Hi everyone, I have been reaching out to tax experts to determine if there is a case to challenge the transitional rules that have been put in place with regards to the LAHFA changes last year.

LAC lawyers (see link below), have stated they are happy to investigate the changes further based on the evidence I have provided.

http://www.laclawyers.com.au/legal/Taxation.aspx

They are happy to do this via a class action, which means that 25 or more people are pursuing the same case. There charge rate is $450 an hour (which may be negotiable I suspect) .

I'm looking for 25 people to put $100 in pot to enable us to purchase 5 hours of work to determine if there is a case to answer and if the tax changes are legal.

I am tracking people who are interested in joining this cause via linked in at the following URL:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Legal...%2Egmp_4204722


I am based in Sydney and happy to meet with people with similar concerns to discuss in person.

Below is the link to the document (The same one I sent to the Senators, and was ignored) I sent to the firm for consideration:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...czagQHTu0/edit

If nothing else, $100 to give me peace of mind the changes are actually legal is money well spent.

Please go to linked in if you are willing to join the cause.

Thanks

May as well save your $100 and go to the pub. LAFHA has always been a perk and could be withdrawn at any time.

Of course it can be withdrawn.... but they transitional rules are discriminatory

Read the link

Rubbish. LAFHA was discriminatory as holders of certain visas got huge financial perks that other people were not entitled to even if the living situation was identical.

Save your money and talk to your employer about paying you a proper salary.

+1

Please refrain from commenting on the thread unless you can provide useful information. The original LAFHA was not discriminatory, as it was open to everyone to use, being an Australian or an overseas citizen.

Whether it was fair or not is another question, but this legal case is specifically looking at the transition rules for temporary and permanent residents, which is discriminatory.

This is a public forum and if you choose to start a thread you must expect open comments on the subject.

If a citizen or permanent resident had LAFHA it was because they were genuinely maintaining a second house somewhere for their own use and at their own expense.

This is completely different situation to the 457 holder, where the employer was using it as a means to pay a lower salary or where the recipient received a tax break on the basis of their visa type and nothing else.

There is no comparison, therefore no discrimination. It is simply a correction of the previous discrimination towards permanent residents and citizens who did not get these generous tax breaks.

Its gone, move on.

Ah we'll if it's $100 to give you peace of mind then thats great.

I'm on a 457 and maintained a second house in the Uk, there's a comparison. I don't get half my childcare back, that's discrimination.

Lots of outrage on here, when many, many people on 457 Visas claimed LAFHA legitimately.

You'd have more chance I reckon of taking legal action on why 457 Visa holders pay full tax but:

• don't get childcare costs back
• have to pay for school fees in ACT and NSW
• have to pay 48% tax on any super contributions they make and wish to take out the country

and by the way, you CAN still get LAFHA, your employer just needs to pay FBT on it now.

If you maintained a house for your own use then I agree that this is the same thing as for a PR or citizen and the phasing out should be the same.

But in fact most 457 holders did not maintain a house in UK for their own use, you are the only example I have ever come across. Most rent out the UK house out or don't even have a UK house.

As for the other unrelated items, well I think it is up to the individual to look into these things in advance. I can't believe that people think they can move to another country and expect the same benefits as everyone else, but then I have never been big into the benefits culture.

If I were a 457 visa holder I would be better off financially by a few $k a year as I would not need to declare my foreign income in Australia and it would be below the threshold in UK. So 457 holders do not quite pay full tax.

Do you maintain your house, without tenants, sitting idle, waiting for you to live in it when you return soon?

As for your other points of unequal standing - I agree - not fair - but it has nothing whatsoever to do with LAHFA so take it elsewhere.

I think that stating that you have no chance of challenging this IS useful information. Just saying.

Not in my company. My salary was the same as my peers as it is a defined wage structure.
You keep on about the 'get your employer to pay you fair wages' statements when really that is not the issue. Its not the wage that is the issue, its the LAFHA and its cessation and transition arrangements. Some 'fools who don't understand tax and benefits' (your previous words not mine) such as myself who thought that this was a long standing taxation benefit came to Australia on a Temp Visa knowing the situation. Changing that situation and the way it was both decided and implemented were the issues and created a lot of angst.
Several times the arguments of 'well if you can't afford it then go home' or 'well you was only using it to get PR anyway' are just ill informed, rude and personal attacks with no factual justification. If someone is provided with a criteria on which to make a decision which affects their career, family and home then they are entitled to be aggrieved and upset when that changes outside of their control. It is not a company issue, its a policy change issue.
Those who were not 457 Visa holders, had LAFHA can not possibly understand the sudden change this FORCED on people. All I hear is 'well you were lucky to get it, I didn't have it so glad its gone' comments. Oh, and don't get me started on the ignorant 'you don't pay full taxes anyway' rubbish.