ACCforum: New Open Letter to Scott Pickering - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

New Open Letter to Scott Pickering Self-Employed Owed Millions

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1603
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 27 May 2019 - 04:52 PM

The end to this battle is close now. I have filed for a review as a self employed levy payer having discovered one can do that. ACC has responded by instructing Russel McVeigh to try and hold me off. This will not happen. I also have a barrister who can actually read law who backs my arguments. In short ACC has nowhere to go. I have written Mr Pickering a helpful open letter. Its on Cassandra Complex.


www.cassandracomplex.org.nz
2

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 May 2019 - 04:38 PM

Lupine

Nice letter after such a long tough fight.

I recall my son in is on business did his own accounting for his business end of year income tax.

He wanted me to insure he had it right. It included ACC fees as well.

I gave it on to a friend to look at it as I wanted it to be arms length check on his work.

However, he got one thing wrong and that would have being he claiming the ACC levy as an expense. This is back in the 1999/98 or thereabouts so it wasn't in the same era that you are speaking of.

I am not sure if he had paid it at scheduler periods or there was none due maybe, too long ago to recall. But that is by the by in your situation.

What I am thinking of is the change of method in 2008 or thereabouts as you speak of in your letter to Mr Pickering. It went from being done yearly, to be done another way. I presumed that was when the scheduler payments were due, so was the ACC Levy. If he was here I could ask him but he is not, but I may talk to him on the weekend and will ask him then.
It is just a thought that I couldn't clearly make out the answer too, in my reading of your letter to Mr Pickering. But then you could have included it more clearly in your first letter to him. I still cannot see where your discrepancy is in your letter to him.

If in fact the yearly Levy got paid after they were covered from the year beginning, and then went onto a scheduler payment, the self employed worker could end up with two accounts, the first being for the year previous, and the second being for the first schedular payment due (being the first of three monthly payments, if I recall correctly.)

It would be interesting to know what part of that would be an incorrect way in which to Pay it? Although, I do find it interesting that The Tax Working party have just told me that ACC are not part of the IRD, yet here they are printing out payments for Levies and putting GST on the top. A bit like having the only cherry off the pie before anyone else can getit. Don't have to pay Income Tax on their earnings or Income, but can claim the fruits of the Tax Dept anyway by claim GST and PAYE being paid from weekly compensation leaving more money in Govt coffers.

Check that they are paying GST into the Tax dept, so that they are not always in a refund situation?

You can trace your own payment through as it is your right. I have already checked that the PAYE get to IRD and it does.

Mini
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 May 2019 - 04:49 PM

Mini why would you say that our insurance premium (ACC levies) is not a company expense? It certainly isn't tax!

Quite commonly businesses continue to grow and remain and a GST positive state must not generating any profit and getting GST refunds. Why would you perceive that to be a problem?






0

#4 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 29 May 2019 - 04:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 May 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Mini why would you say that our insurance premium (ACC levies) is not a company expense? It certainly isn't tax!

Quite commonly businesses continue to grow and remain and a GST positive state must not generating any profit and getting GST refunds. Why would you perceive that to be a problem?

any updates allan as in your convictions being overturned ,, as towards your lost erc entitlements being restored ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :D/>
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:10 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 May 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Mini why would you say that our insurance premium (ACC levies) is not a company expense? It certainly isn't tax!

Quite commonly businesses continue to grow and remain and a GST positive state must not generating any profit and getting GST refunds. Why would you perceive that to be a problem?


Thomas

I wasn't speaking to you I was speaking to Lupine.

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:34 PM

View PostMINI, on 29 May 2019 - 05:10 PM, said:

Thomas

I wasn't speaking to you I was speaking to Lupine.

Mini
appears allan is once again ,, demonstrating ,, a psychopathic behaviour ,,,,,,,,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:38 PM

View PostMINI, on 29 May 2019 - 05:10 PM, said:

Thomas

I wasn't speaking to you I was speaking to Lupine.

Mini


If that is the case you should have been using the private messaging system
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:38 PM

View Posttommy, on 29 May 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

appears allan is once again ,, demonstrating ,, a psychopathic behaviour ,,,,,,,,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Reported. Unacceptable behaviour
0

#9 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 29 May 2019 - 05:43 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 29 May 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:

Reported. Unacceptable behaviour

on whoms behalf ... allan ,,, can you elaborate ,,, BTW any advancements as in your lost erc entitlements being restored ,,, or no such progress ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 May 2019 - 11:27 AM

View Posttommy, on 29 May 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

on whoms behalf ... allan ,,, can you elaborate ,,, BTW any advancements as in your lost erc entitlements being restored ,,, or no such progress ,,,,,,,,,,,,,


The reporting process is the responsibility of all members who observe an acceptable behaviour. Your Unacceptable behaviour has been reported.
-1

#11 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9354
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 30 May 2019 - 12:14 PM

This thread is about Scott Pickering, and Lupines open letter to him.

You are all off topic.
2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 May 2019 - 12:28 PM

View PostBrucey, on 30 May 2019 - 12:14 PM, said:

This thread is about Scott Pickering, and Lupines open letter to him.

You are all off topic.


What on earth is causing you to believe I am off topic?

The topic concerns the open letter sent to Mr Pickering Of which the main thrust seems to be concerning ACC's interactions with claimants and levy payers who could become claimants who own businesses.

As everyone who have read the letter it seemed that my involvement with this topic is totally on point.


The letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Pickering,



You will recall that for the last two years I have tried to correct the critical flaw in the Accident Compensation Scheme. I informed you that the levy / entitlement process for self-employed PAYE schedular taxpayers had not been implemented.



You chose to stone wall and ignore me. I warned you that the Corporation was facing a legal and political apocalypse unprecedented in New Zealand agency history. I note the Corporation has selected one of the most experienced and qualified lawyers in NZ to face me.



I have a lawyer of my own as it happens if I so require but most importantly, I have Section 221 (2) and Schedule 4 C 22. For many years now ACC lawyers have enjoyed twisting the meanings contained in the Accident Compensation Act to suit their purpose which of course is to decline entitlement, essentially preying on vulnerable and injured lay people who have no idea how to respond.



Thing is Mr. Pickering we are dealing with a prescribed levy process that is not open to judicial interpretation and means exactly what the words contained in the legislation mean. The consideration is totally objective. So, there are no fancy constructs to be advanced, no distortions of the English language allowed.



In short, the apocalypse I promised you is here. I thought I would assist you to process this new reality. As the CEO of a multi billion-dollar state agency you are required to explain the following to the public of New Zealand how it has come to pass that:



  • ACC has failed to levy and compensate self-employed PAYE schedular taxpayers since the 1st of April 2008 which amounts to 11 years of failing to implement the will of Parliament.


  • ACC has failed to respond to the matters I have raised for two years.


  • ACC has been producing wildly varying accounting decisions on self-employed claims.


  • ACC has been unilaterally altering the earnings status of self-employed schedular payments in the absence of legislation.


  • ACC has been producing decisions that sit outside of the laws of accounting and mathematics bringing into serious question the competency of ACC accounting.


  • Having altered the status of those earnings ACC declines to compensate those earnings and then goes on to levy those earnings unlawfully under Section 222 in the following financial year.


  • When the claimant cannot pay because they have not been able to work and been unlawfully denied their compensation, ACC calls in debt collectors to pursue a debt the claimant has not legally incurred. Credit ratings will have been affected.


  • ACC has wasted potentially millions on paper invoices sent out unlawfully under Section 222 when those levies should have been automatically collected by IRD along with the required tax payment.


  • Potentially 100’s of millions of dollars has been taken unlawfully out of the economy resulting in the loss of all the GST the government would have collected.


  • Other government agencies such as WINZ will have had to pay struggling injured people out of their own budgets.


  • Injured people will have lost their homes, relationships, sanity and general quality of life.


  • ACC will have to spend millions backtracking through every self-employed earner since 2008 in the absence of any auditing process.


  • Every day this goes on ACC is amassing penalty interest payments.


  • The scheme has been broken at a core level for 11 years. Public confidence in ACC and IRD will hit rock bottom.


  • ACC legal has failed to address this issue preferring instead to try and make constructs to subvert prescribed legislation.


  • ACC has failed the government which clearly placed its faith in the wrong party. This makes the government look rather stupid.


So, there we have it Mr. Pickering. All these things I deliver to you. The buck stops with you after all. The reason why I call my business Cassandra is because when people do not listen to me the outcome is generally grim. I told you and you did not listen. I told the Prime Minister and she did not listen.



The actions of the Corporation will push the needle over the line from total incompetence to corruption in the minds of many. If you had of responded from the outset you could have passed the blame to IRD and the Prime Minister could have passed it to the National party.



But you did not and so all this now firmly belongs to the Corporation from the board down and the current Labour led government. The cost in human misery is incalculable and it is you Mr. Pickering and your mealy-mouthed minions who own that.



I hope I have been helpful in presenting your position to you.


0

#13 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 30 May 2019 - 03:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 May 2019 - 11:27 AM, said:

The reporting process is the responsibility of all members who observe an acceptable behaviour. Your Unacceptable behaviour has been reported.

can you elaborate ,,,allan ,,,,,,,,,,,,, :D
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 June 2019 - 12:58 PM

What I think Lupine is talking of is the same thing that I addressed in my reply too him. I say this because I think he is talking of the first year of being in business, it used to be that the ACC levy got paid in full in the following year, being the second year of business. This is because it would be near impossible to charge a levy if you couldn't calculate it as it was calculated on the money of income you made, time would have to pass before any levy could be calculated. Hence the first year of earnings with no ACC Levy having been paid at the time of income being made.

This would mean that any self employed person being injured in that first year, would look as though they had not paid into the scheme of ACC Levies. Hence the ACC could say that they had no entitlement, but that would be wrong as there will be legasaltion in both ACTS ACC and IRD to show that the end of the year account should be done in this way where the payment for the previous full year, does not become due until the beginning of the following year.

Once the three weekly scheduler ACC Levies are calculated they will come due in the second and following years, they will then have paid all payments due (hopefully), being able to show they have been actively abiding by the laws as shown.

This why I said that the self employed person will find themselves with two bills to pay in the first part of the second year: 1. The whole Levy for the past year and 2. the first scheduler payment for the second year. In the end of that second year all the Levies paid for past two years will be an expense to the self employed person.

HOWEVER if that self employed person were to have an accident in that first year it would look as though they had not been paying Levies when the claimed for injury and erc or w/c. That is where I see the discrepancy, as I think Lupine does as well. ACC could have been refusing those people their rightful claims, this is what makes me think that it is very wrong of them to do so when the accounting papers for first end of year income should surely show how the system is to work and that would be so easy to show, it is not the s/e/person, who is making the mistake, as they are following the system.

After 2008 when the levy collection was changed as Lupine says, it would be on the tax documents filled in by this person every three months that there was a levy payment to make.

W/C shows that ACC and IRD will go to great lengths to keep our rightful monies owed away from us in the way the backdated weekly compensation is taxed, so it should not be of great surprise that they thought of another was to top up the coffer of govt. It is most fraustrating experience to try and prove a problem of many years. That is why we must be aware and astute when it comes to discrepancies in favour of the ACC or any other govt dept and put them right in the first instance. If Not they will continue to 'rip us off'.

Good luck Lupine and keep letting us know how you get on with Mr Pickering. AND how your own case turns out.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 June 2019 - 02:13 PM

Mini that does not seem you are trying to summarise Lupin's letter but rather address the issue as the ACC are responding to the letter.
Perhaps in just a couple of sentences you could first summarise the nature of Lupin's problem and issues described then approach from the ACCs point of view as how they should best address these concerns.
-2

#16 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:49 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 June 2019 - 12:58 PM, said:

What I think Lupine is talking of is the same thing that I addressed in my reply too him. I say this because I think he is talking of the first year of being in business, it used to be that the ACC levy got paid in full in the following year, being the second year of business. This is because it would be near impossible to charge a levy if you couldn't calculate it as it was calculated on the money of income you made, time would have to pass before any levy could be calculated. Hence the first year of earnings with no ACC Levy having been paid at the time of income being made.

This would mean that any self employed person being injured in that first year, would look as though they had not paid into the scheme of ACC Levies. Hence the ACC could say that they had no entitlement, but that would be wrong as there will be legasaltion in both ACTS ACC and IRD to show that the end of the year account should be done in this way where the payment for the previous full year, does not become due until the beginning of the following year.

Once the three weekly scheduler ACC Levies are calculated they will come due in the second and following years, they will then have paid all payments due (hopefully), being able to show they have been actively abiding by the laws as shown.

This why I said that the self employed person will find themselves with two bills to pay in the first part of the second year: 1. The whole Levy for the past year and 2. the first scheduler payment for the second year. In the end of that second year all the Levies paid for past two years will be an expense to the self employed person.

HOWEVER if that self employed person were to have an accident in that first year it would look as though they had not been paying Levies when the claimed for injury and erc or w/c. That is where I see the discrepancy, as I think Lupine does as well. ACC could have been refusing those people their rightful claims, this is what makes me think that it is very wrong of them to do so when the accounting papers for first end of year income should surely show how the system is to work and that would be so easy to show, it is not the s/e/person, who is making the mistake, as they are following the system.

After 2008 when the levy collection was changed as Lupine says, it would be on the tax documents filled in by this person every three months that there was a levy payment to make.

W/C shows that ACC and IRD will go to great lengths to keep our rightful monies owed away from us in the way the backdated weekly compensation is taxed, so it should not be of great surprise that they thought of another was to top up the coffer of govt. It is most fraustrating experience to try and prove a problem of many years. That is why we must be aware and astute when it comes to discrepancies in favour of the ACC or any other govt dept and put them right in the first instance. If Not they will continue to 'rip us off'.

Good luck Lupine and keep letting us know how you get on with Mr Pickering. AND how your own case turns out.

Mini

taxes and death ,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,, not easy ,,
0

#17 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1826
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:59 PM

View Posttommy, on 04 June 2019 - 03:49 PM, said:

taxes and death ,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,, not easy ,,

to have competent advice ,, at what cost ,,,,,,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, to resolve matters before these matters reaching epidemic proportions ,,,,,,,,,,,,
0

#18 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:24 PM

View Posttommy, on 04 June 2019 - 03:59 PM, said:

to have competent advice ,, at what cost ,,,,,,,, mini ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, to resolve matters before these matters reaching epidemic proportions ,,,,,,,,,,,,


No cost to me, I have not lost against IRD.
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