Administrative review
Originally when my ex wife and I split we had two houses. One was the family home and the other, a rental we co- owned with my ex brother in law.We also had additional debts that my ex had raked up. So when I decided to keep the family home and my ex, took the half share in the other home. I took on the extra burden of a much larger mortgage and took on much of the additional debt. Primarily so the children could come home to familiar surroundings. This was when we had a week about arrangement for child care. Unfortunately both children have since been brainwashed by their mother and mother in- law. And I no longer have custody and haven’t seen my children for over a year.
Ground 9
You are the paying parent and the assessment does not take into account that you have previously made payments, transfers or property settlements for the benefit of the child.
Does anyone know how I would approach this in a administrative review? Or if it is in fact even worth even attempting to challenge?
Almost certainly it is not worth your while.
IRD’s admin Review officer will say you made appropriate settlement of relationship assets in a property settlement.
For whatever reason (ie they don’t care) you retained the family home. If that means you have high mortgage commitments that was your choice. They might even, “helpfully”, suggest if you sold the home and lived in shared accommodation or a boarding house then meeting your child support obligations would be easier.
If you read this Ms IRD Officer perhaps you could add my name to your pool of Review officers.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 21st May 2015 @ 5:27 pm
check out my web site for details on how to best deal with this….
frameblame.org
Some good news on the PENALTY front – I can only hope that finally some of my complaints have been acknowledged and now we are seeing change for the better for PARENTS……finally this is good policy …..to help move this horrible situation forward…..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/budget-2015/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503822&objectid=11452710
Comment by hornet — Fri 22nd May 2015 @ 10:08 am
Agree but they are only writing off 1.7 out of 2.5 billion from what I can see, tough if yours is part of the .8 billion that doesn’t get written off. And remember this is a government move, not an IRD move so if the government changes or IRD decides to dig their heels in it may not even be that much. Never forget either that much of what this government promises is just PR and gets quietly forgotten once the spotlight moves elsewhere. But let’s be hopeful, it’s potentially good news at last!
Comment by Doug — Fri 22nd May 2015 @ 12:12 pm
Scrap and I were given a heads up about this from Todd McClay a few weeks back.
Lots is to be decided but basically if you are entering into a payment arrangement you can expect all penalties to fall away both 10% initial penalties (this is new) and 2% a month interest penalties (this is not new).
The idea is to provide no disincentive to comply and hence get more Child Support paid.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 22nd May 2015 @ 6:03 pm
That’s not going to help the hundreds of men who have been screwed over in other ways – like the ex lying to the IRD.
I am wondering if the difference between the write-off is what the IRD can reasonable expect to recover from men who are in a reasonable financial position.
The upside is that it might reduce the male suicide rate.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 25th May 2015 @ 5:19 pm
Of course if you leave the too hard to recover alone you increase those figures to assist in reducing retirement benefits for men.
When isn’t it a win-win situation for the IRD?
Comment by Downunder — Mon 25th May 2015 @ 5:22 pm
That would be my guess.
The thing about the child support “debt” is that it isn’t a debt. A genuine debt has a genuine prospect of repayment; someone loans you money in the expectation of getting it back, plus a bit. You can treat a genuine debt as an asset.
The child support debt is nothing like that. Instead of an agreement entered into by both sides, with both seeing an advantage, and with an understood way to get the repayments, we have one side simply declaring that they are “owed”. No agreement has been entered into.
The reason they say it is “owed” is that they can then, by sleight of mouth, misrepresent it further as “owed to the children” and so engage our protective instincts and disable any rational criticism.
The danger to the government is that they have this large amount on their books that appears to be an asset, but isn’t. It encourages them to spend what they don’t actually have; and when the inevitable time comes to pay up, they discover they are trying to extract what just isn’t there, no matter how much viciousness they apply to the extraction.
All long term liars face this danger; of believing your own lies.
Comment by Ted — Tue 26th May 2015 @ 10:08 am
Oh so I’m keen to hear a Ted talk on the fact taxation is not debt.
Child Support is clearly taxation but given IRD are a pretty impressive debt collection service they normally get the payments they demand.
The Minister is quite clear there is nothing being written off here. No debt amnesty is planned. What is being offered is start repayments of the assessed child support and as that is paid then IRD will forgive old penalties that have been applied to the “legacy debt”.
It is a way to encourage repayments, to help payers re-engage and not be turned off by the impossible situation that IRD’s current penalty regime sets up.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 26th May 2015 @ 12:55 pm