Hot Buttons
|
![]() | Bookkeeping Gimmicks Proliferate, Cheating Investors and the story which follows it on that page, "Do You Want to Be a Forensic Accountant?" |
Compo For Long Tax Battle
by staff reporter Matt Rilkoff
Compensation is being considered for an Auckland couple who lost their business and nearly $1 million after a 10-year battle with Inland Revenue about overpaid ACC levies.
The acting Commissioner of the IRD, John Perham, apologised to Murray and Janette Willis before parliament's finance and expenditure select committee yesterday, for the IRD incorrectly demanding $100,000 from their business.
An earlier judicial review of the case had ordered the IRD to pay compensation but the department chose not to do so. The couple said they would still like compensation for the battle which cost them their good health as well as their business.
Murray Willis said working 7 days a week for 7 years to repay a debt they did not owe was very traumatic and their health suffered terribly. He said the apology came as a big surprise and was also very traumatic and they now just wanted to get on with their lives.
The chairman of the select committee, Mark Peck, said the committee recognised the terrible toll inflicted on the Willis by their battle with the IRD. "They've dealt with this issue for 10 years and very few people can understand what they went through as they tried to save their company initially, and then to just keep their heads above water and to maintain health," Mr Peck said today.
He said the committee would consider the matter of compensation and hoped to present a recommendation for the IRD by next week at the latest.
Source: © NewsRoom 16 November 2000
Loosen Up for Christmas
I was surrounded by people I didn't know. I struck up a conversation with the nearest gentleman, who was standing slightly off to the side. He appeared to be alone. He was about 30, married, he said (though his wife was up in Auckland where they lived); he told me he was a CPA with one of the large accounting firms. I'll call him Paul.
Paul and I chatted a bit. He had no children. He had worked overseas a few years but liked New Zealand best. He had been with his employer about 2 years. I happened to ask him during our conversation if he considered the firm he worked for had integrity.
Paul paused for a long time and seemed troubled. He asked how long I had been in New Zealand. He said perhaps I didn't understand "how things worked here." He said it bothered him because he was sometimes asked to sign off on audits which hadn't really been done, but had been requested by one or another of their major clients. He said there was an "old boy" network in New Zealand and the members often held each other's interests to come before that of the people the audits were designed to protect.
He agreed emphatically with me that records at the Companies Office and land title records were inherently insecure. He also said he was aware of instances where the "old boys" had helped each other "get rid of trails." He said that in his opinion New Zealand was still run by an oligarchy of about 20 wealthy families but that "things were slowly changing."
Reflection
There are two points about the first article I would like to make: in the comment, "In a country where transparency and disclosure remain less than ideal, the creditors were looking for independent confirmation that their money might have gone missing," the country being referred to was Thailand. However, from my own personal experience, they could just as easily have been talking about New Zealand because I will state flatly, transparency and disclosure remain less than ideal here. The other point is that this type of thing is common enough the world over. The firm in this article is a private one, not the equivalent of the Serious Fraud Office: they cannot subpoena records. Yet they are generally able to discover enough information (through various means undisclosed) to get the job done.
There are two points about the second article I would like to make. The chairman of the select committee said of the Willises: "They've dealt with this issue for 10 years and very few people can understand what they went through as they tried to save their company initially, and then to just keep their heads above water." I think I can say that I have at least an inkling of what they went through. My husband and I have also lost roughly $1 million from our immigration investment and its fallout. My personal investigation of the forestry trust has covered only about 4 years thus far. I sincerely hope this doesn't mean we have another 6 years to go. But this article does show that persistence can pay off in the end. And I am nothing if not persistent.
It's the third item, the party conversation, that disturbs me the the most. The CPA felt that what he said was fairly common knowledge, certainly among his colleagues. He said he thought most accountants thought "nothing could be done" as business was competitive - if your firm wouldn't cooperate, someone else's would. He personally felt that one of the reasons for squelching an investigation of the winebox affair was because a lot of data regarding the existence of these types of situations would be revealed and a number of influential people had a more than passing interest in seeing that that didn't happen.
It will be of great interest to me to see how the SFO involvement in both the winebox affair and the Flat Rock investigation resolves itself. Will the SFO lay a claim in either situation? Will they keep their investigation of Flat Rock "open" until everyone stops asking? Will they close their investigation of Flat Rock but decide to keep their files private as they appear to be doing in the winebox affair? Will they cooperate with our Inspector at some point?
I presume these issues will resolve themselves sometime in the future.
For news articles on the Flat Rock Forests Trust, forestry, the Serious Fraud Office, one immigrant family's experiences, immigration
specialists, fraud, juries, logging, and more, check out the News Table of Contents. Or
you may wish to visit the Forestry Trust Table of Contents to read how a unit trust went
bust. Or the Topics Table of Contents which offers a different approach to lots
of topics - among them poisonous insects, eating dogs, what's addictive, training vs teaching, tornados, unusual flying machines, humour,
wearable computers, IQ tests, health, Y chromosomes, share options, New Jersey's positive side, oddities, ageing, burial alternatives,
capital punishment, affairs, poverty, McCarthyism, the most beautiful city in the world, neverending work and more...



