The logical implication...
... must be that the ATO cannot unfreeze Plutus' accounts because of a software glitch, which a contractor was supposed to have fixed this week.
Australian Taxation Office named as party preventing IT contractors being paid
Plutus Payroll has named the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as the party with which it is in dispute and ostensibly the reason it has been unable to pay hundreds of contractors owed weeks of pay, as The Register has reported earlier this week. An email sent to contractors and seen by The Register on Friday evening (Australia …
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 16:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
But the ATO would notify first.
In a letter sent by standard mail from their office in the UK or some other unlikely place. Plutus might get the letter next week.
All tax departments work from the same crib sheet (we received a tax notice that was posted 3 days after the due date).
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 15:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
This is literally true. The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has its own court system, and you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Hope you've saved every scrap of money-related paper for the last seven years....
And the IRS are a bunch of friendly lapdogs compared to the State of California. The IRS can be draconian, but they'll work with you (maybe not fine you quite into starvation) if they think you're genuinely trying to comply with a tax code so complex that there is literally no human being on the planet that understands it all. California, on the other hand, gives zero fucks.
-
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 06:20 GMT Pompous Git
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
"Authorities like to have bully power when it comes to squeezing the peasants, bugger pesky due process.."
Back in the late 90s we had provisional tax for self-employed people such as myself. The ATO sent me a bill for ~90% of my anticipated income for the forthcoming year. That was rather more than I could afford to pay so they levied interest on the unpaid amount. Come the end of financial year, the ATO refunded the "overpayment" I had made, but kept the interest on the extra I had "owed" them. They are complete and utter bastards.
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 21:05 GMT Orv
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
The irony is the political reaction to IRS overreach has been to continually cut their funding...which just ensures the only people they go after will be individuals and small businesses, since they no longer can afford the staff to audit large companies.
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 18:24 GMT bombastic bob
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
"We once had a corporate charter suspended without warning for failing to pay a $25 annual filing fee."
that's no joke, either. actually, for small corporations in Cali-fornicate-you, there are a handfull of little things like this, including the $800/year minimum tax, whether your profitable or not.
So after hearing that the bank accounts were 'frozen' (allegedly?) it looks like they'll need an order from a judge to pay the contractors what they're owed out of that. yeah, governmentium obstructing common sense. it sounds plausible enough to believe without question.
this entire situation deserves one gigantic FACEPALM
-
-
-
Monday 8th May 2017 08:05 GMT Abacus
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
@ Truckle The Uncivil
"The Australian Tax Authorities charge interest on money they think you owe them. When it turns out they were wrong you still have to pay the interest even if it is more than the original (negated) sum."
No, they don't. Being an Australian tax agent with 30 years in the industry, I can assure you, and any other commentards reading this, that you are talking out of your arse. The overcharged interest is reversed, in full. If it isn't, get yourself another tax agent.
-
Monday 8th May 2017 10:08 GMT Pompous Git
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
"Being an Australian tax agent with 30 years in the industry, I can assure you, and any other commentards reading this, that you are talking out of your arse. The overcharged interest is reversed, in full. If it isn't, get yourself another tax agent."
Er... my tax agent was myself. While I occasionally talk to myself it tends to become a little boring. Not to put too fine a point on this, the ATO effectively told me to fuck off when I asked about the excessive interest charges. Indeed, they told me to fuck off when I told them I had no intention of earning (or attempting to earn) the ridiculous amount they had decided I was going to earn.
-
-
-
Monday 8th May 2017 03:14 GMT aberglas
Re: We OBVIOUSLY are missing big chunks of the story. . .
Australia is not (quite) the USA (yet).
Unburdened by any Bill of Rights, we have never had slavery. Nor do we have the US civil forfeiture laws in which police can arbitrarily steal people's money. Nor the extreme plea bargaining against draconian laws.
It is very rare for the ATO to freeze assets. So there is probably more to this than disclaimed. And it will go to court in a few days, unlike the USA.
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 11:03 GMT iLurker
If the contractors have any sense - one who is properly incorporated can employ the rest and take over the business, be paid by customers and pay the other contractors. The contractors might lose a few weeks pay but that's a heck of a lot better than waiting many months - years possibly - for the court process to drag out.
Australian courts are incredibly slow to reach obvious conclusions.
-
Friday 5th May 2017 12:19 GMT Chris G
I don't know about the Oz tax people but in Spain they freeze your accounts and then tell you, basing their action on the fact that if you have notice you may take the money out and do a runner.
They will also go to court to get an 'embargo ' take money from your account and then send you a letter to inform you. Town councils can do it too.
-
Friday 5th May 2017 13:04 GMT Stevie
Bah!
I worked for an agency for years which routinely "forgot" to pass on Social Security taxes it withheld from the consultants's wages. I only found out because I turned 50 the year I started with them and so received a report of my payments/expected retirement benefits.
When I told the others they ranged from "who cares" to sending demands to the agency. I went a different route and contacted the SSA who in turn told me to simply send a copy of my year end witholdings (W2) to them and they'd correct the records. This became a yearly ritual, and I often wondered why none of the Company Officers ever got pulled in to explain these discrepancies.
Years after I left them, people are finally doing time for the shenanigans.
But I still wonder what took so long. The scam was stupidy blatant.
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 17:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
The tax issue may explain how they were able to do it
It is obviously impossible for a payroll processing company to not charge for its services, which should have been a huge red flag to anyone dumb enough to sign up with them. The only way they could make money and be a viable business is to 1) steal money or 2) steal personal information to sell to criminals.
Looks like they might have been pocketing the taxes they were supposed to be sending to the ATO, figuring they'd flee the country once they were caught. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the owner(s) are long gone, as is the money owed the ATO.
-
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 06:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The tax issue may explain how they were able to do it
How much money can they make holding onto money for say a week or two before paying, at today's interest rates? Nowhere near enough to pay for the salaries of people, building rent, etc.
Sorry, there is a reason this is the only no-charge payroll processor anyone has ever heard of.
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 07:38 GMT Pompous Git
Re: The tax issue may explain how they were able to do it
@ DougS
I believe in the earlier thread there was mention of other income streams the business has. Think of loss-leaders in supermarkets. Or my offering a 15% discount for payment up front when I was contracting for that matter. There's no way I'd have made up the difference on 30 day invoices. But I did solve my cash-flow problem.
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 13:04 GMT Roland6
Re: The tax issue may explain how they were able to do it
>How much money can they make holding onto money for say a week or two before paying, at today's interest rates?
Well it does make you wonder how companies such as topcashback.co.uk, who claim to pass on all of the commission received, can be successful. Because whilst they do have some zero commission refund links on thier website, the only time I and I suspect many others use their site is to browse and click on the commission refund links.
-
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 17:27 GMT Herby
Be aware...
While this doesn't apply here (no warning), but if you are UNSURE of the person who is writing the check, and they have written a bunch of them, it is best to CASH (yes, get lots of folding paper, or those new fivers) the check. Once you have the CASH they can't take it back from you. Just go to the issuing bank and say "please cash this check". They may not like it, but (at least in the USA) that's what they have to do. If sometime later (after the money runs out form others cashing their checks), and you deposit the check you thought was "good", they will suck it back from your account. This isn't a pleasant sight, and might lead to the same frustration.
Yes, I've been through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (death of a company!). It isn't pretty!
-
-
-
Monday 8th May 2017 05:34 GMT Truckle The Uncivil
Re: Be aware...
@Popmpous Git
Sorry but that is incorrect. Been through it. The "always cash a pay check" business is based on an agreement between banks (not law). Their reasoning (as they explained to me) was that funds from a person's pay must be available on payday. So if paycheques have to clear then they have to be issued a week earlier. This upsets the employers and fragments of who owes who what and when and where interest goes just devolves into crap as it fragments further and further.
Since the people issuing the pay checks are usually in good standing, the banks pay them and the agreement between the banks is to pay each others. But there is no legal obligation and particular bank mangers can be arseholes if they want to be.
-
Monday 8th May 2017 05:57 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Be aware...
@ Truckle the Uncivil
Happy to stand corrected. It was what I was told by a lawyer I did some work for many years ago. Initially the cashier refused to cash the cheque (it was crossed), but when I said the magic word "wages" she said "Not a problem!" and promptly cashed it.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 20:14 GMT Alistair
@ Red Bren
in *any* country - you go to the *ISSUEing* bank and ask them to cash it - they are required to unless there are already insufficient funds in the issueing account, or the amount exceeds their max single transaction cash handling limits. < that limit is usually set by a federal agency, for tax purposes >
And you absolutely can ask for cash - up to a generally large number. Here in the frozen north, the max cash amount they are *required* to be able to hand you unannounced is $10000, which most banks will quibble about but can do, eventually. And I'm pretty sure that a one month cheque for services rendered isn't going to be *quite* that large. I know from (at least 15 years ago) a single interesting event in my past, that Canadian banks will want 72 hours notice *and* a formal letter detailing what you will use the cash for if you want more than that in actual paper money.
-
Friday 5th May 2017 20:47 GMT Sgt_Oddball
Re: @ Red Bren
Not so in the UK. As redbean stated. If you have an account with the issuing bank then no problem.. to a degree. But if the cheque is cashed, money taken and then it is discovered that the payee had insufficient funds then the money will come back out of your account.
There are services that will cash the cheque on your behalf but they will take a healthy slice off the money.
It's mostly an anti fraud measure to stop accounts being setup, cheques paid and cashed without funds and money vanishing into thin air.
Anti fraud measures like this are why banks in the UK can afford to offer banking services to private individuals for free.
It's all down to local laws and regs rather than some international standard.
-
Friday 5th May 2017 23:47 GMT StephenH
Re: @ Red Bren
In Australia, if you put two lines across a cheque and write Not Negotiable on it, the cheque cannot be cashed. It must be deposited into an account. If it also has Account Payee Only, the bank account must belong to the payee.
These are security measures to stop stolen cheques being cashed.
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 10:49 GMT Jon 37
Re: @ Red Bren
@StephenH: Yes, UK cheques come preprinted with two lines across them and "Account Payee Only" printed there. So they have to be deposited into an account that belongs to the payee.
In theory you can cross out the words "Account Payee Only", and sign by the alteration. Then the cheque can be cashed or payed into any account. But I've never seen anyone do that ever. (Or at least that was the case 20 years ago when I first got a chequebook and read how they work... may have changed since).
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 18:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @ Red Bren
>> In theory you can cross out the words "Account Payee Only", and sign by the alteration. Then the cheque can be cashed or payed into any account. But I've never seen anyone do that ever.
I did this about 10 years ago. The bank refused to accept if, said I'd defaced the cheque and insisted it was reissued. They just basically told me I was wrong and never do this again.
I think you need to be careful with theoretical adjustments of financial instruments
-
-
Monday 8th May 2017 06:02 GMT Pompous Git
Re: @ Red Bren
"Since you can write a cheque upon anything"
Back in the early 1970s I used to sell my paintings and drawings door to door. One prospective customer was out of cash and cheques so I told him to write it on a piece of toilet paper. He did so and was clearly suppressing a smirk presumably because he thought I was wrong in my assertion that he could do so. The teller at his bank initially refused to take it, but on my insistence that she ask the accountant for direction did so.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 11:03 GMT david 12
Re: @ Red Bren
> Not Negotiable on it, the cheque cannot be cashed.<
Except that when I was learning about it (many years ago), the Aus courts had held that banks could ignore that instruction without penalty. They had to follow the instruction, but if they didn't, it didn't matter.
Yes, banks are bastards too.
-
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 21:46 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
I know who will have first dibs
In an insolvency, the first dibs on the companies assets go to pay the involvency firm, the second to the taxman, then from memory it's staff (non-directors) salaries, and so on down the list until way, way down at the bottom of the list - trade creditors, which is what any contractors working through Plutus are.
I imagine if the Oz Revenue Dept. felt they were owed something by Plutus it would follow this same pecking order, and most likely the contractors will see fuck all of their money. I do hope I'm proved wrong on this.
-
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 18:26 GMT Pompous Git
Re: I know who will have first dibs
"I think in Aus it's staff first, then tax, but Im not sure of the details.??"
It's secured creditors first — bank mortgages etc, then unsecured creditors. Employees have priority*, then ATO, then everyone else. Each category is paid out in full before the next. The contractors here are in the last category so unlikely to be paid in full if the company is liquidated.* Capped if you are a director, a relative or the spouse of a director.
-
Sunday 7th May 2017 09:58 GMT JimC
Re: The contractors here are in the last category
I suppose that's the point: contractors don't have unpaid wages, they have unpaid invoices. This seems to have implications for the likes of Uber and the 'gig' economy, and maybe another reason why pseudo self employment should be dealt with.
-
-
Sunday 7th May 2017 08:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I know who will have first dibs
"I think in Aus it's staff first, then tax, but Im not sure of the details.??"
In the UK, if the company doesn't have sufficient funds, the official receiver will pay employees' unpaid wages/salary, plus redundancy pay if applicable, with a cap at x per week.
That cap is quite a bit lower than an IT worker's pay rate, but better than nothing.
Your ex-employer won’t necessarily tell you this, in my case a friendly accountant told me to how to claim from the receiver.
In such a case, don't forget to claim for holiday entitlement not yet taken.
Any expenses owed are deemed to be 'unsecured credit' and you are unlikely to see any of that repaid.
-
-
Sunday 7th May 2017 02:20 GMT Adam 1
Re: I know who will have first dibs
> if the Oz Revenue Dept. felt they were owed something by Plutus it would follow this same pecking order
I guess it depends on whether the government feels the political heat enough to try and leave some scraps on the table for the state coffers in lieu of having no palatable alternative gst carve up.
-
-
Friday 5th May 2017 22:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
ATO freezing accounts
Thats a new one, to me. The missus has her own accounting practice, yes you see stuff ups from the ATO but you can work with them.
We see dubious stuff, companies fold, that sort of thing. It get sorted in the end. For the ATO to freeze their accounts,destroying their customer and supplier base and risking being sued for the damages they cause, there must be some serious shenanigans going on.
Yes compensation for the actions of the ATO is possible to claim, I have seen it achieved. (The Missus is that good!)
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 06:01 GMT GrumpyKiwi
ATO = Australian 'Tards Office
I've had dealings with ATO's software support people for their incredibly crappy portal. If the rest of it is run like the software support people (hours of support 09:30 - 16:00 except Wednesdays when it's 10:30 - 16:00) then it leaves me completely unsurprised that this is happening.
-
Saturday 6th May 2017 11:07 GMT david 12
Re: ATO = Australian 'Tards Office
> (hours of support 09:30 - 16:00 <
Sydney time.
They used to have WA offices, but they closed down for 'efficiency', with very limited 'after-hours' supported provided only by forcing Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne staff to work irregular hours without compensation.
-
-
Sunday 7th May 2017 06:05 GMT james 68
I wouldn't put anything past a tax office.
Just before leaving the UK I got a tax rebate due to overpayment of £437.76, two months later in Japan they send me a bill for £437.76 saying that I underpaid for the previous year. I phoned them to enquire if they had made a mix-up somewhere (my taxes at the time being automatically deducted by the Education Authority I had two separate accountants check the records and was told they could only find the overpayment and not any sign of an underpayment, I was also very curious as to why the amount matched the rebate exactly). Their response was that there was no mix-up it was pure coincidence that the amounts matched exactly and that it should be paid immediately to ensure that my Japanese visa would be unaffected - I was seriously left feeling like it was extortion, their choice of words sounded like a protection racket in a cheesy movie. I paid it and moved on, but I remain far from satisfied with their explanation and attitude.
NEVER trust a government office, especially a tax office.
-
Sunday 7th May 2017 06:37 GMT Pompous Git
@ James 68
After I wound up my business, the ATO spent 10 years harrassing me for $830 they claimed I owed. Eventually they put a collection agency onto the case and for the umpteenth time explained to them that I did not ow the ATO any money. The collection agency gave me a phone number at the ATO in Canberra. The person I spoke to checked my records and exclaimed "You don't owe us; we owe you!"
Several weeks later, just before Christmas I received three cheques totalling somewhat more than $1,000. They paid interest on the outstanding amount. Ya win some, ya lose some! So it goes...
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
