Australian Politics General...

[mullokintyre]

Distraction anyone?
I am deeply sceptical of the whole issue.
If this is true, why has the politician who cannot be named not been charged?
Keeps all the other crap off the airwaves.
I smell the odour of a decaying rodent.
mick

Watching the Antics of the ASIO head, various politicians amd media experts on the news last night, I am still leaning to the bull**** theory on this one.
Why did Burgess bring this up if , according to him, he is not in a position to name names?
Is he so dumb to expect that their would not be a reaction?
All the coalition heavyweights(plus a slew of lightweights) have been lining up demanding that the guvmint name names.
As if he did not expect that reaction!
Would there be any possibility that ASIO is looking for more funds to "fight this new scourge" of foreign interference?
Yes, I am a cynical bastard, but I reckon I have every reason to be so!
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Watching the Antics of the ASIO head, various politicians amd media experts on the news last night, I am still leaning to the bull**** theory on this one.
Why did Burgess bring this up if , according to him, he is not in a position to name names?
Is he so dumb to expect that their would not be a reaction?
All the coalition heavyweights(plus a slew of lightweights) have been lining up demanding that the guvmint name names.
As if he did not expect that reaction!
Would there be any possibility that ASIO is looking for more funds to "fight this new scourge" of foreign interference?
Yes, I am a cynical bastard, but I reckon I have every reason to be so!
Mick

Great hand grenade lobbed out there is it money or government weren't re-acting to the issue?

 

[sptrawler]

Watching the Antics of the ASIO head, various politicians amd media experts on the news last night, I am still leaning to the bull**** theory on this one.
Why did Burgess bring this up if , according to him, he is not in a position to name names?
Is he so dumb to expect that their would not be a reaction?
All the coalition heavyweights(plus a slew of lightweights) have been lining up demanding that the guvmint name names.
As if he did not expect that reaction!
Would there be any possibility that ASIO is looking for more funds to "fight this new scourge" of foreign interference?
Yes, I am a cynical bastard, but I reckon I have every reason to be so!
Mick

It certainly was a weird play.

 

[SirRumpole]

Would there be any possibility that ASIO is looking for more funds to "fight this new scourge" of foreign interference?

That's possible, he may be just firing a warning shot at politicians saying no-one is immune.

You can bet the media will be at this like a dog with a bone. All sorts of rumour and innuendo with be flying around.

 

[farmerge]

It certainly was a weird play.

What I have trouble understanding is IF he knows who the politician is then why isn't he/she been called out.
Or is the old school tie being called into play here??

 

[sptrawler]

What I have trouble understanding is IF he knows who the politician is then why isn't he/she been called out.
Or is the old school tie being called into play here??

Well it certainly blows the transparency narrative, right out of the water.

I realise it may put the ex politician in an embarrasing position, but being a publicly elected figure that comes with the territory and they should be aware of that when they made their choices.

The fact is the ex politician may well have used his public persona, to influence investors in their decission making and they probably deserve to be made aware of that IMO.

 

[Ferret]

What I have trouble understanding is IF he knows who the politician is then why isn't he/she been called out.

I guess they don't have evidence that will stand up in court.

You can't go around accusing someone without evidence. That's defamation/libel.

Whoever it is then gets a lovely payout at the taxpayers' expense. That seems to be how the system works.

 

[mullokintyre]

I guess they don't have evidence that will stand up in court.

You can't go around accusing someone without evidence. That's defamation/libel.

Whoever it is then gets a lovely payout at the taxpayers' expense. That seems to be how the system works.

if they don't have any evidence that will stand up in court, why bring it up?
Is it because it was obtained illegally- as in a non sanctioned wire tap?
Was it from an "unreliable source" like maybe the Steele Dossier - after all, Alexander Downer was a part to it - perhaps it was him?
I still think burgess has kicked a big own goal here.
He will just have to squirm a bit longer.
Mick

 

[farmerge]

if they don't have any evidence that will stand up in court, why bring it up?
Is it because it was obtained illegally- as in a non sanctioned wire tap?
Was it from an "unreliable source" like maybe the Steele Dossier - after all, Alexander Downer was a part to it - perhaps it was him?
I still think burgess has kicked a big own goal here.
He will just have to squirm a bit longer.
Mick

@mullokintyre seems to be a lot of flag waving and look at me, how good I am I to bring to everyone's attention, it's just to whet the appetite because this is all I can say, utter b/s

 

[sptrawler]

The Higgins Lehrmann case still giving, this has to be made into a mini series, doesn't it?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03...ettlement-defamatory-act-government/103540966

The ACT government has paid Senator Linda Reynolds $90,000 and issued an apology for comments made by former director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold.

 

[sptrawler]

But wait, there is more, in the Lehrmann/ Higgins case.

Cops’ threat to sue Drumgold over letter​

A group of police officers are threatening to sue ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold over comments made in the wake of the aborted Bruce Lehrmann trial.


Meanwhile at the mediation between Higgins/ Sharaz and Reynolds, it has all become too much.

Mediation talks between Linda Reynolds, Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz postponed

Reynolds said she proposed a fortnight’s pause in the defamation case after ‘a tiring and difficult day’ of discussions on Tuesday

www.theguardian.com

Mediation between Linda Reynolds, Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz is due to resume in coming weeks after initial talks failed, the supreme court of Western Australia has said.

Reynolds said she had proposed a fortnight’s pause in her defamation case after what she called a “a tiring and difficult day” of discussions on Tuesday. Higgins reportedly attended hospital after Tuesday’s proceedings, which lasted more than nine hours. A further conference scheduled for Wednesday was abandoned.

 

[moXJO]

if they don't have any evidence that will stand up in court, why bring it up?
Is it because it was obtained illegally- as in a non sanctioned wire tap?
Was it from an "unreliable source" like maybe the Steele Dossier - after all, Alexander Downer was a part to it - perhaps it was him?
I still think burgess has kicked a big own goal here.
He will just have to squirm a bit longer.
Mick

Most likely shaking the tree to see what falls out.

 

[sptrawler]

I just can't believe this story. The ATO sending out hundreds/thousands of debt letters for old, small totally unclear possible tax debts. Seems like a public relations disaster with SFA financial return for the office.

I'm all for taking a close view at organizations and tax fraud. There must be plenty of low hanging fruit around. But seems just bizarre.

Robotax: retiree pursued by ATO for five-year-old tax on deceased father’s estate​

Letter asking for payment of more than $800 has the hallmarks of tax agency’s recent mass mail-out in pursuit of historical debts

• Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
• Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast

Jonathan Barrett
@barrett_ink
Thu 21 Dec 2023 01.00 AEDTLast modified on Thu 21 Dec 2023 07.05 AEDT

More than five years after her father died, a Canberra retiree received a notice from the Australian Taxation Office concerning an outstanding debt for the estate.
The deceased estate, which had been finalised years earlier, can “avoid future debt collection action” if it pays the arrears of more than $800, the letter warned.

There was almost no other information in the ATO letter, other than that the debt is related to income tax.
The retiree, who asked for her name not to be published, described the letter’s tone as “passive aggressive”. But it is the long time period between her father’s passing and receiving the debt letter that she found most troubling.

• 
  “My father has been dead for five years so we were understandably shocked and upset,” she said.“They are obviously using these letters as a catch-all to really frighten some people and many people would just go and pay it.

View attachment 167603
Robotax: why thousands of Australians are receiving tax debt notices dating back up to 15 years
Read more
“But the letter doesn’t even clarify where the debt comes from.”

Over the past several weeks, Guardian Australia has documented numerous cases of people being abruptly advised by the tax office that they have debts that will be extracted from future tax refunds and credits.

The ATO describes the debts as “on-hold” because it does not demand immediate repayment. After the recipient of a letter calls the ATO, they are usually informed the debts are historical.

The surge in recent activity stems from a recent change in ATO policy to pursue thousands of debts that are old, small or previously deemed uneconomical to chase.

While the deceased estate letter is part of a separate debt recovery program to the mass mail-out, it has all the same hallmarks, in that it concerns an old debt that was previously put aside before being recently resurrected.

Robotax: retiree pursued by ATO for five-year-old tax on deceased father’s estate

Letter asking for payment of more than $800 has the hallmarks of tax agency’s recent mass mail-out in pursuit of historical debts

www.theguardian.com

Robodebt still alive and kicking? As I said at the time Bas, if people think data matching and computerised debt collecting by the ATO is over, tell them they are dreaming.

'The Tax Office wants to take my family home': New debt collection strategy leaves taxpayers like Adriana 'inconsolable'

The Tax Office is owed tens of billions of dollars worth of income tax debts it once dismissed as being "uneconomical to pursue". It's a shock for many taxpayers to now have the debts resurrected, in some cases after more than a decade.

www.abc.net.au

She had worked through years of therapy, finally got a mortgage for a new home, and started her own business.

But she says the tax office has now derailed her life by hitting her with an alleged tax debt dating back to the 2008-09 financial year — a debt she never knew existed.

"I'm devastated, absolutely devastated; inconsolable," Ms Carrington tells ABC News.
"After so many years, it makes it so hard, because you've got to go back through historical documents that you do not have … it's an absolutely terrible thing."

The ATO sent hundreds of thousands of Australians letters late last year alerting them, or their tax agents, that they have historical tax debts, causing many people like Ms Carrington confusion and distress.

In 2015 the ATO deemed the 2008 debt – which at the time was about $15,000 — as "uneconomical to pursue".

And in 2016, her accountant told her this debt had been effectively written off and she didn't need to worry about it.

While the debt still theoretically exists, typically the ATO doesn't pursue debts that are deemed "uneconomical to pursue" because it's more costly for the agency to chase them down than to write them off.

But, last year, the ATO resurrected Ms Carrington's debt, along with alleged debts belonging to thousands of other Australians.

These debts had effectively disappeared and then reappeared many years later, along with hefty interest charges.

The ATO has said it was owed more than $15 billion from 1.8 million entities, largely consisting of individuals, but that this figure could be higher once interest is applied to those debts.

It did not say how much higher, but Ms Carrington has so far been hit with interest charges amounting to double the value of the original debt, and the claimed debt is now $34,000 and still growing.

 

[SirRumpole]

Most people would be under the impression that as you only have to keep tax records for 5 years, that would be the "statute of limitations" for tax debt.

If the ATO hasn't bothered collecting debts in that time then they should not be entitled to dredge them up again.

It's an abuse of power in my humble opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

Most people would be under the impression that as you only have to keep tax records for 5 years, that would be the "statute of limitations" for tax debt.

If the ATO hasn't bothered collecting debts in that time then they should not be entitled to dredge them up again.

It's an abuse of power in my humble opinion.

The ATO rules are different to most a debt to the ATO is like tax evasion, I know with the daughters issue I just paid the money, the ATO don't stop chasing and I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations involved.

I think with the Robodebt issue and all the media attention it got, a lot of people thought that the debts would be swept under the carpet, that doesn't happen with the ATO from my experience.

 

[basilio]

Robodebt still alive and kicking? As I said at the time Bas, if people think data matching and computerised debt collecting by the ATO is over, tell them they are dreaming.

'The Tax Office wants to take my family home': New debt collection strategy leaves taxpayers like Adriana 'inconsolable'

The Tax Office is owed tens of billions of dollars worth of income tax debts it once dismissed as being "uneconomical to pursue". It's a shock for many taxpayers to now have the debts resurrected, in some cases after more than a decade.

www.abc.net.au

She had worked through years of therapy, finally got a mortgage for a new home, and started her own business.

But she says the tax office has now derailed her life by hitting her with an alleged tax debt dating back to the 2008-09 financial year — a debt she never knew existed.

"I'm devastated, absolutely devastated; inconsolable," Ms Carrington tells ABC News.
"After so many years, it makes it so hard, because you've got to go back through historical documents that you do not have … it's an absolutely terrible thing."

The ATO sent hundreds of thousands of Australians letters late last year alerting them, or their tax agents, that they have historical tax debts, causing many people like Ms Carrington confusion and distress.

In 2015 the ATO deemed the 2008 debt – which at the time was about $15,000 — as "uneconomical to pursue".

And in 2016, her accountant told her this debt had been effectively written off and she didn't need to worry about it.

While the debt still theoretically exists, typically the ATO doesn't pursue debts that are deemed "uneconomical to pursue" because it's more costly for the agency to chase them down than to write them off.

But, last year, the ATO resurrected Ms Carrington's debt, along with alleged debts belonging to thousands of other Australians.

These debts had effectively disappeared and then reappeared many years later, along with hefty interest charges.

The ATO has said it was owed more than $15 billion from 1.8 million entities, largely consisting of individuals, but that this figure could be higher once interest is applied to those debts.

It did not say how much higher, but Ms Carrington has so far been hit with interest charges amounting to double the value of the original debt, and the claimed debt is now $34,000 and still growing.

Ugly, sad, stupid story. The optics and the reality of the ATO chasing a woman for a 16 year old debt incurred by her ex which is now doubled in cost becasue of their penalties and interest charges is ridiculous.

I don't believe the ATO wants to be chasing this sort of debt. The gov and the ATO need to sort out this out quickly..

 

[basilio]

Something you don't see often in politics...

Jim Chalmers also revealed plans to reappoint the treasury secretary, Steven Kennedy, for another five-year stint once his term ends in September. “I thank and pay tribute to my Liberal predecessor for appointing someone of Steven’s calibre, someone who has served both sides of politics with diligence and distinction,” the treasurer said.

“We want to provide some certainty and stability here, we have a lot of important work on the go, so we are starting the [re-appointment] process now.”

Don’t expect a ‘big cash splash’ in this year’s budget, Jim Chalmers tells taxpayers

Treasurer says falling iron ore prices and a weaker labour market mean the large upgrades to revenue seen in the last two budgets will not be repeated

www.theguardian.com

 

[Belli]

Most people would be under the impression that as you only have to keep tax records for 5 years, that would be the "statute of limitations" for tax debt.

If the ATO hasn't bothered collecting debts in that time then they should not be entitled to dredge them up again.

It's an abuse of power in my humble opinion.

Although many people think so that is not the case unfortunately. The statute of limitations is State law. The obligation on the Commonwealth is governed by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It imposes a positive obligation on the Commissioner of Taxation to pursue a tax debt. It doesn't have the actual power to write off the debt. However, the ATO has no obligation to pursue recovery of a debt at all costs. If it is satisfied it is not legally recoverable or uneconomic to follow it up, it can cease debt recovery.

Just because the ATO stops chasing or the debt no longer appears on your account does not mean the debt will not reappear when circumstances change.

It's morally wrong but not legally wrong.

I hope those impacted can find pro bono lawyers to assist them or a form of class action is raised to possibly amend the relevant legislation.

 

[Belli]

I forgot to mention @SirRumpole there is a difference between write off and waiver. It's only a technical thing but I feel it can help with understanding.

"Write off" stops recovery action either for a defined or an undefined period. At any time, the write off can be reversed and recovery proceedings begun where circumstances change. Unlike a "waiver," write off does not extinguish the debt.

Waiver of debt is discretionary and there is no situation which creates and automatic waiver. That is the position of the Department of Finance. And don't forget Departmental accounts can be audited and woe betide if a formal audit questions why certain actions are taken and there is no satisfactory answer.

Although the Act I quoted is the overall provision, most other legislation also have sections related to debt recovery and writing off debt.

I'm not an apologist in these matters. I'm only providing a view on why a specific approach isn't automatically taken even when you or I think it's the right thing to do.

 

[sptrawler]

Although many people think so that is not the case unfortunately. The statute of limitations is State law. The obligation on the Commonwealth is governed by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It imposes a positive obligation on the Commissioner of Taxation to pursue a tax debt. It doesn't have the actual power to write off the debt. However, the ATO has no obligation to pursue recovery of a debt at all costs. If it is satisfied it is not legally recoverable or uneconomic to follow it up, it can cease debt recovery.

Just because the ATO stops chasing or the debt no longer appears on your account does not mean the debt will not reappear when circumstances change.

It's morally wrong but not legally wrong.

I hope those impacted can find pro bono lawyers to assist them or a form of class action is raised to possibly amend the relevant legislation.

Well written @Belli , explained perfectly, I found out first hand in 1982 that the ATO is black and white, very little grey.

When I thought I had given a terrific explanation why I couldn't at that point in time pay my tax bill and how it was due to tragic circumstances beyond my control, they were very understanding and said I could waive it as long as I liked, but it would incur interest at the standard rate. Lol