ACCforum: Legislative Changes to Clause 38 and 39 Formulas. - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Legislative Changes to Clause 38 and 39 Formulas. I am adopting a cynical view.

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1583
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 04 August 2018 - 12:32 PM

Greetings all,

Just noticed that the legislation has been amended though it has not been published yet. Simply go to the legislation and see the amendments section at the top.

No doubt by complete coincidence C 38 and C 39 are in fact the very Clauses I have been going on about for almost two years now. The Clauses I have been told in writing the Corporation was confident it was interpreting correctly.


It seems we have a glaring contradiction! Now in my experience when such glaring and inexplicable contradictions present themselves, one generally finds some mealy mouthed incompetent with their hand firmly pressed on the bullshit button at the center of it.


Section 11


The much wanked on about Section 11. Here is what Section 11 is. A legislative recognition that Schedular Payments are not Salary and Wages. Here is how.


Section 11 relies on Section 6 Earnings an Employee. On that basis and here is a fucking concept, the Section 6 definition of Employee would have to form part of the consideration.


Section 6 Employee definition states the meaning is the IT Act 2007 YA1 Income from Employment (a)

IT Act 2007 YA1

income from employment




(a)meanssalary or wages or an extra pay:


Oh gasp. It seems that Section 9-11 are confined to Salary and Wage Earners but thing is we are talking about SELF EMPLOYED persons who do NOT receive Salary and Wages. So what can we conclude? Oh yes Section 11 has exactly fuck all to do with the Schedule 4 levy process for Self Employed Earners. But as it happens it seems that the greatest ACC legal minds in this country somehow decided to base an entire completely unrelated levy process on a Section that simply reflected the requirements of the IT Act 2007 RD 8!


I am so glad I did not waste years of my life "learning law" and focused on the reading and comprehension skills they used to teach in Primary School. The plot has thickened indeed and I am just overwhelmed with the need to provide in excruciating detail all sorts of very interesting and highly damaging discoveries I have made. Big updates coming soon on Cassandra.




1

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7463
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 August 2018 - 04:29 PM

View PostLupine, on 04 August 2018 - 12:32 PM, said:

Greetings all,

Just noticed that the legislation has been amended though it has not been published yet. Simply go to the legislation and see the amendments section at the top.

No doubt by complete coincidence C 38 and C 39 are in fact the very Clauses I have been going on about for almost two years now. The Clauses I have been told in writing the Corporation was confident it was interpreting correctly.


It seems we have a glaring contradiction! Now in my experience when such glaring and inexplicable contradictions present themselves, one generally finds some mealy mouthed incompetent with their hand firmly pressed on the bullshit button at the center of it.


Section 11


The much wanked on about Section 11. Here is what Section 11 is. A legislative recognition that Schedular Payments are not Salary and Wages. Here is how.


Section 11 relies on Section 6 Earnings an Employee. On that basis and here is a fucking concept, the Section 6 definition of Employee would have to form part of the consideration.


Section 6 Employee definition states the meaning is the IT Act 2007 YA1 Income from Employment (a)

IT Act 2007 YA1

income from employment




(a)meanssalary or wages or an extra pay:


Oh gasp. It seems that Section 9-11 are confined to Salary and Wage Earners but thing is we are talking about SELF EMPLOYED persons who do NOT receive Salary and Wages. So what can we conclude? Oh yes Section 11 has exactly fuck all to do with the Schedule 4 levy process for Self Employed Earners. But as it happens it seems that the greatest ACC legal minds in this country somehow decided to base an entire completely unrelated levy process on a Section that simply reflected the requirements of the IT Act 2007 RD 8!


I am so glad I did not waste years of my life "learning law" and focused on the reading and comprehension skills they used to teach in Primary School. The plot has thickened indeed and I am just overwhelmed with the need to provide in excruciating detail all sorts of very interesting and highly damaging discoveries I have made. Big updates coming soon on Cassandra.






Lupine
Let us know when.

I thought that ACC levy and some self employed persons such as Hotel motel cleaners and self employed helpers in building projects were included in the reasoning to have the tax and levy paid as they were being deducted by 20 percent withholding tax by their 'employer'. The reasoning being risk based, in that the personal will just allow the 20%, be the full amount of income tax or other payments they owe the govt. Of course they also owed the ACC levy, but had to pay it themselves. Hence a huge risk that the IRD. or ACC would never get it, when the rest of us was paying it. I note in some of the legislation you were speaking of last time you were on, it also named a few other risky taxpayer/ACC levy payer that were supposed to be but obviously were not.

After seeing that I thought oh here comes a change and now you are telling us there is a change. I am not sure what it is at the moment, but no doubt will work it out if I ever have too. it will be interesting to see how your pleas to get it right, have finally been listened too.

After six years of fighting against the IRD about the overtaxing of our backdated w/c, I never want to do it again. But I note that the IRD even think it is mean now so I have three more days to get my Submission to the parliament. And where is my intention and caring if I do it at all. Flagging it in the rain and wind at the moment. If it didn't mean it could get me $15,000, I would have no interest what so ever.

Oh well, at least we opened their eyes to wrongs that were not just going to run away and hide.

Cheers

Mini
0

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1583
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 06 August 2018 - 05:58 AM

A mixed bag I am afraid Mini. There was nothing wrong with the previous version of the legislation which has been in place at the Clause level since 2005. I expect these "corrections" are being put in place to give the Corporation some kind of mealy mouthed excuse for this wholly incompetent and unforgivable cock up. After all it would not do to show that both ACC and IRD, being agencies that Lord their power legal or otherwise as being incapable of following their own legislation. Sadly for both those agencies I have more than enough here to show they did nothing for almost two years in spite of the evidence and that the problem is them not the legislation.
1

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7463
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 06 August 2018 - 08:32 AM

View PostLupine, on 06 August 2018 - 05:58 AM, said:

A mixed bag I am afraid Mini. There was nothing wrong with the previous version of the legislation which has been in place at the Clause level since 2005. I expect these "corrections" are being put in place to give the Corporation some kind of mealy mouthed excuse for this wholly incompetent and unforgivable cock up. After all it would not do to show that both ACC and IRD, being agencies that Lord their power legal or otherwise as being incapable of following their own legislation. Sadly for both those agencies I have more than enough here to show they did nothing for almost two years in spite of the evidence and that the problem is them not the legislation.


Lupine

IMHO I consider they knew exactly what they were doing when it came to tax, and the fact that ACC did not have the relevant taxing knowledge so needed to incorporate WINZ & IRD into the triangle of deceipt and internal corruption, they have not been able to reverse in a timely manner as it would show they had known about it for years. So it has quietly been done in steps of law change from 2005 onwards and now IRD are saying it is mean to overtax us, so this is the beginning of the the expectation that claimants from very soon on, will get their actual right to the full amount of their yearly/weekly income, as should have been the case from the beginning without using old legislation meant for others not Acc Claimants to be taxed backed w/c all in one year no matter how many years it incorporated. In fact the more years that was owed, the more tax IRD made, knowing it the legislation as it was used, was not meant for ACC claimants.

The legislative writers are not idiots, they just thought no one would be in a situation of ever doubting their intigrety. There was only a couple of very high ups that knew what was going on in 2003 when I questioned the way in which we were taxed by ACC. But ACC were covered as it was us who had the last call on what code we wanted to be taxed with. So they all had their coveralls on when it was decided to be done the way it was with a tri- angle of entities decided without a written contract to rip us off.

Mini
0

Share this topic:


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

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users