admin (20-03-19),eaglem (09-03-19),enf (08-03-19),irritant (09-03-19),Keith (09-03-19),LeroyPatrol (08-03-19),OSIRUS (20-03-19),Tiny (08-03-19),VroomVroom (11-03-19)
Just want to write to give a heads up to all taxpayers on here, this has just happened to me but if it has happened to one then I'm sure its happened/happening to thousands.
I received a letter today from the ATO saying that I owe them approx. $820 from my 2016-2017 Tax Assessment as I had claimed my wife's half of the Private Health Rebate, before I explain, I will outline the circumstances;
I work full time, my wife doesn't work, and never has. I pay for private health cover both Hospital and Extras for us both but don't claim the rebate up front but rather claim at tax time, and for years have claimed for both her share and mine.
I contacted the ATO Call Centre where I spoke to a woman there, outlined what was in the letter (of course she had a copy on her screen anyway) and explained that they are incorrect, that I am entitled to claim my wife's share of the rebate as she doesn't work. This is where it gets interesting, she disagreed, told me the mistake was I should have put "Tax Claim Code E" and not "Tax Claim Code D", I explained that "Code E" means my wife is claiming my share of the rebate (which of course she isn't) and that I would in fact have to pay back another $820 on top of what they are already claiming I owe if I was to amend my return, we disagreed for several minutes, I asked several times for the issue to be escalated until she finally agreed to speak with somebody, so on hold I go for several more minutes.
When she finally gets back to me, she admits I haven't done anything wrong, that I am correct, "Code D" is the correct code for claiming my wife's share of the rebate, and that my Return for 2016-2017 was correct and that the case will be closed and a letter written to say as such.
Now the excuse given for me receiving the letter, bearing in mind that this just comes from a call centre worker, is that there is an issue with the Data Matching system where it doesn't recognise the fact that my wife doesn't work!!!
So I ask how many thousands of people would be in a situation where their Spouse doesn't work but they do, they pay Private Health cover and claim the rebate for themselves and their spouse? How many have received a letter like mine?
I don't want this thread to be a debate about the pros and cons of a rebate or Private Health Cover or Call centres for that matter, I am interested if this has happened to anybody else in similar circumstances or if others have similar/same circumstances and have received nothing.
As I said, if they have tried it on with one, how many more thousands are falling foul of the same issue.
Cheers
Ted (Al)
admin (20-03-19),eaglem (09-03-19),enf (08-03-19),irritant (09-03-19),Keith (09-03-19),LeroyPatrol (08-03-19),OSIRUS (20-03-19),Tiny (08-03-19),VroomVroom (11-03-19)
Look Here -> |
There is no way to know Al. And I hope it is the end of the matter.
But don't be surprised if there is a duplicate letter on the way soon. Large gov't departments quite often have two arms doing this shit. ATO data matching has been going on for eons, going back to before I was last in government employ (not ATO), and that was 2001. It's what happens when computers are the be all and end all of decision making.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Not so much here now DM. Job shedding and outsourcing have removed many humans from the payroll, and replaced them with workstations occupied by the odd human. Thus the computer controlled false saving means less training for the human and therefore less decision making.
Too much outcry about personnel by a largely ignorant public led to too many job losses and the use of technology to take up the slack...
It is what it is.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Sounds a bit like the centrelink debt recovery with computers sending out the letters to people who are innocent. Is the gov getting desperate for funds?
Yes Leroy, and no. Well, not this government specifically but the ATO itself which rolls through whatever government is screwing us over. Seen desperate for funds? Wait till the next fools take over.
This has been going on for 20 years or so, maybe more. The reason it has come to our attention is Al has been flagged by a mindless computer.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
That's how the govt makes up their "shortfall" send this sort of crap out to thousands and wait for the money to start rolling in, because nobody knows that the govt have stuffed up......again
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
irritant (15-03-19)
Oh crap, I shouldn't have read this
Cheers
Ted (Al)
irritant (15-03-19)
So basically the court has said that at ny time the ATO can effectively change their mind about what you do or don't owe, despite them giving you written advice prior.
There was mention in the article that as there was no "mental" decision involved then the letter was deemed to be incorrect. Does this mean then that any letter automatically generated by the ATO systems may now be safely ignored by us punters. A precedent has now been set, so in my mind any automated correspondence from ATO should be considered void until it is proven to be correct.
Yeah, we need DB44 for this one, the way I'm reading it Gov departments can't be held accountable for computer generated errors and if that is the case I think we are all f#cked. I don't know how they can make such a decision, I agree with Justice Kerr who said in his dissenting judgement "the majority's decision "would turn on its head fundamental principles of administrative law" and cause "confusion" for Australian taxpayers."
Amen to that but does us no good....
Cheers
Ted (Al)
Confusion is their bread and butter....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
irritant (09-03-19)
Oh F#ck!!!
Last edited by Al Bundy; 19-03-19 at 07:58 PM. Reason: Stuffed the image up
Cheers
Ted (Al)
enf (19-03-19)
Al Bundy (19-03-19)
Appeal
Talk to your local liar (politician)
Al Bundy (21-03-19)
Only just read this thread. I won't comment until I read the full Federal Court decision. I've just opened a nice coldie so as alluring as the prospect may be of reading a tax case, I'll pass for the moment. But I will get to it. Any day now.
Yes, correct, but the exclamation was for what I received compared to the bloke in enf’s link, no signature in the signature block, in other words after the High Courts majority decision, not worth the paper it’s printed on, just another computer generated piece of useless rubbish.
I actually certainly hope not, I think the letter I received was pretty clear, and even apologising for the “inconvenience”, but I had to argue like hell before they would even start to listen, it shouldn’t be like that, but nevertheless it is.
Last edited by Al Bundy; 21-03-19 at 04:53 AM.
Cheers
Ted (Al)
Bookmarks