Latest news with #MauriceBlackburn
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Aussie 'appalled' by $4,000 ATO bill after common tax return mistake
Welcome to legal column, where lawyers Alison and Jillian Barrett from Maurice Blackburn tackle problems everyday Aussies face — whether it be consumer, property, or money matters impacting relationships or work. This week, an Aussie is concerned about their tax return after finding out they owe the ATO money. Question I recently filled out my ATO tax return, fully expecting a rebate. I only earned $80,000 last year and I had loads of deductions to make. However, I was appalled to find out I actually owe the tax office money — it turned out I'd been on the wrong code all year. They also pushed back on a lot of my deductions and said they weren't tax-deductible work expenses. Now I have a bill for $4,000 and no means to pay it. Is there anything I can do to dispute my tax bill? Also, why aren't things like my work clothes and my travel to work claimable on tax when I wouldn't use them if I didn't work? RELATED Common neighbour problem plaguing Aussie houses: 'No right' Warning for working from home Aussies over common practice Little-known cryptocurrency detail that could impact millions: 'Lost forever' Answer Receiving an unexpected tax bill can be a distressing experience, particularly when you're anticipating a refund but instead are hit with a bill. Generally speaking, the amount of tax that is deducted should be accurate so that a person does not get a large tax bill or a large refund. There are exceptions to this, including if there are large legitimate deductions that can be made, which would result in a refund. However, if you've been on the wrong tax code throughout the year, insufficient tax would have been withheld from your income, resulting in a liability to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Your first step should be to understand the basis of the tax debt. If the ATO has rejected certain deductions or identified an incorrect withholding rate, you are entitled to request a detailed explanation. The ATO provides mechanisms for taxpayers to dispute assessments. You may lodge a formal objection under Part IVC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The formal objection must be submitted in writing and within the prescribed time limits (generally within two years of the notice of assessment for individuals). The objection should clearly state the grounds on which you disagree with the assessment and include supporting documentation. What happens if you can't afford to fight an ATO debt? If you are experiencing financial hardship and cannot afford professional representation, you may be eligible for assistance through the National Tax Clinic program. These clinics, often run by universities, offer free help to individuals who need support navigating the tax system. Additionally, the ATO offers a service called Dispute Assist, which facilitates early resolution of disputes for unrepresented taxpayers. In cases where the issue stems from incorrect information in your tax return, such as misreported income or overlooked deductions, you may be able to amend your return online via myGov. This is often a faster and more straightforward process than lodging a formal objection. How can I know what is and isn't a work-related expense for the ATO? In relation to work-related expenses, the Australian tax law draws a clear line between deductible and non-deductible items. The general principle is that expenses must be incurred in the course of earning assessable income and must not be private or domestic in nature. Work clothing is only deductible if it is occupation-specific, protective, or a registered uniform. For example, knives for a chef or a high-visibility vest may qualify, but conventional business attire, even if required by your employer, does not. This is because such clothing can be worn outside of work and is therefore considered private. Similarly, travel between home and your regular place of employment is generally not deductible. This is classified as private travel, even if you perform work-related tasks during the commute. Exceptions exist for travel between multiple work sites or if you are required to transport bulky equipment and have no secure storage at your workplace. While the tax system may seem unforgiving, there are legal avenues available to dispute assessments and seek relief. Understanding the rules around deductions and engaging with the ATO through formal channels can help resolve your situation. If needed, seek professional advice or contact a tax clinic to ensure your rights are protected. This legal information is general in nature and should not be regarded as specific legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult a in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Qantas cyber attack: Kiwis cannot join Aussie legal complaint but can complain in NZ, expert says
Shaw added: 'In New Zealand if people were impacted by the breach by Qantas they would make a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.' He said the office would consider the complaint and ask: 'Is this an actionable privacy breach in New Zealand?' Shaw said a privacy breach in this context meant a person had access to or misused personal information without consent. 'Then the question from there is, if it's a privacy breach, what has somebody suffered effectively?' The Office of the Privacy Commissioner would try to resolve that issue and ask if mediation was possible. 'Ultimately the Human Rights Review Tribunal considers it.' The New Zealand process for data breaches has generated some criticism. Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy earlier this month said Qantas would face much stiffer penalties under Australian privacy regulations than it would if it were a New Zealand company. However, Shaw said the system in New Zealand could punish people or entities for data breaches. 'The system in New Zealand is good. The Privacy Commissioner and the act have real teeth. The criticism I would have is the delay, the delay in having the matter heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal.' He said the tribunal could award substantial damages. Shaw said Lane Neave was not suing Qantas but New Zealand had some litigation funders and some no-win no-fee practitioners who might consider the case. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been approached for comment. Qantas said it was aware Maurice Blackburn in Australia had lodged a complaint on behalf of some affected customers in relation to the cyber incident. 'Our focus continues to be on supporting our customers and providing ongoing access to specialist identity protection advice and resources,' a Qantas spokesman said. 'In an effort to further protect our customers, Qantas has obtained an injunction in the New South Wales Supreme Court which prevents the stolen data from being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published by anyone, including by any third parties.' Maurice Blackburn said the complaint was made to the Australian privacy commissioner, who did not have jurisdiction over New Zealanders' personal information. Some 1.3 million residential or business addresses were among the affected Qantas data, including hotels for misplaced baggage delivery. Four million customer records stolen in the attack contained names, email addresses and Qantas Frequent Flyer numbers. John Weekes is a business journalist mostly covering aviation and courts. He has reported on Catholic Church abuse and the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry since 2019 and on Dilworth survivors since 2021.
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Yahoo
Common neighbour problem plaguing Aussie houses: 'No right'
Welcome to legal column, where lawyers Alison and Jillian Barrett from Maurice Blackburn tackle problems everyday Aussies face — whether it be consumer, property, or money matters impacting relationships or work. This week an Aussie is concerned their neighbour has built too close to their house and ruined their privacy. Question I live in Sydney and have an issue with my neighbour. Well, more that a house was built right behind us and they are high enough that they can see right over our fence and through our whole house. I hated it so much we ended up putting up a higher fence. But if they look out their upstairs window they can still see my entire backyard and into the back rooms of my house. Is there anything I can do about it? Was there something I should have done before it was built. I never considered it, and now it makes me feel our family has completely lost our privacy. RELATED Warning for working from home Aussies over common practice Little-known cryptocurrency detail that could impact millions: 'Lost forever' Centrelink act costing 'hardworking' taxpayers Answer Privacy is essential to feeling safe in your own home and it is important to understand your legal rights and the steps you can take to protect your family. Right to privacy In NSW, there is no explicit right to privacy that prevents neighbours from looking into your property. The law would not consider that your neighbour's windows or balconies looking directly into your home or yard (also known as 'mere overlooking') is unlawful. The law generally does not consider it a nuisance unless the behaviour is excessive or unreasonable. Nuisance If your neighbour's actions are causing a significant disturbance, it might be considered a nuisance. Nuisance is when someone does something that interferes with your use and enjoyment of your property. The interference must be substantial and unreasonable. Occasional or minor intrusions likely wouldn't meet the threshold. The first step would be to talk to your neighbour about the issue. They may not be aware of your concerns and might be willing to take steps to reduce the impact on you. If this doesn't resolve the issue and the visual intrusion is significant, you can take legal action to bring a civil claim of private nuisance, seeking a remedy such as an injunction to stop the behaviour. If you wish to do this, you can start by speaking to a community legal centre for advice. Criminal offences There are various offences under the Crimes Act that relate to 'peeping or prying'. However, these acts are only a crime if your neighbour was intending on observing you doing a private act, as opposed to being able to see your home purely because of the layout of your homes. If at any time you consider their conduct feels excessive or targeted, you should make a complaint to the police. Local council regulations Before a house is built during the development application stage, there are usually local council regulations, building codes and planning permissions that need to be followed. These documents often include guidelines around building height, setbacks, and privacy protections —such as requiring high windows to be frosted or mandating privacy screens on balconies. If you believe the new house does not comply with these guidelines, you might be able to lodge a complaint with your local council or NSW Fair Trading. However, the best time to act would have been during the development application stage, where you could have lodged an objection based on privacy concerns. Now that the house is built, your focus needs to shift to practical solutions like screening, planting hedges, and even negotiating with your neighbour for mutual privacy improvements. This legal information is general in nature and should not be regarded as specific legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult a in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
1News
18-07-2025
- Business
- 1News
Qantas gains ruling over data hack hitting dark web
Qantas has sought to limit the spread of personal information of almost 6 million customers on the internet and the dark web after a sizeable data hack. The airline says it has obtained an interim injunction "to prevent the stolen data from being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published by anyone, including by any third parties". Meanwhile, law firm Maurice Blackburn said on Friday it has lodged a complaint with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) on behalf of affected Qantas customers. Legal experts suggest the incident could lead to a class action against the carrier after compensation claims were made against Optus and Medibank following major data breaches in 2022. Qantas has emphasised that even though the personal details of 5.7 million customers were compromised via a hack in one of its offshore call centres, no credit card details, personal financial information or passport details have been accessed. ADVERTISEMENT "We want to do all we can to protect our customers' personal information and believe this [injunction] was an important next course of action," the airline said on Thursday. The names, email addresses and frequent flyer details of four million customers were exposed. The remaining 1.7 million customers had more data taken, including their names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, personal or business addresses, gender and meal preferences. New Zealand-based customers who have accounts with the airline are among those affected. (Source: 1News) A statement of claim lodged in the NSW Supreme Court on Wednesday identified the defendant as "persons unknown". It defined them as any person or entity that carried out or aided in the cyber hack and that "communicated payment details" to the plaintiff Qantas. The carrier previously said a possible cybercriminal had contacted it about the data breach but it confirmed in the claim that no ransom has been paid. ADVERTISEMENT The airline demanded the defendant also "take all steps to immediately remove all and any of the impacted dataset ... from all accessible internet locations". It also included any publication on the "dark web". Australian Federal Police investigators were also probing the breach.
News.com.au
18-07-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
Class action alleges Qantas ‘failed' to protect personal information in wake of major data breach
Qantas failed to protect passengers' personal information, according to a law firm seeking potential compensation from the airline after a major data breach. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), alleging the airline 'failed to take reasonable steps to protect personal information' and therefore interfered with privacy under the privacy act. The details of nearly six million Qantas customers were potentially compromised in the data breach of one of the airline's call centres on June 30, including addresses, phone numbers, meal preferences, and Frequent Flyer details. Qantas has confirmed there is no evidence of any personal data being released, nor credit card or passport details or personal financial information accessed. 'Register with us' Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Elizabeth O'Shea confirmed an official complaint had been lodged against the airline, encouraging those affected in the breach to register with the firm to receive updates about potential compensation. 'While we await a response and potential action from the OAIC in relation to Qantas failing to adequately protect the personal information of its customers, we would encourage Qantas customers who were impacted by the breach to register with us to receive updates about the representative complaint and compensation which may be sought on your behalf,' Ms O'Shea said in a statement. 'It is early days in what we are learning about the mass data breach, but if you're one of the millions of people that have had your personal information compromised, you're eligible to register with us and we will keep you informed as the matter progresses.' A Qantas spokeswoman said the company remained focused on supporting customers. 'Qantas understands that a complaint has been lodged by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of some affected customers in relation to our recent cyber incident,' the spokeswoman said. 'Our focus continues to be on supporting our customers and providing ongoing access to specialist identity protection advice and resources.' Qantas have moved to prevent the stolen data from being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published by anyone, including third parties, following the granting of an interim injunction in the NSW Supreme Court. The airline also filed a statement of claim against anyone who carried out, participated or assisted in stealing of the data, communicated payment demands to Qantas, or posted some or all of the stolen data online. The defendant, and any third parties, were prevented by the court from publishing the stolen data online, transmitting or disclosing it to any other person, using and viewing any of the data except for the purpose of gaining legal advice, and promoting or publishing any links where the data may be downloaded without the written consent of Qantas. They were also ordered to take all reasonable steps to remove the data from the internet, including any 'dark web' locations.
