Bloody Companies Office Bureaucratic Bullshit. Is this the Monstrous Money Laundering Act Again?

RIP the economy (and any privacy you ever had). This National government is generating far more red tape than the previous Labour one ever did. To capture a minor subset of transactions, every single commercial (and private) transaction, financial (where your bank is looking to report you to police if irregularities are found), property, et al, are being delayed, and weighed done by cost on cost on cost on penalty of the snitch society. God I want out.

I’m trying to get out of all independent trusteeships at the moment, because with wanting to live in the (gloriously isolated) Mahau Sound for six months, the physical requirements of witnessing, et al,  involved on, for example, property transactions, with our Kafka-esqe money laundering legislation are too convoluted and physically onerous. (Due to these same dopey laws, a friend has spent three hours recently trying to open a child’s bank account. And I remember reading someone on Twitter trying to do that and giving up.)

How much money is Judith Collins’ monstrous Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act costing our economy? I’m starting to think it’ll be catching up to tax compliance.

Anyway, so today I go to file the first of this month’s annual company (client) returns to be told on filing all returns from this point I have to have directors birth dates (okay) and place of birth (what the fuck!). Does any office reading this blog hold client place of birth? Because the caution screens have said I won't be able to file returns without this information I've not been through to see if place of birth is simply country, or province and country; but the point remains unchanged. Plus the error screen says place of birth, not country of birth.

[Update: after completing my annual return, it's province/town and country. There's a lot of purple language in this office this afternoon.

Ultimately, here was my problem: changes to the Companies Act ... and so it goes, on and on.]

So:

Un-fucking-believable @CompaniesOffice I now have to file place and date of birth for directors of all returns I file annually? Whose idea?

— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) July 20, 2015

@CompaniesOffice Date of birth I largely keep on file, but place of birth means I now have to email every single company director I file 4

— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) July 20, 2015

@CompaniesOffice ... which is a mammoth and bullshit task. Needless to say I'll be late on some returns. Is this ruddy money laundering ...

— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) July 20, 2015

@CompaniesOffice ... nonsense again @JudithCollinsMP @amyadamsMP

— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) July 20, 2015

@CompaniesOffice @JudithCollinsMP @amyadamsMP In fact I've got to file my own company return this month: I don't know where I was ruddy born

— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) July 20, 2015

Seriously, RIP the economy (and any privacy you ever had). This National government is generating far more red tape than the previous Labour one ever did. To capture a minor subset of transactions, every single commercial (and private) transaction, financial (where your bank is looking to report you to police if irregularities are found), property, et al, are being delayed, and weighed done by cost on cost on cost on penalty of the snitch society. God I want out.

Bureaucratic Horror Files: Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Who's On First ...

In the modest number of claims I’ve made on private insurance policies over the last quarter of a century, I have had no issues with process or result, some claims dealt with only via a phone call and emailed photo. Not so Government EQC in Christchurch which after over four years of wrangling we’ve given up on; they will pay up to their cap on our earthquake damaged house, we - with no recourse to our private insurer, somehow, (don't ask me how) - will pay the $70,000 remaining required to fix our house, and then there’s our mandatory government insurer Accident Compensation Corporation – for my overseas readers –  ACC. There’s a bit of a fracas amongst the know-all Crusader class residing in the Fortress of Legislation currently regarding ACC’s funding; just as there is only the micro level in economics – you and me voluntarily transacting – no macro, I reckon on the micro-level I’ve discovered ACC's problem, although one point to Labour Leader Andrew Little first …

So Labour allege overcharging ACC is costing jobs ... um, then your higher taxes @andrewlittlemp : why won't they? http://t.co/P7N7ajYnTU
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 8, 2015

The Scenario:

Here’s the problem facing me. A farming couple, client, beef finishing, life time of low(ish) profits, some year losses, but they loved the lifestyle, (and they were exceptional about animal welfare – which I respected them for), have been paying ACC on default option (which worked fine: if you’re an insurance broker, please don’t contact me, and yes, most of my clients are on Coverplus Extra, and as great as you probably are, every time you happen to pick up one of my clients, no, I don’t want you dropping in for a cuppa to try and sell me on your services; I know what they are ... sorry, back on track).

All swimmingly well until they sell their farm and retire. They have enough from farm sale to retire comfortably, but modestly, as the income tap is now turned off, however, they find to their horror after I file their final (partnership) tax returns, the two biggest ACC bills they’ve ever seen, and face having to pay these in their retirement, knowing they will never have a claim on ACC.

The reason for big premiums are ACC ‘now’ – because I’m sure they didn’t use to – class depreciation recovered on sale of the various farm assets, in this case $88,000, as income. I ring ACC and ask how ACC are defining ‘passive’ depreciation recovered as ‘personal exertion’ assessable for premiums under the governing act (as that legislation nowhere states depreciation recovered as ‘personal exertion’). Answer on the phone was it is considered ‘mental exertion’. So, I have filed request for review form ACC33 with the department based on following:

Limb I: selling the farm was done by an agent, it did not involve ‘mental exertion’ hence ‘personal exertion’, and so was passive income and therefore not assessable. (I don’t expect to win on this limb - 23 years of being broken down by bureaucracy has taught me this, even though this particular instance seems a change of policy by ACC.)

Limb II: if this does constitute ‘personal exertion’ then selling the farm asset is not the activity of farming, with its very high risk and premium rate, thus the premium should be set on the most lower ‘holding property’ premium rate. This reflects the process of a farm sale, and also how for management purposes stewardship of the farm asset is different to farm trading (hence many farms traditionally owned in family trusts and leased to farming trading entity.)

Given wife and husband’s cases are identical in every respect – 50/50 partners; identical premiums charged; identical principles involved – I simply wrote both of their details on the ACC33 form, with a letter stating their case. I also put on this I was taking my clients’ case for no fee (principle), I would soon either be on holiday, or attending to my father’s affairs (who has been given, a week ago, between one week and six months to live, and no, that timeframe is not helpful), thus I wanted to keep this brief, succinct, and conducted by email, not telephone as I won’t be in Geraldine for near on three months.

Bureaucratic Problem the First:

On receiving my ACC33, an ACC legal advisor emailed me the following:

Dear Mr Hubbard

We have received the application for review for your above clients dated 27 February 2015.

We note that you are the authorised contact person for the accounts.

 While we acknowledge that the application is for a married couple, the application relates to two separate accounts. An application for review must be filed for each separate account. Should the matter proceed to a review hearing the reviewer will more than likely require each hearing to be heard separately.

 Please also note that for an application for review to be valid, the application must refer to a specific decision and the date of that decision must be completed at section 2 of the application. I see that this has not been completed on the current application.

 An application for review must be received by ACC no later than 3 months from the date of the decision or else ACC has no jurisdiction to review its decision.

 For your convenience I attach an editable word version of the ACC33. We look forward to receiving the application for reviews shortly.

			[Name Reacted], Legal Advisor, Legal and Commercial, ACC

In case you missed that, I haven’t got to first base yet because a) I put both clients’ names onto same form (given their cases are identical); I need to file a separate ACC33 for husband and wife, and b) I didn’t write into the ACC33 filed the date of the decision – (noting this was because the review was not vis a vis ‘a decision’, but simply the basis of levying two premium invoices.) I emailed the following in reply:

You've got to be kidding!!!

My review with attached letter contains, succinctly, everything reasonable people will need to look at the issue. It is not in relation to a 'specific decision', it is in relation to the levies my two clients (identical cases) have been charged. My submission is very clear on this.

I have no time for doing all this again, and in duplicate, [snip] … Again, the form and substance of what I sent is wholly sufficient for the requested review.

Please advise, noting that if my original ACC33 is still deemed unacceptable, then I want a phone call, please, from a very senior officer from your legal.

Mark Hubbard

(Partial) Resolution The First:

Per phone call with a senior from their legal department, it appears the problem is with a dispute resolution service ACC use called Fairway Resolution – (that word ‘fair’ again; meaning you’re probably not going to see any of it.) Fairway Resolution governs all these procedures, apparently, and doesn’t want to see my client’s review knocked out on a technicality. Of course we have to put the client through hoops for good of the client. It was thus decided, as follows:

Firstly, that I shall photocopy the copy of the ACC33 I originally filed – thankfully I kept a copy. I shall strike out the wife’s name on that copy of the original copy I kept; on the copy of that copy I shall strike out the husband’s details; I shall then re-file both ‘separate’ copies, but not before I take a copy of the wife’s-name-redacted copy, now the husband’s copy, and a copy of that copy’s copy, now the wife’s copy, with husband’s name redacted, the further copying of which I will do, of course, for safety sake, (FFS), in case I get forcibly looped back into this process again. Or something gets lost. I shall thus be filing a separate copy of the original ACC33 for each spouse, with the other spouse’s details redacted by ‘lining them out’ – technical term: ‘to put a neat line through’ - with a copy of my original letter stating their case attached to each separate copy of the ACC33s refiled. To be precise, I shall send two identical copies of my original letter, one copy each attached to both the new spouse-redacted ACC33s, which are copies of the copy of each spouse’s, spouses’, sorry original joint copy – no! I got that wrong; they will be copies of the original form filed. I was wrong in that latter part because the original form filed with ACC was not a copy: the copy was the document I kept which has allowed me to shortcut the whole longer process by copying it again. The whole process, vis a vis spousal separation, now technically correct, so no technicalities lurking like a pond of poo on the farm they sold for us to fall into at some future date.

From memory, I believe while ACC were capable of performing the copying of the original ACC33 filed with them, the further necessary redaction of spousal names was totally beyond their comprehension. Either that or with no lump sum payments for trauma anymore, they couldn’t allow a staff member to deal with that (ref: Section 404, clause 58 of Department’s Work and Safety Manual).

Secondly, that I would write onto the husband’s copy of the original copy, and on the wife’s copy of the copy of the original copy, before both the copy and the separate copy of the copy are re-filed, the date of their invoices, that being the ‘date of the decision’ my review was requesting reassessment of, thus fulfilling this requirement (per officer’s original email to me). Fortunately the second officer via our phone conversation was able to give me both dates given the invoices were issued by, well, by ACC obviously, meaning they hold that information anyway.

On the positive side, we are now on first base. On the negative side when I asked re the initial email, if this goes through to hearings will I REALLY have to ‘litigate’ both husband and wife hearings separately, meaning at each stage in what I suspect may be a labyrinthine process leading up to such hearings having to repeat all my points twice to their points which will be twice made, presumably, despite both cases are identical?  The answer was, as near as I could tell, yes, I would have to do just that. To repeat myself, I will have to repeat myself, often.

I don’t think this is going to go well, and it may be foolish to believe it will be going quietly into the night as some poet said. Anyway, coincidentally on my email just in, I see a useful upcoming CCH course, ‘Managing Difficult People’: I’ll send it onto the nice officers at ACC with my re-submitted review.

Sorry, review(s). Two, separately, one for each spouse (the other redacted by lining the other spouse’s details out, like so.)

Further Misadventures.

Well, I guess this was predictable. After coming to the aforementioned agreement with ACC, and writing this blog entry sound in the knowledge I had a copy of my original submission, I went to copy that copy of the original ACC33 to find that my memory was playing tricks with me and I didn’t take a copy of the original ACC33, proper, at all, I simply posted it to ACC without copying. As if this blog post needed to find proof of the sanctity of copying, there it is.

So, I am not yet on first base. Fortunately I now have an email address for the senior ACC officer concerned; I’ve just emailed her the following:

Hi [name redacted]

I guess this was predictable given the course of last week, but continuing from our phone call Friday I find I have not kept a copy or scan here of the ACC33 submission on behalf of my client. Between writing that, and this, I have changed computers and while transferring all my data, that data did not include a temporary folder I always keep on computer being docs, etc, for issues such as this that I don't need to keep long term in respect of matters with Inland Revenue.

So, could you scan and email back my submission in order than I can copy here, twice, redact appropriately, then scan and send back to you.

Sorry for inconvenience.

Regards Mark Hubbard

I’ll keep you updated on my ultimate failure. In the meantime file this under post-structuralism, and a final thought, ACC could also stand for Abbot Corresponding with Costello, those guys must have dealt with a few government departments in their time:

Western Economies – Gone by Glide Time

I can demonstrate, by quoting one simple letter, why Western economies - particularly Europe - are failing. It’s more obvious than just the debt built up by politicians whom Keynes let off the leash of responsibility. It's more obvious than the central banked fiat money system, or democracy under a tyranny of the majority following the bribes of unprincipled politicians looking for a free lunch and no risk. It is, indeed, a tangible thing that covers and smothers you: the massive, moribund, choking, blanket of regulation reaching around the world, that has been patched and patched and patched to stitch us up over the last seventy years.

About fourteen or fifteen years ago ‘we’ – my wife and I being one of those joint account type of families - invested –Jesus, sorry, fell off my chair – we threw $10,000 into a UK investment trust. The plan – note this Mr Taxman – was long term savings into what in those days I thought to be capitalist economies, so providing us alcohol for old age. Trouble is, after at least, two, three, who knows how many inflationary bubbles called economic booms over that period, our $10,000 was at the end of March 2012, worth only $7,102.39. Over that time the damn thing has driven me nuts: the investment trust has changed its name at least four times; I once spent the better part of a day just trying to track it to its new name, as I updated its once a year belly laugh we called a ‘balance’  for our financial statements. Every time we’ve changed house I’ve had to hunt through reams of paper to find the address of the latest registrar – changed at least three times – to send new contact details. So, we’ve decided it’s better to cash up early: we’re planning to put the whole lot - minus loss, admin fees and commissions - into short term deposits while we not so slowly drain it off and drink it, to help get us to old age. And the process has set me to pondering over a glass of wine or three in the interim.

Here’s a big question: is modern portfolio theory such a good idea under crony capitalism? That was the central point I missed at the start of all this, and I’ve been learning to my detriment: the West is no longer capitalist, hasn’t been for a very long time, it is, as George Orwell called it, state capitalism, or crony capitalism, or socialism by any other name: more accurately, it’s statism. Indeed, the misnomer of Keynesian aggregates has effectively given the statist politicians an excuse to build national Ponzi schemes which, in a plot that makes a James Bond movie look daft in comparison, are now set to destroy the world’s savings, and with them, much of the middle class. And we are the generation for whom the chickens of truth have come home to roost and expose the battery cages that taxpayers have been imprisoned in, showing how they are standing on a rank, steaming hubris of shit. More, against this stench, diversification is no safeguard, there’s no clear air anywhere which allows the untaxed, unregulated voluntary transaction, while the maxim of hold long has become the one guaranteed way to lose the nest egg. As bad as my job is, I still thank Job I’m not a financial planner as Western stat(ist) capitalism gets printed on the presses into the end game. I sometimes wonder if this’s why Papa Morgan spends so much of his time chasing penguins in icy southern waters these days: he’s acclimatising to what’s coming for his industry.

Anyway, I detour. We decided to knock the bugger of this investment off, finally, and donate it to the vineyards of Marlborough, despite it aggrieves me the excise tax windfall this will be for an increasingly wowser government. Though it's this process that has given me the final proof of my premise. In cashing up, after finding the latest name of our fund, the latest value (oh dear, $6,987.98), the latest registrar, writing to it (don’t be silly, can’t email them), waiting three weeks, we get in the mail, just this morning:

“Unfortunately, we have been unable to complete your request. Due to legal requirements and regulatory permissions, we are currently unable to offer a Postal Share Dealing service … outside of the UK/European Economic Area (EEA). Please contact your local share dealing provider, such as a local bank branch who may be able to handle the transaction on your behalf …’

Oh, just great. Another barrier to get through, another commission to pay. I know why the West is collapsing: it’s collapsing because I can’t do something so simple, anymore, as get my own money back out of an investment due to ‘legal requirements and regulatory permissions’.

Though pity these poor sods at the registrar concerned, because, defeated on my first tilt at it, I’m going to have to send this issue nuclear: I’m handing the whole sordid affair over to the lovely wife. She’s the only person I’ve come across that can move a bureaucrat with any speed: for note that's what these businesses are now, bureaucracies - that’s what they had to become after the onslaught of regulation, after regulation, after regulation, which was all about, supposedly, protecting me, the investor. Well I certainly am protected, no doubt about it; I’m so protected I can’t even get what’s left of my money back. And don’t think we’re immune in New Zealand where we’ve just had the new Financial Markets Authority legislated to shoot, or kneecap, any investment still showing signs of life – because life is risk, right, and that must be eliminated - while the SFO was last seen scouring Christchurch for more work to slow up the rebuild, now they’ve ensured no sane person here would want to be a director of a company issuing prospectuses anymore.

Have a good weekend.

Postscript: by the by, tax inspectors in Indonesia are now being given three weeks military training. You see the way this is all going? And look whose using the exact same tactics as the Nazis and Big Brother in Orwell's 1984: hey kids, why not dob in mum and dad to the IRS whistle blower program. What ugly things our social democracies have become.

So many things I’d love to blog about, but alas, no time. Hopefully I'll get a chance to torture some more metaphors over next couple of days. Um, I wonder if some of my 'learned' readership have figured out yet that most of my pieces are written in iambic pentameter, and are written to be read aloud? Don't ask me why ...