The Wrath of IRD
There is a dad in Rotorua who applied for a departure order via an administrative review.?
The Review Officer decided that the case was too complex and declined to make a decision telling the dad he would have to go to the Family Court.?
The dad lodged all the applications and 12 Hours before the case was due to be heard was severed with documents from the Crown Law Office who are acting for IRD in this case. (Note IRD has an extensive legal division but have chosen to use Crown Law!)?
The dad went to Court where the judge told him:?
1) He could not have a McKenzie friend.?
2) Struck out his application.?
3) Refused him the opportunity to seek a barrister to represent him.?
This case is being set up by IRD and Crown law as an attempt to overturn the current restriction that departure orders cannot be retrospective (I.E can only currently get a departure for the current year)?
If IRD are successful this will open the floodgates for departure oders to be made for any past Child Support year.?
The changes in amendment bill (No 4) mean that IRD can initiate admin reviews (prior to the change only a “liable” or “custodial” parent could seek a review)?
If, and I suspect they will be, Crown Law are successful in their attempt to have the law limiting departures to the current year reinterpreted by the Courts combined with the changes just passed will mean that tens of thousands of parents will be subject to reassessment and placed in debt with IRD acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner.?
Be afraid; be very afraid, this is the start of the new face of child tax recovery.?
?
There is a huge price to pay for those who expand the “Empire of Injustice””
Onward – JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 29th September 2006 @ 12:35 pm
in light of all this, i say lets all protest by not pay CS for a whole year. that way the system collapses and they will be forced to come to the table.
To make this work something like this has to happen on an extremely large scale.
Comment by starr — Fri 29th September 2006 @ 1:57 pm
They are hell bent on anything but real reform. This should show again to moderates that the establsihment thinks it can win by playing foxlike games. Therefore they aren’t interested in justice, just money for their social enginnering fantacies, and of course their friends in the field of law.
Comment by Intrepid — Fri 29th September 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Well I might be a lone voice out there but I look forward to be able to lodge a departure order for past years… After being screwed by IRD for years because of there mistakes in calculation of Child Support when there come back is “Sorry it is not the current financial year… So go away.” I look forward to having a go at them and getting my $32,000 back.
Comment by SNMP — Fri 29th September 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Sadly SNMP, any decsion will not work for you. Be assured this case is being carefully drafted to limit downward departures i.e will focus on getting more money, not less.
regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 29th September 2006 @ 3:30 pm
It is convenient for ministers of both the Government and the opposition not to address this issue. The law around this issue is simply floating through parliament without debate. That will continue until either of two things happen. First the electorate rallies and forces the issue into the public arena, or second, that these issues are debated through representation in parliament. Regardless of which way we pursue the issue, we need numbers. Bothered about child support – link to meetings.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 1st October 2006 @ 9:29 am
Thanks Bevan,
You are spot on Bevan, we need people!
Lobbying, extensive lobbying, is not delivering reform. Reason is ignored and the voices of parents ignorned.
Numbers and action are clearly needed to wake up the politicians.
Roll over the National Conference.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 1st October 2006 @ 7:43 pm
Departure order backdating is enabled in both law and case law. It should only affect liable parents who have lied about earnings/dependants/or become underemployed to avoid paying for the needs of their kids. Custodial parents (I use these terms for convenience only as many good mums and dads enter into voluntary arrangements to both care and pay for their children) are not supported by legal aid or any other mechanism to challenge assessments and most are too busy with kids, work and household duties to get into or to afford litigation on this issue. This has been unfortunate as we now have 300,000 NZ kids living in poverty with all the associated social problems this brings and dragging NZ into third world status in main international indicators.It has also meant Liable parents have been lulled into a false sense of the low worth of their kids and costs of raising children well.Any liable parent whose ex and children are forced onto benefits can account themselves as a failure to their kids and society (one of the reasons we have high tax is because of the lack of responsibility liable parents take for their kids).Family income does not suddenly become individual income and it is often used as a stick to punish parents and children with who dare to assert their right not to be controlled or abused. Often this control comes from malicious and vicious exs and their new partners whose last attempt to use their power to control and abuse is economic punishment.Child Support has become the last line of offence for abusers to withhold and use totally selfishly often massive incomes in relation to the income available to custodians and kids only for themselves.The amounts awarded in cases to date have been pathetic compared to the real cost of childraising and loss of income as a result.It should please most of you immensely that in the next few generations we are not only going to have troublesome youth and health issues we will also have a huge number of ex custodians literally living on the streets once kids leave because they have lived for years in poverty and could not afford super or a house for their old age.We are headed for disaster and it is the Men who need to assert their role and commit to their kids who will change this. Patterns of behaviour for thousands of years need to be reexamined by these men and the changes necessary in attitude taken to provide both for their kids and our future as human beings in a civilised (not yet) society where the strong support the young and vulnerable, do not need to be mothered as adults and can take their place in their childrens lives instead of running away and bleating that everything is everybody elses fault which excuses them from the basic (very basic) obligations as parents. Even most animals get this!!
Comment by k Lauderdale — Wed 6th December 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Thats right, I forgot its all the fault of those evil deadbeatdads and those nasty high income earners, that are responsible for the legislative mess.
And lets not forget those who pay the minimum because obvivously they are all understating their income!
Because as you so eloquently espouse all you are interested in spousal maintenace.
To you its all about dollars to me its about creatring the best outcome for kiwi kids.
As to case law and retrospective departures : There are two published and one unplished decision from the High Court.
Two against retrospective departures and one allowing retrospective departure in limited circumstances. IRD have for a number of years not issued retrospective depatrures via admin review. There has now been a direction from within IRD to change this position and they see their best chance at succeeding by piting crown law against a self represented parent.
Anyway its nice to read a comment that engenders laughter. Please feel free to preach to the unbelivers but dont expect many conversions.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 6th December 2006 @ 10:32 pm
Dear Lauderdale,
Yes, it is these pesky citizens that are to blame for the need of the fox-leadership to have high taxes. In your words:
Hmm.. I smell a bureaucrat rationalizing their eating at the public troff.
Yes, this money belongs to the bureaucrats to take there share and then play social enginnering experiments that fail and are thus blamed on the new Jews for their games(men).
Is that the amount before you take your government share for you job, or after? I’m confused, are you offering to give up part of your public sector salary or job to make sure kids get more money? I guess not. Maybe you can claim you work in the private sector and spend other people’s words on top of other people’s money.
Yes disaster is coming, but it squarely lies with the liars who fain carrying as they undermine families with the high aloof tone on the self-rightious.
Comment by Intrepid — Wed 6th December 2006 @ 11:11 pm
Regarding the original issue same happened to me in upward Departure order.The State works for the state not for us. The crown Solicitors are only interested in their pay it’s not a gender issue. I’m all for more personal responsibility and nil state involvement…it’s not working for any of us. Cheers
Comment by k lauderdale — Thu 14th December 2006 @ 8:06 pm