Tax office to blitz low doc lending
- Thread starter Fester
- Start date
A few replies in this thread
Hi
I am not surprised.... And, it will also make for very interesting watching as I am aware of some unscrupulour brokers "declaring" extraordinarily high income on the applications simply because the income does not need to be proven by tax returns and the like....
Why is this an issue?
Because, the banks will show a much higher income "declared" than the tax return or financial statements. Which do you think the tax office will want to use?
As I said, it could be very interesting. Assuming the worst, I wonder if those unscrupulous mortgage brokers (not those on this forum, obviously) could be sued....
Dale
I am not surprised.... And, it will also make for very interesting watching as I am aware of some unscrupulour brokers "declaring" extraordinarily high income on the applications simply because the income does not need to be proven by tax returns and the like....
Why is this an issue?
Because, the banks will show a much higher income "declared" than the tax return or financial statements. Which do you think the tax office will want to use?
As I said, it could be very interesting. Assuming the worst, I wonder if those unscrupulous mortgage brokers (not those on this forum, obviously) could be sued....
Dale
Hi Dale
Id say if someone falsifies documents (that is, makes alterations to applications without the borrowers consent) and the borrower suffers loss they would be very entitled to go the person that altered the docs.
I know of quite a few intsances of smaller mortgage managers where liabilities dissapear between appln and mortgage insurance. Additionally, I have good reasons to suspect this goes on at branch level of some lenders when times get tough and budgets need to be met.
ta
rolf
Id say if someone falsifies documents (that is, makes alterations to applications without the borrowers consent) and the borrower suffers loss they would be very entitled to go the person that altered the docs.
I know of quite a few intsances of smaller mortgage managers where liabilities dissapear between appln and mortgage insurance. Additionally, I have good reasons to suspect this goes on at branch level of some lenders when times get tough and budgets need to be met.
ta
rolf
Would be interesting to know whether there is more over reporting of income to the Banks or under reporting of income to the ATO.
It's a toss up as to whether you want the banks or the ATO after you .....
See Change
It's a toss up as to whether you want the banks or the ATO after you .....
See Change
just remember if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about
With the ATO, there's always the possibility that you do the right thing, and you accountant tells you that you have done the right thing, but the ATO decides otherwise (I've been there).holdandrefinanc said:
There have been issues raised in this forum about what is income in regard of low doc loans- income from trust structures and the like make it a murky field. ATO may in its wisdom try to make it more difficult for people who quite legitimately show different income in low doc applications than in tax returns.
Hi GW
Rumour has it the net was primarily cast for those that have not lodged or lodged nil rtns
Ta
rolf
Rumour has it the net was primarily cast for those that have not lodged or lodged nil rtns
Ta
rolf
Even when they're wrong ATO is always right!
Mate of mine wrote and posted a $5276 cheque for his quarterly BAS so was surprised when he got an overdue demand, c/w penalty. Checked his bank statement and no cheque for that amt had been presented so put a stop on it.
"No can do" said the bank, "been presented". Checked his statement again and sure enough it had been cashed for $52.76. The photo-copy clearly shows the cheque was for the correct amt. Possible error is that he did not include the ".00" in the amt/numbers column. If the bank uses OCR it may automatically read the last two figures as cents. Sloppy programming if they do because ATO does not calculate to part dollars.
But the ATO is sticking to it's guns and demanding he pay the penalty. They may consider a refund on appeal.
Used to deal with the QLD Dept of Injustice who had the same ethics.
Thommo
Mate of mine wrote and posted a $5276 cheque for his quarterly BAS so was surprised when he got an overdue demand, c/w penalty. Checked his bank statement and no cheque for that amt had been presented so put a stop on it.
"No can do" said the bank, "been presented". Checked his statement again and sure enough it had been cashed for $52.76. The photo-copy clearly shows the cheque was for the correct amt. Possible error is that he did not include the ".00" in the amt/numbers column. If the bank uses OCR it may automatically read the last two figures as cents. Sloppy programming if they do because ATO does not calculate to part dollars.
But the ATO is sticking to it's guns and demanding he pay the penalty. They may consider a refund on appeal.
Used to deal with the QLD Dept of Injustice who had the same ethics.
Thommo
Pay first, protest later.
It stinks, but that's the way they do business.
There was a story on the sensationalist TV press this week. A builder did some shoddy work, so the owner held back the last payment. The builder sued and won- the guy had no comeback- because he had not paid that final payment, the building certificate was never issued, so the appalling workmanship could not be said to be substandard. The builder is repossessing the house. Like dealing with the ATO, it's often better to pay first, protest later.
I'd say your friend would have a good case for rescinding the fine.
It stinks, but that's the way they do business.
There was a story on the sensationalist TV press this week. A builder did some shoddy work, so the owner held back the last payment. The builder sued and won- the guy had no comeback- because he had not paid that final payment, the building certificate was never issued, so the appalling workmanship could not be said to be substandard. The builder is repossessing the house. Like dealing with the ATO, it's often better to pay first, protest later.
I'd say your friend would have a good case for rescinding the fine.
