Tax returns seized for robo-debts

Australians who have been fighting Centrelink robo-debts have had their tax returns seized by the Department of Human Services (DHS), according to reports.

The ABC says the DHS has been hit with calls from angry welfare recipients who have had their tax returns garnished for alleged robo-debts.

One woman told 7.30 that she had received a debt notice from Centrelink for $8920 – later reduced to $2117 – and that when she received her tax return, that debt had been deducted.

A DHS spokesman told the ABC that it garnished tax returns in accordance with the law.

Earlier in the year, Deanna Amato lost her tax refund. “They took every cent,” she said. “It was shocking that they could take the money without me even knowing that a debt existed and without actual proof. It felt like guilty until proven innocent.”

QC Gavin Shilbert has labelled robo-debt an “elaborate sham” after revealing a complainant contacted him on receiving a $10,230.97 debt notice.

Have you had issues with robo-debt? Have there been implications for your tax return?

8 comments

To claim that CentreLnk took tax returns 'in accordance with the law' is like claiming the Nazi's appropriated Jewish property 'in accordance with the law'; it may be true but it does not make it right. There are legal procedures to recover debts, including going to court and proving the debt exists whereapon the court can order garnishment of financial assets. Having an anonymous official make an administrative decision is too authoritarian/fascist/communistic for my blood. 

How else can they make the Budget a Surplus if they don't RIP OFF the needy and the down and out? Typical of this Government. Make sure they can get a pay rise without any questions being asked but not so for the ordinary people of this country. 

 

To put this in perspective, if the debt was reduced it may have meant that the original amount was challenged and both parties agreed that there was a debt to be repaid of $2117. Centrelink then deducted the $2117 and left a balance of tax refund for the woman. Garnishees are legal and can be served on a financial institution, an employer or the ATO.

I'm surprised that a complainant would seek the services of a barrister who would charge thousands a day in lieu of a solicitor. I note that we are not told whether the debt of $10230.97 was challenged or, if so, the outcome of the challenge. 

Perhaps the person was a friend.

From memory there is a box you have to untick on your tax return if you don't want them to pay any outstanding Centrelink debts. If she didn't untick this box then they have the right to colelct from her tax refund. 

This is from the ATO, VeryCaringBigBear, "If there is a debt with the ATO or another Government agency, such as Centrelink, the ATO is required by law to use any refund due to reduce the debt. If offsetting the refund will cause serious financial hardship, the ATO can be contacted as they may be able to pay the refund to the taxpayer instead.

Centrelink is not free money, it's taxpayer-funded, so all recipients should keep their record straight, advise Centrelink of all changes immediately and they shouldn't have a problem. People should be appreciative of the assistance Centrelink give them. Wake up and take responsibility for your own lives. The country doesn't owe you a living. Most older Australians appreciate the help Centrelink gives them through pensions eccetera, as a thank you for years of taxes payed and improvement to this once great country. Pity the same can't be said for this younger generation of bludgers. Regards Jacka.

It is just typical of this inept fascist LNP government that the Centrelink jack-boots are being applied.

This system was devised by Labor and the legislation was put forward by Shorten and Plibersek. Why suddenly is it the fault of this government?

Saw the story.  ALmost criminal behaviour as there is apparently NO PROOF of the debt.  I imagine a lawyer will do this pro bono one day and Centrelink will go down in a heap as nowhere else in the financial system I am aware of is a creditor allowed to take money with proving it has a legitimate right to it.  So where's the detailed paperwork Centrelink.  'You owe us' is not an acceptable reason and it should be treated as fraud and/or theft.

That's right, MICK. There needs to be a statement of debt owed with full details, which the other party should be able to analyse & dispute or agree with in a defined and reasonable timeframe before such actions are taken.

Besides that, it was admitted by the Minister recently that 20% of the assessments by robo-debt were incorrect, i.e. he meant 20% of those which were challenged and the figure would be much higher as many may not challenge a powerful Govt Dept especially for smaller amounts, or may have lost their records, etc. The Senate also recommended the system to be suspended till it was proved to be satisfactory, yet the Govt has thumbed it's nose at the Senate - why have a Senate then?

Yes, a QC or a Legal firm needs to take this issue up urgently pro bono on behalf of anyone who has been attacked in this manner without clear proven data and reasons.

Absolutely Mick.

its just typical of these ignorant labor stooges that engage the mouth before their tiny brains.

So who is paying for your 'cash for comment' BS? Sounds like a Chinese statement from the government.

8 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment