ACCforum: Tish - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

Jump to content

User Rating: -----

Group:
Members
Active Posts:
62 (0.04 per day)
Most Active In:
New Topics (37 posts)
Joined:
23-September 15
Profile Views:
2151
Last Active:
User is offline Private
Currently:
Offline

My Information

Member Title:
Advanced Member
Age:
Age Unknown
Birthday:
Birthday Unknown
Gender:
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information

E-mail:
Click here to e-mail me

Topics I've Started

  1. Assisted Recovery team emails

    28 November 2019 - 09:41 AM

    Having recently been required to engage with this team, so far I have found their staff to be snippy, lazy, lacking competence and some are just outright stupid. Their emails are being delivered to gmail spam folders, not any other ACC emails that I am aware of, just this assisted recovery team's mail.

    If you are in communication with them and feel you should have received mail to a gmail account and didn't, check your spam folder online. Their system logs all outgoing comms and will show you were sent one even if you never received it and they can prove it. Don't jeopardise your paper trail by not checking or following up mail you expected and didn't receive.

    They know they have an email problem, they called me to tell me why their reply never got to me when I contacted them to tell them I hadn't received their follow up confirmation email.

    Once more, ACC can't manage the simple things.
  2. IRD and backdated ERC payout

    14 September 2019 - 02:03 PM

    I am having difficulty wrapping my head around IRD and taxation with regard to a backdated ERC payout.

    I get IRD requiring top tax level for a very substantial sum when it is received, but I don't get why the payout isn't recalculated at the end of the tax year to reflect the number of tax years the payout covers, re-calculate each tax year as a standalone period and only require the tax appropriate to each tax year separately.

    IRD insist that, despite the payout covering 5 tax years, the full taxation taken now at payout time will stand and they don't retrospectively recalculate a backdated sum to deal with each period as a separate year and refund to that level for each one.

    That sort of messes with my head. Has anyone had such a case to comment on a course we can take at the end of this financial year to have each year calculated and taxed separately and the difference refunded? It's a shitload of extra tax. Any Act documentation that deals with this specifically? Do I get an accountant to sort it and would an accountant know how?

    Ta

    PS yes, after nearly 5 years, failed Review and a dickhead "advocate", better DC results and lots more faffing by ACC continuing to attempt to weasel out we have finally been successful. Just have to get past this IRD tax rort now...

Friends

Tish hasn't added any friends yet.

Comments

Page 1 of 1
  1. Photo

    Tish 

    12 Nov 2018 - 21:00
    Hi Mimi, just a quick catch up
    We won in Court at Appeal, Review was quashed by the Judge, ACC Toxicology Panel were described as dogmatic and unconstructive and the claim was sent back to ACC sent back to retest son's case against one small part of the Act, and only that.
    Apparently claim has to go back to the same Tox panel that just got their arses kicked for that ...
  2. Photo

    Tish 

    21 Apr 2018 - 15:45
    because right now, anyone can read most of the site, they just can't post and from that reading they can cause whatever trouble they want if personal info is readily available. Why would I want anyone to know who I really am when that info in the wrong hands could potentially cost ME my case? I only know who you are because people keep reposting it, and now I've read your case. See wha...
  3. Photo

    Tish 

    21 Apr 2018 - 15:42
    This site gets so many hits in google searches by people with ACC issues, of course people will want to sign up, but someone is blocking those new, perfectly legitimate people.
    I understand wanting to know who people are and vet them before allowing them access to post on the site, but look at it from the other side - why should people entrust their real identity to anyone who drops...
  4. Photo

    Tish 

    21 Apr 2018 - 15:39
    cont...
    The names afre often too relevant, like "AucklandAdvocates" and "psychosomatic" and "AccInducedHeadache" as well as loads or ordinary type user names you'd find anywhere. Someone has chosen to label them bots and that may be based on their incoming IP address, but then my second account I attempted to test the validation theories on has also not been val...
  5. Photo

    Tish 

    21 Apr 2018 - 15:35
    No, someone active on the site is deliberately only allowing the occasional new sign up. There were a couple in the middle of last year got through and commented on the forums, yet hundreds (and I do mean hundreds) before and after them do not have a validated user account and without one cannot participate or ask for help. I do not believe even the majority are attempted bot registrations.
  6. Photo

    MINI 

    21 Apr 2018 - 15:26
    You welcome . Glad to hear you are couping out there. I read your interesting reasoning of the locked registration to enable newbies to get in here for advise etc. obiviously you are up on your IT. Maybe it is the police who have locked the gate to registration. They have a interest in this site. I hope it is that will mean the johnny Manu issue will go no further they will just close foru...
  7. Photo

    Tish 

    21 Apr 2018 - 14:01
    Hi Mini, no not me with a treatment injury, just ACC tried to cite case law about a treatment injury case as relevant to a WRGPI case, and have had contact with a claimant also for WRGPI to do with lead poisoning. Thanks for thinking of me though :-)
  8. Photo

    MINI 

    21 Apr 2018 - 13:58
    Tish I have a case for you if you are the one with the 'Treament Injury'. I found it useful because it use section 32 and section 33. Please PM me if you want to know its name and get hold of it.
    Mini
Page 1 of 1