Penalty plea over child cash
A huge nationwide Child Support debt made up mainly of penalties and interest has sparked claims by a Napier-based former MP that it is a “ruthless” scheme forcing people to shirk responsibilities to growing youngsters.
Latest figures show Child Support principal comprises just $661 million of the $2.617 billion the Inland Revenue Department claims it was owed at the end of December. Stuart Nash said it’s time for an amnesty on penalties and interest, which make up 74.7 per cent of the debt.
The call is supported by Union of Fathers national spokesman Allan Harvey, of Auckland, but he says: “Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s likely to happen”.
The Government is “highly embarrassed” by the size of the debt, which he said is part of a “revenue” system often supporting the “state” ahead of the child.
He said the IRD had shown “virtually no flexibility” in relation to 10 per cent “immediate” aspects of the penalties, often accrued and irreversible well before the target is aware any regime is in place, and politicians regard it as “too difficult” a subject to handle.
Figures for the last five years show that while the amount of principal owing at the end of each year has risen 26 per cent (from $525 million to $661 million) the total for penalties and interest has increased almost 109 per cent (from $938 million to $1956 million).
Combined, it represents a 79 per cent increase from the $1.464 billion reported at the end of 2008 to the $2.617 billion reported recently as the Child Support Amendment Bill progressed through its latest stages in Parliament.
The figures stem from questions in Parliament to Inland Revenue Minister Peter Dunne instigated by Mr Nash, a 2008-2011 Labour List MP and Napier candidate at the last election.
Mr Nash says an amnesty is needed to help non-payers “re-engage” with the system, and in some cases their families.
“The penalty regime is ruthless,” he said.
“Once the penalties and interest begin to mount up, it becomes impossible for many people to see their way clear, so they disengage.”
He said it’s bad not only for the individual charged with paying the debt, but also for the children, forcing some parents to leave the country or into other situations where they never see their children.
Mr Harvey said the current regime is “driving” people into not paying, and there are impacts for the ongoing relationships between split parents.
The Family Court has recognised the issue at times in directing the IRD to waiver penalties and in some cases Child Support assessed by the department, but it takes a court process, such as custody proceedings, to initiate such relief.
Targets say the objection and appeal processes are difficult and confusing, and people with valid issues give up because of the weight against them.
Mr Nash suggests a three-month amnesty to help right what he says is a “travesty,” and said those who have disengaged from the payment process, due to the inability to see their way clear, should approach the IRD “and see if you can come up with an arrangement to wipe the penalties once all principal is cleared”.
“Basically, this money is lost from the system,” he said.
“I am sure the IRD would be open to an arrangement whereby debt paid off under an affordable arrangement would be acceptable.”
He said he would be happy to help negotiate on behalf of those who want to do what’s right, but may be lost for a solution.
Napier MP and Government minister Chris Tremain said changes to child support announced by Mr Dunne do not include an amnesty. “Parents remain responsible for the financial support of their children after the breakdown of a relationship,” Mr Tremain said.
He said the changes are based on extensive public consultation, and update the way the IRD administers the scheme “making improvements to payment, penalties and debt rules that encourage parents to meet their child support obligations on time and prevent those who fall behind in their payments from dropping out of the system.”
Outstanding child support debt in the Napier office area, covering Hawke’s Bay, has increased from $47.9 million in 2009 to $72.7 million in 2012.
The Bay rates 12th of 16 in terms of the debt ascribed to each office area throughout the country, while over $610 million was owed by people overseas
This debt happened because people object to GOVT interference into thier lives after break ups and feel as adults that they can take care of thier own lives.
Also this says for people to come pay the principal off the wipe the interest and charges etc: but what it doesn’t say is that most non payers hate the idea of paying the principal and object to it’s creation of debt upon them.
It’s like paying off the ability to have kids, as if the GOVT has sold them to you. I’ve had enough of this crap.
Comment by Too Tired — Thu 18th April 2013 @ 11:14 pm
Most parents are very willing to pay Child Support. That is clearly demonstrated in that over 70% of Child support is paid in full and on time.
However the penalties regime drives non compliance coupled with the fact that often it takes months for IRD to contact paying parents and by that stage step one of the payment they demand is difficult if not impossible.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 8:14 am
#2. another issue is the absolute incompetence of a number of (not all) staff at the IRD. I have been seeking an increased living allowance due to my son now living with me. As i was in admin review period, i was referred (eventually) to the technical services team. I had at least 4 conversations with them with promises to get back to me, only to have the contact and promises fizzle out. You see, by grinding you down, most of us give up in the end. I ultimately wrote 4 letters to Peter Dunne, and eventually had contact from a senior member of the department who resolved issues.
I ranted about the lies my ex had told in admin review, and how this was an offence under the act, and got the usual-“admin review officers make judgement calls and proof is not always necessary, however you can take the matter to family court etc”
I pointed out that the decision made (in a half hour) had cost me in the vicinity of $80k and surely proof would have been a good idea. Any how-as usual deaf ears at the other end. I blame not the staff but rather the politicians. We have been demonised in the media, and as Allan says, the majority of us are happy to pay child support . I personally object to the inequity of the system-specifically, no requirement to take her income into account-just mine. Happy days
Comment by shafted — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 9:39 am
Im not willing to pay child tax. I do pay it as I have no say in the matter. It grates on me every pay day when I see the amount of money that has been extorted from me by this system to fund my ex, of over 13 years now, lifestyle choices.
I refuse to call this extortion “support” as there is not one check or balance in the system to ensure that what I pay goes any way in supporting my children.
It does me no good at all to get all het up about this system so over the years like a prisoner I have become resigned to the fact that I made the mistake of getting married and having kids with this woman ( I dont regret the kids) so Im sentenced to the obligatory 18 years of child tax for my mistake. Four more years and Im free of her. I will continue to support my children for all of my life but after my child tax sentence is up I will finally have the resourses to do this instead of paying for a mistake I made all those years ago where I now hand over a large portion of my wages to a woman who hates me but absolutely loves my wallet.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 10:18 am
Well yes, but that doesn’t mean most parents are willing to pay the extortion that is defined in NZ as ‘child support’. We know that it’s not intended as child support at all but it’s intended mainly to reimburse the government for a family-wrecking system of free salaries to (mainly) women to become independent from their children’s fathers and to almost double the cost of raising the same children (due to two households rather than one needing to be funded). The next priority for our dishonestly named ‘child support’ system is to provide alimony to support separated women’s lifestyles. The welfare of children hardly figures at all, and indeed the so-called ‘child support’ system actively damages children’s welfare. It places no requirement on the recipient parent to use the money towards the children’s welfare. It impoverishes (mainly) fathers and prevents them from contributing economically directly to their children when such contribution would add greatly to those children’s sense of self-worth through being cared for by both parents. It refuses to recognize any direct provision by ‘liable’ parents to their children and thereby effectively discourages and reduces such child-enhancing activity. Dunne-nothing’s new law will do nothing to reduce the damage to children caused by the current system.
Also, while most parents may well be willing to pay towards their children after separation, we know from defaulter statistics that female parents are much less willing to do so than male parents are.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 12:19 pm
‘Child support’ should be limited to half (or a proportion relative to the parents’ availability to care for the children) of the amount that would provide for the basic survival needs of children. Child support exchange should be avoided completely wherever possible through equal shared care.
Comment by Luther Blissett — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 12:23 pm
The statistics are no surprise at all. I’ve been a liable parent/child support payer for 25years plus. Ironically, I am have been a working solo parent throughout, with care at almost all times of 2 of my 3 kids. I’ve paid in excess of $180,000, all deducted direct from my wages as I was never allowed the option of a private arrangement (with the DPB mother). Many times I’ve discovered I’ve been paying penalties based only on the order in which the amound due and payment appeared on the statement, even when on the same date. The excuse was the computer could handle listing them around the other way, and any reversal could only be doine manually, and had to be picked-up by me first. Long story short, it was no surprise when after obligation terminated in January, payments continued to be deducted from wages, putting me in credit by over $700 by the time they stopped. IRD eventually explained they don’t “just” do refunds, and, satisfying a bet I had taken a mate that they would never at all pay up, I receiced advice this week that my last five years has been reassessed, and according to them I was underpaying. Almost $11,000 must be paid within 22 days (yes, 22, because it took a week for the letter to arrive), and a 10 percent penalty will accrue per month on anything in paid. I don’t have enough resources left to pay it, and there’s no reason I should, I now face my remaining working years as a pauper, my family has been destroyed, and the grandkids lives are now being destroyed. I’ve objected, which will get me nowhere, apart from aggravating the IRD. If unpaid, the $11,000 will with penalties and interest pass $31,000 in 12 months, and $200,000 before the end of 2015.
Comment by duggiewuggie — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 1:17 pm
Duggie,
Call them and do a deal in the meantime. They will likely remit the penalties if you do so. But need to act quickly.
Then assess your options for objection. If there are grounds for objection, seek reassessment
Comment by shafted — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 1:21 pm
Hi Duggie,
You are totally correct that the order IRD’s antiquated computer decides to allocate payments can end up in unneccesary penalties. You are also correct that if pointed out to thewm they will reverse tham and allocate them in such a way as to minimise the damage to taxpayers. Many believe that unless we put energy into keeping them honest and doing these manual shuffles IRD wil not get the point that they ned to have better systems in place.
One of the hidden scandals of Child Support is the cost of administration which falls on taxpayers for the benefit of WINZ and receiving parents. This cost is huge but IRD and Mr Dunne are completly silent on this topic. It is akin to all the costs of registry functions and stock exchange costs being meet by taxpayers rather than by the listed companies or shareholders paying for these services. It scandalises me that Taxpayers are subsidising collection of moneys between parties at significant cost when small contributions towards meidation and encouraging private agreements are rejected as inpractical.
Comment by allan harvey — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 2:53 pm
This is what we all have to look forward to once they start taking it straight from our accounts.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 6:22 pm
Hi
Guys i got screwed buy IRD and the family courts. She tried to have me murdered.
I was atacted on my own property defenderd myself from a trianed kikboxer,had broken ribs betten real bad. She sided with her brother had 18 months of police protection
They put me in a remand prision for having two cans of burbon for 7 weeks. Took my kids from me I had to fight to see them and distroyed my relationship with my older boys they can get fucked. I wont pay into a seystem that distroys familys and makes the man pay for ever thing. Was found not guilty but lost my wife and family thanks to the NZ police and i was the one who Phoned them for help, what a crock of shit they are.
Comment by Danny — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 8:35 pm
Danny
who were the officers that attended?
Comment by kiranjiharr — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 8:59 pm
Hi Its Danny again
Being faced with what i had it cost me nearly $50000 to get access to my kids and
Defeat the lies. Buy that time the child suport bill was out of control and there is
no releaf for me so screw them. And there must be so many men having to deal with false aligations and protection orders it breacks my heart that the kids are missin out on Dad.
Comment by Danny — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 9:04 pm
It was 4 years ago. Ill have his name in the morning. I think his name is Lee Hoe. I will never ring the police again they distroyed my family and my life.
Comment by Danny — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 9:13 pm
Anyway the deal was I will do the work you run the office.
Now i have got $150k debt and child suport bill. My fist demard for child support was $2400 a month i had to pay layers and keep myself out of jail. When you work it out with tax that is $3120 a month, I do not think I can live in this country for much longer.I still have to pay acc leaves on that money and penaltes but im not going to fuck the debt syestem. Goodbuy NZ
Comment by Danny — Fri 19th April 2013 @ 9:40 pm
I can’t live in this country either, but the latest steps by the IRD will in all likelihood stop me from leaving. To demand $10,795 out of the blue, and order payment within three weeks under threat of charging penalties, whatever amount, is no different than a gangster turning up at your gate with your stolen car and demanding $5000 for him to give it back. Extortion.
But that aside, my situation seems to be a classic situation of challenge the system and suffer the consequences. It started in March 1987, at which time I had been happily supporting privately my first child who was living with her mother, who had five kids from a previous marriage, and was on the DPB in circumstances where it was unlikely anyone, let alone the Social Welfare Dept (Liable Parent Contribution Scheme)would have been recovering anything from the other father. I had a good income and was clearly taking steps which would result in providing a home for this extended family.
My objection was turned down and we went to the Family Court where, after three years of obstructive delays and sacking an incompetent lawyer on the eve of the hearing and doing the case myself, Judge Imnrie accepted my support for the family had been been well beyond any contribution that could ever have been sought by the system, and the Department had no basis on which to intervene. He also established that the extended DPB payment to the mother covering my child was initiated by the Department, and not by the mother as the Department had claimed, through very amateur use of an application form forged by a department officer. The department’s lawyer bailed-out to avoid the embarrassment that was unfolding – this was one hour into a hearing scheduled for two days.
The judge questioned the department’s motivation, and said it was “nonsensical” and done for reasons known only to themselves.
The Department was ordered to reassess “at the rate of nil percent” from the outset, reverting the $7000-plus debt at the time to 00.00. The department ignored the order, and was still sendiing and increasing the bills six months later, and responded with the appropriate 00.00 balance only after my third letter complaining, and threatening to fully expose the forgery (yes, they pointed out it was in the Family Court and it would be illegal to publish anything, but they were wrong).
As it turned out, Judge Imrie’s decision was supported by a Court of Appeal decision in another case.
This successful challenge was red-rag-to-a-bull stuff to the department, and the rubbish started as soon as they (and subseqently the IRD) got the chance, having successfully ruined any chance of the extended family merging. Had that happened, the State would have never had to pay another cent. But, instead, the mother has been on the DPB most of the time ever since, in respect of her other kids and later, grandkids. The mother of my third child, from a relationship resulting directly from the department’s destruction of the original proposed extended family unit, was on the DPB throughout the payable years.
Comment by duggiewuggie — Sat 20th April 2013 @ 9:32 am
So Peter Dunne has said that hidden speed cameras are an abomination and just a “revenue gathering exercise”. What the F…..K! If that be the case what is his Child Support and penalties and interest regime? Total extortion that’s what. The guy clearly has a mental problem (i.e he’s thick!!). Oh, I forgot…. road traffic offences don’t fall within his Ministerial remit. If they did, no doubt he would be saying ‘every motorist who speeds has a moral and legal obligation to pay for his/her offending and the public has an expectation that they do so….’ What a prick!!!
Comment by Incredulous!! — Fri 26th April 2013 @ 8:55 pm
I saw that too! What a f……. wanker. The sad thing is that people actually voted for him but on the other side of the coin, you can see he does understand the philosophy of money.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 26th April 2013 @ 9:21 pm
just saw that news article too, he’s a dick!
Comment by Too Tired — Fri 26th April 2013 @ 10:59 pm
Child support changes will be implemented from 01 April 2014 and based on cost of raising a child (determined by Stats NZ)…does anyone know the explicit website link on statistcs.govt.nz to see the cost of raising a child in NZ?
Comment by Kumar — Mon 29th April 2013 @ 1:15 pm
It’s probably better to wait till june this year for the new calc to be added to the IRD website. Then you will know what you are subjected too be robbed of. Your details and custodials details will matter in the first instance. Just wait for the reviews once 1st April rolls around if god forbid you are actually required by law to pay less CS.
Comment by Too Tired — Mon 29th April 2013 @ 10:00 pm
The sadness of the changes to the legislation is that it deals only with how to increase the amount people pay, and increase the ways and means of taking it. I am particularly interested to hear of any cases where the IRD has taklen people to court simply to get orders for recovery of unpaid Child Support and penalties. I am aware that in cases where Child Support excesses have been relevant in other Family Court matters, Judges of that Court have declined to recognised penalties, describing them as “unconscionable”, which seems to be an internationally universal word Judges use when they also know the system is crap. I have been told by Family Court staff they believe such decisions have been supported by the Court of Appeal. It follows that if the IRD were to take someone to court purely for not paying Child Support and penalties, as in the case of people seeking remittance of fines, the IRD would take quite a spanking.
Comment by duggiewuggie — Tue 30th April 2013 @ 7:31 pm
Here is something interesting…
Talk to us through Language Line
http://www.ird.govt.nz/contact-us/a-z/language-line/language-line.html
Perhaps the families commission should fund a new child support programme.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 9th May 2013 @ 4:25 pm
Perhaps I should utilise this wonderful service, assuming it does actually answer. In the three weeks since I was wrongly told I had to pay $10,795 to the IRD by May 9, I have managed to get through once, and was given an appointment, at which there was no discussion relating to the problem. They decided it was so I could file a written objection. I have had no success trying to contact the IRD since that date, and an e-mail asking what has happened with the objection has gone unanswered. Now May 9 has also gone. True to form I now expect the little Hitlers will tell my employer I’m refusing to pay, and I will learn of this by way of yet another stripping of my income.
Comment by duggiewuggie — Sun 12th May 2013 @ 7:19 am
1. above, Danny….. an all too familiar story. You pay lawyers just to see your own children – only to find that they are NOT interested in facilitating that requirement – rather the system keeps you away from them until you have no money left, and no energy to keep trying……
Then you are kicked over to the Child Support Property seizure department – which is designed to be DIFFICULT< EXPENSIVE and IMPOSSIBLE to challenge – take note of that – this SYSTEM is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to be IMPOSSIBLE to deal with – this is not Govt Incompetence, this is DELIBERATE.
Most Western Govt's have massive Debt to pay off, and they NEED a high Child Support Debt to on their books to PROP up their overseas borrowing………when this is the case – then obviously the incentive for Govt is to ensure that DEBT IS as HIGH as POSSIBLE – so they can BORROW MORE – so Passing off massive Penalties to parents – making objection impossible and then seizing what ever property you have left to pay these EXTORTIONATE amounts – is a deliberate tactic. It is Oppressive, it is discriminatory and it breaches all your rights at the most basic level – which you no longer have – because as we are seeing in real time, they are now simply removing those rights with NEW LAWS……so this corruption is protected – get it, the new Constitution being cobbled together behind closed doors will put an end to any rights you thought you had…….
Think about it, once you have exhausted your finances just trying to see your kids,, lost your high paying job, and any chance of a new relationship or family in the future, you are then DEMANDED to pay excessive Child Support – so that the DE-FACTO property seizure by the state can commence. And when you cant pay it, because you dont have the income, they will take all you have left……this is Corrupt to the core. Noone in this country understands what is going on here – most people think Child Support is about INCOME – thats what I signed up to in settlements with the family court – the reality is they are after your personal property as well to pay off this debt – cars, home – anything you own is now up for grabs……..
They will not let up, until you have NOTHING left, not until you are living alone and totally destitute. This is the reality. So how do you fight this corruption? When the Law and the system is UNJUST, what other alternatives does it leave good parents, good fathers and good people??????
Comment by hornet — Sat 25th May 2013 @ 8:58 am
Your analysis is right on the money, hornet.
I’ve been wondering about that too. The usual avenues – social and political pressure – don’t seem to be wildly successful. So I’ve been wondering if we can get some clues by taking analogies from the natural world, although I’ve not come up with anything it’s easy to recommend.
The starting point is to recognize that the Government is acting as a parasite on the nuclear family. Essentially it feeds off the family to its own advantage, as you’ve described, and to the family’s detriment – the whole family, not just the man. In the natural world, hosts have evolved defences against their parasites; can we get any clues from what they do?
On the most general level, the advice would be not to get infected in the first place. Of course, once it’s happened, it’s too late: but at least you can avoid getting another dose. The main mechanism is to avoid them, and the main motivator there is disgust.
Disgust is the feeling that keeps you away from filthy situations where you can pick up something nasty. Think about tucking in to a nice burger filled with intestinal worms, for instance. So, following this paradigm, you shouldn’t fight the system; instead you should distance yourself from it. Adopt strict hygienic practices; walk away; sever all contact; plan your life to avoid any future contact. This can be hard to do because it means abandoning your family and is unacceptable to many. But parasites are good at what they do – that’s how they make their living – and exploiting your natural instincts is second nature to them.
There’s a class of parasites known as “brood parasites” that include birds like the cuckoo and the cowbird. They exploit other species’ family instincts by inserting their own eggs into the hosts’ nests. The parasite birds don’t have to feed their fledglings, and consequently have spare time which they use by standing around watching the hosts’ nests. If they see any attempt to eject or otherwise mistreat the parasite fledgling, they trash the nest of the unfortunate host. Had they the power of speech, I imagine they would strongly urge the hosts on to “bird up” and observe their parental responsibilities. The literature calls this “Mafia behaviour” but I find the parallel with Government behaviour particularly strong in this case.
Comment by Ted — Sat 25th May 2013 @ 1:28 pm
ted, thats a good analogy, so are we to think Shark and Remora? problem is we are the remora mate, given scraps and few options…..
FAMILY – Unity, bonded by values, and morals taught by parents. This is a major threat to Govt parasites – because united groups are a problem. Divide and Rule only works when they can split everyone up into little groups who are all fighting amongst themselves……
Have you noticed some recent trends in the determined efforts to destroy FAMILY and all they stand for – destroying moral values, or deliberately attacking any other organization which gets some traction and people in numbers opposed to Govt Tyranny……
Thats right they attack them – Eg. Family First – Bob McCroskey just had his Tax free Charitable trust designation taken away…….WHY??
A deliberate attempt by Govt tO try and shut him down – cant have a group of FAMILY members standing up for whats right !!!!!!
This is a disgrace….and its exactly what the Govt have been caught doing in the US, using IRS ( IRD ) to attack and put pressure on similar tax free groups who are forming up against govt decisions.
http://familyfirst.org.nz/ taking the bastards to court.
People need to wake up and rise up against this crap. Politicians who sanction these tactics need to be thrown out.
In our case – Too many fathers and good parents in New Zealand are being subjected to the same persecution by IRD, because they are Bullies who are allowed to get away with it and the individuals effected have absolutely NO way of challenging them. This has to change.
Comment by hornet — Mon 27th May 2013 @ 2:28 pm
Note: There is no sign of the new child support calculater promised by IRD before or during JUNE. I’ve requested an ETA but they decline to say even if it will appear any time soon.
Comment by Too Tired — Wed 5th June 2013 @ 10:21 am
Yes we were originally told mid May then late May.
If you have tried to work out the formula they may use from written material it is complicated if not impossible.
What they have published indicates that significant changes in what people pay will occur.
If you have more than every second weekend (Friday to Monday) and half the holidays then you are likely to get a reduction. At this level or less you will probably pay more.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 5th June 2013 @ 12:04 pm
The formula so far is impossible which begs the quesion how to put out a calculator? You need to know what the IRD will consider income of the princible carer and are they going to give that information to the paying parent? Not bloody likely, this new system will have every one under review!.
Comment by Too Tired — Thu 6th June 2013 @ 10:03 pm
Mr Dunne’s office is blaming the Commissioner for the non-appearance of the calculator and you are right Too Tired I can’t see how it can be done despite their assurances.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 8:52 am
Seems to me another Nova Pay in the making.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th June 2013 @ 10:57 am
The new system is a crock! It will not make any difference to my partners situation a his ex’s wont allow him to see his children. Child tax should be based on a 40hr week and no more! they would probably find people would do more overtime if they knew it wouldn’t be stolen by IRD child tax…in all would better for paying parents, employers, IRD all round. More people would do overtime, paying parents would have money to get on with their lives and IRD would probably collect more as more people would probably be wiling to pay.
Comment by Nickstar — Thu 25th July 2013 @ 10:13 pm
Nickstar on my calculations most people in your partners situation are likely to pay a little more child support.
Personally I can’t see how your 40 hr a week proposal would work on a long term basis but the IRD like it enough to implement”re-establishment costs” as part of the new regime but for a short time only.
Comment by allan harvey — Fri 26th July 2013 @ 9:01 am
Calculator worked for me. Massive reduction in child support looming…. swweeeeeettt!!!!!
Comment by OMG I'm Sweet!!! — Fri 26th July 2013 @ 4:44 pm
How do you get your results from the new calculator? For me it just keeps coming up zero
Comment by maladaptive — Sat 27th July 2013 @ 1:51 pm
are you inputting correctly? Its straight forward enough …
Comment by OMG I'm Sweet!!! — Sat 27th July 2013 @ 5:51 pm
Could someone explain how can the IRD estimate earning capabilities is that person is actually not earning such level ?
If I earn $80k, how could the IRD believe I should earn $120k potentially ?
Also, does anyone understand the definition of income from 2016 ? Looks like anyone with a business will see its income based on not his salary/wage but its business income. How does that work ? Especially if you need cash for Capex or debt repayment. Cheers
Comment by GreatFather — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 7:17 pm
You answered your own question, GreatFather. “potentially”.
IRD don’t give a toss about actuals, or business expenditure. Once they fixate on your ‘potential’ – usually based on a past ‘actual’, plus annual adjustments, then that’s your ‘potential. They then ignore inconveniences such as business collapse, disability, redundancy, etc etc. These are all apparently ‘lifestyle choices’, which they essentially interpret as you evading your CS ‘potential’. Hence they stick to their calculation of ‘potential’.
Comment by OMG! You're )*&^()&(90) — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 8:17 pm
Thank you for your comment. I am not currently in a CS situation but I am expecting this to come to me soon from my ex.
I have been reading a few comments. it seems surreal all these feedbacks.
The new definition of Income from 2016 is going to affect a lot of people. I just can not understand it. The one that gets me is taking into account business income. Don’t they take into account a business actually needs cash to re-invest, spent capex, etc and that all profits are not for the owners. May be I am not reading the new definition correctly.
Comment by GreatFather — Wed 17th September 2014 @ 9:36 pm