseen circumstances etc

IMHO part of your difficulty is that you were working away and up to all sorts of secret squirrel activity without keeping your doctor properly informed as well as trying to keep ACC in the dark etc It is much like the situation you are in currently perhaps? You claim to be working on your own businesses and looking for clients to generate wages therefore your WINZ casemanager should always be part of this loop Alan. This is because you take the $$ from the taxpayer and its that simple IMHO. If you became a kept man and lived upon your partners earnings so might have a bit more flexibility to dabble in any device design hobbies Alan ... but again your doctor should be informed of these projects if there is ny risk of reinjury IMHO ...

IMHO you should be really really clear if you are actually within the *setting up phase of the business which includes all manner of mechanisms and devices to assist me with my disabilities* Alan ...OR if you are doing something else etc

In some past dialogues ... you spoke of completely different activities in regards to devices ... plus oft it was clear that these devices were not for your own personal use Alan ...

So what devices are you now claiming that you now need ??

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 11 July 2018 - 08:21 PM, said:

Alan 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 />/>/>

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.

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 11 July 2018 - 08:21 PM, said:

Alan 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 ...

Alan 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."

Alan 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 ...

Alan 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 ...

Alan 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 ...

Alan 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

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:

doppelganger, 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

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 ...

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 03:51 PM, said:

Alan 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

Alan 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 ...

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

Alan 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 ....

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:

...
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
...

Just bumping so alan can see ...

Do you think you would have been a permanent employee of Trigon for the 12 months following your hernai operation Alan ?

[anonymousey]

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

Alan Thomas, on 13 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

Reported
Off topic

You claim you paid ACC levies of $43,000 dollars ... and i am calling you on this misinformation

[anonymousey]

greg, on 13 July 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

anonymousey, on 13 July 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:

Just bumping so alan can see ...

Do you think you would have been a permanent employee of Trigon for the 12 months following your hernai operation Alan ?

From what Allan has posted in the past he had finished employment with Trigon awaiting a Hernia operation.

When he worked for Trigon he was employed as a 'tool maker' via an apprenticeship in Hamilton.

I applied for a job at Trigon and got to the last 2, where I meet Mr Thomas working on the Trigon Plastic Packing
machines . One of these apparently later fell on Mr Thomas giving him a hernia injury .

The time frame is early 1978.

A wrist injury happened during his great voyage , when he was awaiting this hernia opp. so ERC.

No doubt Mr Thomas will again distort others recall of his writings. Just read his judgment especially
the evidence given by the then current Trigon staff.

All this Orac business stuff started after Mr Thomas relocated to Auckland .

Move all this stuff back to Mr Thomas personal lies thread .

[anonymousey]

greg, on 13 July 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

From what Allan has posted in the past he had finished employment with Trigon awaiting a Hernia operation.

This is also what I thought greg ...and would this not disqualify any status as a permanent employment status?

I thought that ACC will decline for various reasons for other claimants in a similar situation ?

Do you know if there was a particular process for a person having their employment finished on medical grounds? I think there is today and same as constructive dismissal issues ...but back then in the 1980s I think it was a lot more vague etc

IMHO with the ACC Legislation and caselaw ... I think the tricky bit is likely the dominant reason for *finishing employment* perhaps? With WINZ there are numerous sanctions if a person quits their job ... and then there is all of the employment tribunal stuff which can be triggered too by casemanagers too ...

AFAIK with the DOL courtcase I was referring to with my old employer in 1978 approx ...my exboss was primarily convicted for various offences under Employment Laws, & although I was injured on the job alongside other workers, our claims were essentially secondary to this. ie even if there had been no accidents, this boss was still breaking the law in regards to our safety, wages & acc levies etc Certainly I think ACC was relatively good back then to myself and others with the 1974 legislation even if we did have a few hiccups ... but its so long ago now greg I cannot remember of top of me head sorry

greg, on 13 July 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

When he worked for Trigon he was employed as a 'tool maker' via an apprenticeship in Hamilton.

I applied for a job at Trigon and got to the last 2, where I meet Mr Thomas working on the Trigon Plastic Packing
machines . One of these apparently later fell on Mr Thomas giving him a hernia injury .

This is a bit different to what I thought greg ...

I actually thought Alan was working for Trigon already fully qualified as a toolmaker from his nightclasses done about 10-15 years earlier ... and also that he got this employment after his own businesses failed due to some person apparently stealing $350,000 from him? I think this timeline may have been after his divorce or separation which may have been when he worked for his father-in-law perhaps? Dunno greg I just have never read anything in NZLII or in here which has ever made me think Alan had ever had a successful business BEFORE his time at Trigon &or ACC claims since...

I also even have memory that Trigon disputed he had a hernia strain or injury in the workplace but this is also extremely difficult to clarify. The only information on timeline I was able to find in NZLII was that the Trigon Hernia was a delayed claim where Alan apparently worked for months with it before eventually seeing the GP and then making a second hernia strain claim. The other significant bit was that he had this much earlier hernia but I cannot tell when that was or even if he was working at the time etc.

Also to make things even more of mudbath here IMHO ... my thinking is pretty much that if Alan waited so long before claiming he was injured on the job ... then this may have been why Trigon logically disputed his storytelling & allegations it happened in the workplace ie seems to have been zero records of incident at the time and zero medical corroboration at the time of alleged incident ...which yeah also makes me wonder why he took so long before going to see a doctor etc Unfortunately when backdated medical certificates are created for incidents often the GP is depending upon a persons honesty there too IMHO ...

greg, on 13 July 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

The time frame is early 1978.

A wrist injury happened during his great voyage , when he was awaiting this hernia opp. so ERC.

I am not sure about 1978 as this would be the same time I had my DOL case greg. I think this would also have been just after Alan had fallen out of his tree and broke his wrist first time as a teenager etc

The first hernia could have been aroundabouts this time under 1974 legislation perhaps ...but I think his second hernia at Trigon did not happen until 1989 which is why its 1982 Act perhaps? Sorry brainfade a bit now as long day out ...

greg, on 13 July 2018 - 07:42 PM, said:

No doubt Mr Thomas will again distort others recall of his writings. Just read his judgment especially
the evidence given by the then current Trigon staff.

All this Orac business stuff started after Mr Thomas relocated to Auckland .

Move all this stuff back to Mr Thomas personal lies thread .

I hadnt really clicked about the Hamilton or Auckland residencies greg ...I just had Alan in Auckland and either living at his mothers or living with girlfriends at ORAC offices etc

Yep .. I agree Alan will deny and twist everything I have said and not clarify anything ... I am pretty much no longer am closely reading his judgements in NZLII either as I find he screeches everything in there is wrong ...so it does my head in sometimes

Lastly while I know ORAC was turning over a lot of money in their time greg ... I actually thought some of this was due to the efforts of others such as managers & girlfriends having the connections and cash rich clients etc I also figured there was cultural differences in the mix too ..for example I simply cannot imagine some of the storytelling confusion if Alan is pushing his ideas with any vulnerable person esp when english is likely a persons second language etc

[greg]

'The first hernia could have been aroundabouts this time under 1974 legislation perhaps ...but I think his second hernia at Trigon did not happen until 1989 which is why its 1982 Act perhaps? Sorry brainfade a bit now as long day out ...'

long gone from Trigon as he could not return to his pre employment occupation after his
water adventures [wrist] while awaiting his Hernia operation in 1989 ?. Or so his Dr. medical documents claim.

use this
https://accforum.org...Bfitzi+%2Bfiles


Just checked again I applied twice at Trigon 1978 and 1987 for employment.

I just don't understand why anything about Mr Thomas is important as he will just muddy
the waters as usual as if he is the hero here. His court results prove that to be another false claim.

[doppelganger]

as the Court decision shows Alan was not in employment for all of the 12 months before his accident. I wonder if Alan had reported his correct earnings?

this is the section that is to find the level of his relative earnings.

Quote

53. Relevant earnings---(1) Subject to this Act, for the purpose of determining the amount of any
earnings related compensation payable to an earner, or payable at any time to any dependant of
such an earner, the amount of his relevant earnings shall be such amount as, in the opinion of the
Corporation, would, at the time of the accident, fairly and reasonably represent his normal average
weekly earnings, having regard to such information as the Corporation may obtain regarding his
earnings before the time of the accident and his earnings at the time of the accident, and the period
of his residence in New Zealand before the time of the accident and his work history, and such
other relevant factors as the Corporation thinks fit.
(2) If the earner was an employee at the date of the accident and was not then also a self-employed
person and had not been a self-employed person at any time during the period of 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the accident, in fixing his relevant earnings under subsection (1)
of this section,---
(a) The Corporation may have regard, in the first place, to the amount of his weekly earnings as
an employee at or about the time of the accident, or (if the Corporation in its discretion so
decides) the amount of his earnings as an employee at or about the time of the accident when
converted in such manner as the Corporation considers appropriate to a weekly basis; but
(B)/> If, in the opinion of the Corporation, the amount ascertained
under paragraph (a) of this subsection would not, at the time of
the accident, properly represent his normal average weekly
earnings, the Corporation may then have regard to the amount of
his average weekly earnings during the period of 28 days
immediately preceding the date of the accident, or such part or
parts of that period as the Corporation may consider as
appropriate for the purpose; but
© If, in the opinion of the Corporation, the amount ascertained
under paragraph (B)/> of this subsection also would not, at the
time of the accident, properly represent his normal average
weekly earnings, the Corporation may then have regard to his
average weekly earnings during the period of 12 months
immediately preceding the date of the accident or such part or
parts of that period as the Corporation may select for the
purpose:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude the
Corporation from having regard also to such other factors as it may
consider relevant for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) If the earner was a self-employed person at the date of the
accident (whether or not he was also an employee at the date of the
accident) or if the earner had been a self-employed person at any time
during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of the
accident, the Corporation, in fixing his relevant earnings under
subsection (1) of this section, may have regard to all or any of the
following factors, as it thinks appropriate for the purpose:
(a) His earnings as a self-employed person during his financial year
last ended before the day immediately following the date of the
accident, or, if the amount of those earnings is not for the
time being readily determinable, such sum as may be estimated by
the Corporation as fairly and reasonably representing those
earnings:
(B)/> His earnings as an employee (if any) during that financial year
and his earnings as a self-employed person during that financial
year, or, if the amount of those earnings is not for the time
being readily determinable, such sum as may be estimated by the
Corporation as fairly and reasonably representing those
earnings:
© The average amount of his earnings as a self-employed person
during any of the periods of 2 or 3 or 4 consecutive financial
years last ended before the day immediately following the date
of the accident, or, if the Corporation, in the exercise of its
discretion, so decides, during any one or more of those
financial years which it may select as appropriate for the
purpose:
(d) His earnings as an employee (if any) at or about the time of the
accident, or during the period of 12 months immediately
preceding the date of the accident, or during such part or parts
of that period as the Corporation may select as appropriate for
the purpose:
(e) His earnings as a self-employed person (as determined or estimated
by the Corporation) during the period of 12 months immediately
preceding the date of the accident, or during such part or parts
of that period as the Corporation may select as appropriate for
the purpose, if sufficient information, including accounts, is
furnished to the Corporation to enable it to determine or
estimate the amount of his earnings as a self-employed person
during that period or the said part or parts of that period, as
the case may be:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude the
Corporation from having regard also to such other factors as it may
consider relevant for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section.
(4) If the relevant earnings of an employee as determined in accordance with the foregoing
provisions of this section would be significantly more or significantly less than the average weekly
amount of the earnings as an employee that he would, in the opinion of the Corporation, have
derived during the period of short term incapacity if he had not suffered the injury, then,
notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, the Corporation may, if it
thinks fit, assess his relevant earnings at that amount. Any assessment made under this subsection
shall apply only for the period of short term
incapacity.
(5) The Corporation may, from time to time, in so far as it thinks fit
to do so,---
(a) Fix a minimum amount of relevant earnings for any person who,
either, having engaged to work under a contract of service, has
not commenced to work under that contract, or was not in regular
work in paid employment, and had made positive arrangements and
preparations to take up such work in New Zealand (either as an
employee or a self-employed person) at a future time, being not
more than 12 months after the date of the accident, and
satisfies the Corporation to this effect:
(B)/> Having regard to the liability imposed on self-employed persons
for payment of levy under Part IV of this Act, fix a minimum
amount of relevant earnings for self-employed persons:
© Having regard to that liability, and to such other considerations
as the Corporation may think relevant, fix a minimum amount of
relevant earnings for any class or group of self-employed
persons, whether those persons are classified or described by
reference to the nature of their employment, or to the hours in
which they have normally engaged in that employment before the
accident, or to the period of time for which they have been
engaged in that employment, or to the amount or rate of levy
imposed on them, or by reference to any combination of those
factors, or are classified or described in any other manner
whatsoever that the Corporation thinks fit,---
and may from time to time vary, amend, or revoke, in whole or in part,
any determination made under this subsection.
(6) The Governor-General may, from time to time, by Order in Council
specify a percentage or amount by which the amount, for the time being,
of any relevant earnings required to be ascertained under this section
shall increase. Any such Order in Council may be made in relation to all
such relevant earnings or to such only of those relevant earnings as may
be specified in the order, and may prescribe any limitation as to its
effect, whether by way of reference to any persons or classes of persons
or to the time at which an accident has happened or to the purposes for
which the increase is to apply, or by way of any other specification,
stipulation, condition, inclusion, or exclusion whatsoever. The Order in
Council or any part or parts thereof may be made so as to come into
effect on a date or dates to be specified therein in that behalf, being
either the date of the Order in Council or any other date or dates,
whether before or after the date thereof.
(7) Subject to any limitations as to the effect of an Order in Council
made under subsection (6) of this section, where the relevant earnings
of an injured person are increased pursuant to subsection (6) of this
section, the amount of those relevant earnings, as for the time being so
increased, shall on and after the date on which the Order in Council (or
the relevant part thereof) comes into effect, be the amount of his
relevant earnings ascertained in accordance with this section where that
amount is required to be ascertained for the purpose of---
(a) Determining his loss of earning capacity for the time being in
respect of any period of incapacity to which section 59 of this
Act applies; and
(B)/> Assessing the weekly amount of earnings related compensation in
respect of permanent loss of earning capacity where the
assessment is made under section 60 of this Act; and
© Determining the minimum rate of compensation for the time being
payable to him under section 61 of this Act; and
(d) Applying sections 62 and 63 of this Act.
(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any
case where a person suffers personal injury by accident during the
period for which his cover is deemed under section 69 of this Act to
extend, and his relevant earnings are determined under this section, the
amount of his relevant earnings shall be so determined and subsection
(6) of this section shall apply as if the accident had happened on the
day immediately preceding the first day of that period.
AMDD S7 of 1885 No 66 to read
(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, in any case where a person suffers
personal injury by accident during the period for which his cover is deemed under section 69 of this
Act to continue to be an earner, and his relevant earnings are determined under this section, the
amount of his relevant earnings shall be so determined and subsection (6) of this section shall apply
as if the accident had happened on the day immediately preceding the first day of that period.
(9) Where any period of an earner's incapacity for work does not commence on the date of the
accident, and the Corporation is of the opinion that relevant earnings ascertained in accordance with
the foregoing provisions of this section do not fairly and reasonably represent the earner's normal
average weekly earnings at the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, the
Corporation may, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, determine an amount
which, in its opinion, would fairly and reasonably represent his normal average weekly earnings at
the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, having regard to such
information as it may obtain regarding his earnings before the time of the commencement of the
period of incapacity for work and his earnings at the time of the commencement of that period, and
the period of his residence in New Zealand before the time of the period of incapacity for work and
his work history, and such other relevant factors as the Corporation thinks fit; and any amount so
determined shall be treated as if it was his relevant earnings for the purpose of assessing earnings
related compensation during the particular period of incapacity for work:
Provided that any determination made under this subsection shall not bind or prejudice the
Corporation or limit or restrict its discretions or powers with regard to any assessment or
determination of that person's relevant earnings or loss of earning capacity during any other period
of his incapacity for work to which the determination does not relate.
(10) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Governor-General
may, from time to time, by Order in Council make regulations varying the
provisions of this section in relation to the determination of the
relevant earnings of a member of the Armed Forces of New Zealand serving
in a war or emergency who becomes entitled to compensation under section
32 of this Act; and in so doing may prescribe the extent and the manner
(if any) to or in which his earnings as a civilian during any period or
periods before he became a member of those Armed Forces serving in that
war or emergency may be taken into account in determining those relevant
earnings.
Cf. 1972, No. 43, s. 104; 1975, No. 136, s. 11 (1)

[doppelganger]

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

and then reinvest the money back into the company they simply leave their money in the company so as to avoid taxation.

You did not leave money in the companies as the deposit and debit show that they are early equal. Leaving money in a company would result in a profit and that would be taxed at the company rate. This statement shows you deliberately avoided having earnings pretended to expand the company with profit but no accounts have been provided.

Tax avoidance is a criminal action.