The Tax Woman and the Csar
Recent changes to the Child Support Tax Act gave the Tax woman the legal mechanism to initiate an administrative reviews against parents.
The Tax woman calls them Commissioner Initiated Administrative Reviews abbreviated to C.I.A.R (Pronounced Csar like the autocrat) .
First you will receive a letter like this.
Dear Mr XXXX,
COMMISSIONER INITIATED ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION
CIAR CASE NUMBER:
I write to advise that your case has been selected for a possible Commissioner Initiated Administrative Review (CIAR).
A recent change to the law allows us to initiate such a review if after reviewing a paying parent’s financial position, we consider the child support they have been assessed to pay,does not reflect their ability to provide financial support for their children.
The enclosed booklet Helping you to understand reviews (IR175),
explains how the process works (refer to pages 29 to 33), including what involvement the custodial parent has in the second stage of the process.
Current child support payments
Your current child support assessment is calculated based on your income for the child support year ended XXXX
Table of Child Tax Payments (as assessed)
If you consider your liability has not been calculated correctly in terms of the formula,(for instance, your living allowance is incorrect), please let me know as soon as possible.
Establishing your current financial position
So that your financial position may be established, please complete the enclosed questionnaire advising of your current financial position and return it to me by (date) in the enclosed envelope. If you think you will have any difficulty meeting this time frame, please let me know.
This information will help us decide if your case is suitable for a CIAR.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me on 0800 486 666 extension xxxx
Included with this letter will be a 5 page form that the Tax woman asks you to “please complete.”
These forms are nothing more than a “fishing expedition”. Its euphemistically titled ” Details of Current Financial Position Questionnaire ” . IRD can obtain all the information without you making it easy for them to hang you. For your information I would not complete the form.
Peter Dunne, Minister Responsible for Child Support and United Future leader is responsible for Child Tax , pushed CIAR Reviews through Parliament. REMINDING you Peter!
Speaking of United Future while trumpeting shared parenting they fail to comprehend that without a fair and reasonable child support system it simply cant work.
In fact the their Made in New Zealand discussion document portrays the party view of paying parents parents.
The child support system in New Zealand exists to try and ensure that parents fulfill at least part of their parental responsibilities for the sake of their children. It is not an area that the state enjoys adjudicating over. However, it is a necessary intervention when separated parents? cannot reach their own agreements.
Untrue : If a “custodial parent” is on the DPB then the Tax is collected by your Tax minions for “benefit recovery” or spousal maintenance. Its nothing to do with supporting children.
One of the difficulties that the child support system faces is the growing number of registered cases that it is involved with, and the associated challenges of growing child support debt.Inland Revenue has put a great deal of effort into collecting child support debt over the past five years. In 2002 just over $31 million of debt was collected. In 2006 this figure was more
than double at $67.6 million. However the growth in debt is rising faster than it can be collected which is a serious concern for IRD.
You know why Peter! The system is fundamentally flawed and creates the debt and you dont want to fix it. Your obsessed with compliance not fairness. In case you have forgotten we are coming to your electorate to REMIND you.
Formula and rules for child support will always be a balancing act between what liable and custodial parents? would like to see happen. Having said that, one way to encourage compliance within any system is to try and create a perception that such a system is as fair and reasonable as possible.
Be real Peter its about what your officials want and you don’t care about what parents want. You promised that your officals would consult on shared parenting and child support but have we ever heard from them? No.
Bit like ignoring Kiwis as you did over section 59 you don’t listen to parents you know best
Australia has had many of the same challenges as New Zealand and has made changes in an effort to recognise time and money spent by liable parents with their children. Now the Australian system caps payment obligations above certain income levels.
Well their used to be a cap but I am certain that Hansard shows that United Future (all at the time) voted for its removal.
Do you forget telling us that it would cost too much revenue to implement similar changes to Austrailia?
The language of this document tells it all United Future sees parents separated from their children in terms of liability and custody not as equal parents.
Dont worry Peter we will REMIND you and your electorate of how Family Unfriendly you are. We will REMIND them of your role as a political chameleon. We will remind them that you are a Tui ad politician.