ACCforum: Ird V Acc On Interest They May Owe You - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Ird V Acc On Interest They May Owe You IRD trumped by High Court

#1 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 04 September 2005 - 07:42 PM

:wub: :wub: :wub:
sun star times

N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
RELATED LINKS
Have your say

Subscribe to Archivestuff






IRD trumped by High Court
04 September 2005
By GREG MEYLAN

Hundreds of people who had to wait for correct ACC compensation payments have also been wrongfully taxed by Inland Revenue.


A recent High Court decision means the IRD must refund hundreds of thousands of dollars to people incorrectly advised by the ACC to declare interest payments from the corporation as taxable income.

The interest payments were introduced in 1992 as a penalty against the ACC for not processing claims quickly and efficiently, and $8.4 million has been paid in penalties since the 2000 decision to tax them.

But the Tax Review Authority found last October that the interest payments did not fall within the definition of taxable income, a fact confirmed by the High Court in June after the IRD appealed against the decision.

The Auckland man who took the challenge against the IRD, Mike Buis, was pleased to have won, but was disappointed it was left to an individual to clarify the matter at personal expense.

"They were prepared to go ahead and tax these payments even though they were unsure," he said. "They took a policy position which was to their own advantage and basically stuck to it because they knew most people would not be able to make a challenge."

He said the interest payments were considered non-taxable income until the 2000 tax year when the IRD advised the ACC otherwise, in contrast to advice the ACC sought.

Buis, a paraplegic since a spinal abscess was misdiagnosed in 1977, said the legal action had cost him close to $30,000 but he had received court costs of only $24,000.

"The worst part of it is that ... they were perfectly prepared to inflict this tax on people knowing full well it was disputable and being unsure of their position."

Buis' lawyer Robyn Bedford was disappointed ACC was still sending letters advising recipients of interest payments they were liable for tax, despite the Tax Review Authority ruling and the High Court decision.

Bedford did not believe the IRD was able to identify those people eligible for a refund, and it would be up to individuals to find out for themselves.

"There are a lot of cases where people have been paid interest from ACC and where the arrears are very high, the tax is equally high. ACC should write to everyone and tell them to go and get their dough back."

A spokesman said ACC would be rewriting its letter, advising claimants the payment was not taxable.

Bedford said a special investigator recommended in the late 1990s that the IRD ask parliament to clarify if the interest payments were interest but this never happened.


HE HE HE HE
0

#2 User is offline   hillsy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 05

Posted 04 September 2005 - 08:48 PM

thanks for the post gaffa09,
yet more evidence of the claimant-toxic culture that has overtaken ACC.

this bit really grates my nerves:

Quote

Bedford did not believe the IRD was able to identify those people eligible for a refund, and it would be up to individuals to find out for themselves.

"There are a lot of cases where people have been paid interest from ACC and where the arrears are very high, the tax is equally high. ACC should write to everyone and tell them to go and get their dough back."


Now come off it IRD and ACC. You know to who, when and exactly how much money is owed. We KNOW you do!! Now quit mucking around and stump up the cash!

IRD and ACC should be working NIGHT AND DAY to put this right. IRD and ACC should be the ones doing the chasing here. They manage very well when it comes to extracting cash, so why is the reverse so hard??
This whole culture of having to go cap-in-hand to ASK for your legislated rights is WRONGWRONGWRONG!!!

Just think of the average salaries enjoyed by the staff of IRD and ACC, the state-of-the-art infrastructure and equipment, the legislated job description! Then think about how long is reasonable to wait for the credit to arrive in your bank (they already have your account number!!)????

GGGRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..............

1 angry hillsy
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 04 September 2005 - 09:34 PM

Of cause they know who they owe $3.276 million too.

this is just greed with dishonesty . they have taken somethink that didn't belong to them and know it and not are not going to return it.

on sivie street its called ***** may be a complaint to the police for ***** would see the $3.276 million paid out.

Now someone has made money on that money so there will also be intrest on that money as well. some tidy some for some.
0

#4 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 05 September 2005 - 10:22 AM

Greetings,
ACC wont pay out interest correctly...
They use the B... S... policy of only paying out on the " from the day of all info available"... namely WINZ info... in most cases... which they will delay and screw up deliberately.

There have been several courts rulings on this issue.
Where interest was ordered from date of injury, or "Exit"... and that WINZ info was not required.... Which they ignore...

Interest should be on the full untaxed, amount, before any deductions. They go with the net amount. after they have deducted at least 2/3rds of it... mostly incorrectly.
It is clear that they will manipulate and force every claim for interest into the courts... and as usual, legal costs wipe out any benefit. or most of it.

IRD, generally dont want to know and will not refund if they can get away with it.
1

#5 User is offline   mouse 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 06 September 2005 - 02:28 PM

I wonder how many of the local newspapers will report this decision, our local paper the Otago Daily Times has not as yet.

It would be great to get some coverage and to make all those affected aware of the ruling and inform them they are also entitled to obtain interest from Inland Revenue. Justice can be sweeet!
0

#6 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 06 September 2005 - 09:07 PM

Have sent it to the ODT. Let's see what happens shall we.... now where was my interest letter again??? LOL
0

#7 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:12 PM

Can someone scan and post the "Buis" decision?
0

#8 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:43 PM

Good work, IW2. I see Justice France was not happy about having to rule in favour of the claimants and I predict a law change either later his year or early next year, saying that interest payments are fully taxable. For the moment, there is a small window of justice open to claimants.
0

#9 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 07 September 2005 - 02:54 PM

Does that mean we have to do it NOW or miss out? Where was that letter again.... hate to miss the opportunity
0

#10 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 20 September 2005 - 06:45 PM

Interesting item on tv1 news this evening.
Interest on interest awarded.
Naturally ACC says they will appeal.
This mob needs to be put down and the remains burnt and scattered on the breeze.
They have been ripping of claimants for years as most cannot challenge them as either Illness or finacial limitations restrict their ability to fight these mongrels all the way and they know it with their immense rescourses stolen from genuine claimants.
This mob is rotten to the core and labour has supported them and are as culpable ACC thieves.
SHAME SHAME SHAME.
0

#11 User is offline   gommer krinkle 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:05 PM

The Sunday Star Times ran a correction on the amount of legal costs awarded to Mr Buis by the High Court, the amount was only $2,400.00 not $24,000.00 as reported.

It seems that one of the major points was mangled by the newspaper, that is that one only gets the justice one can afford.

It is unfortunate that Justice France did not ask for submissions on costs so that the case history could be considered as a basis of a more substantial award by the court.

Costs were awarded on the basis of half a day court time, hense the amount.

Any law change would not effect any payout, or payout i suspect made in relation to a claim lodged prior to that change.
0

#12 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:37 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...

Very interesting ...

"Interest payments were introduced in 1992 as a penalty against the ACC for not processing claims quickly and efficently ..."

mmmmmmmmmm ACC have recorded lodgement was in Feb 1986 and registration was in Nov 1992 ... the very next day after registration claim closed.

Without a shadow of a doubt , some 6 years 9 months , for ACC to go from the lodgement stage through to the registration stage ...

:wacko: uuuuuuuum this would probably fall into the " not processing claims quickly and efficently ... " arena...

:blink: yet from the registration and opening of claim through to closing the claim process only took 24 hrs ... maybe processing claims too quickly and efficently arena ...

:wacko: Really interesting reading through ACC records got my first ACC Representive as a Claims manager on this "claim file" another 6 odd years later ...
ooooooooooooh could we be back in the "not processing claims quickly and efficently" arena again ...
Somewhere around 13 years from Lodgement ---- ACC Representive Claim/Case Manager.

mmmmmm If a claim has been through ACC's lodgement ,registration process is there a letter advising of acceptence of claim by ACC and here is your claim no to
use in all correspondence ,treatment providers etc etc ??

:P If so I haven't recieved the acceptence letter as yet from ACC for November 1992 ACC registration date. Would love a copy.

;) Have a bueatiful wonderful day everyone ... I intend too ...
0

#13 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 July 2006 - 08:12 PM

any news on the compounding interest court case?
0

#14 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 19 August 2006 - 08:01 PM

Any news ??
0

#15 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 20 August 2006 - 07:33 AM

As at today's date it is my understanding that the Court of Appeal has still not issued its decision on this matter.
0

#16 User is offline   Srgt.Shultz 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 03-July 09

Posted 14 September 2009 - 03:01 PM

BUMP ! ? ;)

View Postgaffa09, on Sep 4 2005, 07:42 PM, said:

:wub: :wub: :wub:
sun star times

N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
RELATED LINKS
Have your say

Subscribe to Archivestuff




IRD trumped by High Court
04 September 2005
By GREG MEYLAN

Hundreds of people who had to wait for correct ACC compensation payments have also been wrongfully taxed by Inland Revenue.
A recent High Court decision means the IRD must refund hundreds of thousands of dollars to people incorrectly advised by the ACC to declare interest payments from the corporation as taxable income.


The interest payments were introduced in 1992 as a penalty against the ACC for not processing claims quickly and efficiently, and $8.4 million has been paid in penalties since the 2000 decision to tax them.

But the Tax Review Authority found last October that the interest payments did not fall within the definition of taxable income, a fact confirmed by the High Court in June after the IRD appealed against the decision.

The Auckland man who took the challenge against the IRD, Mike Buis, was pleased to have won, but was disappointed it was left to an individual to clarify the matter at personal expense.

"They were prepared to go ahead and tax these payments even though they were unsure," he said. "They took a policy position which was to their own advantage and basically stuck to it because they knew most people would not be able to make a challenge."

He said the interest payments were considered non-taxable income until the 2000 tax year when the IRD advised the ACC otherwise, in contrast to advice the ACC sought.

Buis, a paraplegic since a spinal abscess was misdiagnosed in 1977, said the legal action had cost him close to $30,000 but he had received court costs of only $24,000.

"The worst part of it is that ... they were perfectly prepared to inflict this tax on people knowing full well it was disputable and being unsure of their position."

Buis' lawyer Robyn Bedford was disappointed ACC was still sending letters advising recipients of interest payments they were liable for tax, despite the Tax Review Authority ruling and the High Court decision.

Bedford did not believe the IRD was able to identify those people eligible for a refund, and it would be up to individuals to find out for themselves.

"There are a lot of cases where people have been paid interest from ACC and where the arrears are very high, the tax is equally high. ACC should write to everyone and tell them to go and get their dough back."

A spokesman said ACC would be rewriting its letter, advising claimants the payment was not taxable.

Bedford said a special investigator recommended in the late 1990s that the IRD ask parliament to clarify if the interest payments were interest but this never happened.
HE HE HE HE

1

#17 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 14 September 2009 - 10:39 PM

MMMM so whats the point Shultz. You know nothing???

We know that under section 114 of the 2001 Act we will never get our interest if we have been on WINZ.

However if the Kearney case being heard in April 09 comes down in our favour, there could be a big change of events for us. However, I am afraid that there may be changes in the wind before then with IRD changing the law to indeed tax the interest which is really only a payment made from ACC for getting their decisions not to give our w/c when entitled.

So having that thought in the back of my mind I am going to take 'wrongful action' for a payment outside the legislation, to make sure I have a foot in the door for my claim if IRD change the law, or if ACC by some stretch of the imagination should win the April case.

As far as payments made on a one at a time basis for the monies that have been paid over already as tax to IRD, I would say that all the smart people have got theirs back. The others obviously dont know they have money outstanding and therefore will not be missing it.

If anyone knows of anyway to search the records and identify the people who ACC paid the tax over to IRD for. Good Luck, You will make a fortune going on a % of basis, for these people..Neither ACC or WInz will be flying a flag saying these people are owed money back. Only the code number which identify the difference between w/compo and interest will identify these payments now. And lets face it the first thing to do is identify the claimants who are owed money, and only they have the right to ask IRD back for the money. They can and should do it themselves without paying anyone to get it back for them.

Oh and while they are rolling around in all the dough they may want to recognise Mr Buis for a donation for paying megabucks in lawyers fees to fight this case all the way to the top and win.

A massive win for the little people and little recognition given for the massive effort put into the actual case to be a win.

Well done.

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