Connect with us

Finance

First home buyer’s superannuation mistake exposes ‘widespread’ ATO problem

Published

on

First home buyer’s superannuation mistake exposes ‘widespread’ ATO problem
The first home buyer says a simple oversight in the process has cost her. (Source: TikTok/jess.ricci)

First home buyer Jessica Ricci was just trying to save a little extra money through her superannuation in a federal government scheme intended to help people like her. But an error from tax authorities has left her paying more tax than the top income bracket on some super contributions – ironically having the exact opposite of the intended effect of the policy.

As a result, she’s lost out on an extra $2,250 in savings that was supposed to go to her house deposit. While the ATO pushed back over who was at fault for the mix-up, her case has highlighted an increasingly problematic blindspot when it comes taxpayers getting the short end of the stick when dealing with tax authorities.

“I’m definitely feeling a little bit helpless,” she told Yahoo Finance. “There’s not a clear path to rectify this.”

RELATED

Jess was tipping extra money into her superannuation as part of the First Home Super Saver Scheme which has been running for years and allows eligible first home buyers to take advantage of the tax benefits of their retirement savings and then pull those extra contributions out to use for a house deposit.

Advertisement

As part of the scheme, individuals need to apply to the ATO, which in turn requests the related money from the person’s super fund.

Over four years, Jess contributed the maximum $50,000 amount, ensuring not to exceed the $15,000 yearly cap. She did so with the expectation of claiming the benefit at the time of her house purchase, as per the rules of the scheme.

When she went to make the claim, much of the information was auto-populated by the ATO website. And after receiving her funds, and the amount being less than expected, she soon discovered that her first contribution was wrongly classified as a concessional contribution, meaning $2,250 was, in the words of an ATO official, “retained by the ATO as withholding tax”.

She has spent months going back and forth with tax officials trying to get the money she believes should be owed to her.

“They’ve all taken the same stance, which is; ‘Well, yeah, we made a mistake, but you didn’t catch it. You said that what we provided you was fine, so it’s your fault’.

Advertisement

“I think it’s crazy to put the onus or the burden on the average person. I think most people would rightfully assume that pre-filled data provided by the ATO would be accurate,” she said.

“If I made a mistake on my tax return that benefited me, I’d be expected to fix it. But when the system made a mistake that benefits the ATO, it seems that there’s no direct pathway to correct it, which is really frustrating.”

The city of Melbourne.
Jess has paid for a new build in Melbourne. (Source: Getty) · Getty Images

ATO officials insisted Jess’s only recourse was to file a complaint with the federal Tax Ombudsman, which she did.

However, after “a thorough review” there was nothing that could be done to undo the error.

“FHSSS only allows for one release. This is why it is important that the person, lodging the request, ensures the information is correct at the time it is lodged,” the ombudsman said in a statement to her.

Advertisement

“Regretfully, I am unable to amend the amount released to you at this time.”

‘I worked three jobs to save my house deposit’

While the $2,250 that she has lost out on hasn’t been make or break for her situation, she said that kind of money could be crucial for someone scrapping together a house purchase.

“I worked three jobs to save my house deposit, I worked incredibly hard. And for some people, it actually would be the difference,” she said.

“I was doing all kinds of things to maximise the opportunity to save and to get myself into my first home.”

In a video on social media this month, the Melbourne resident shared her “incredibly frustrating” saga as a warning to others.

Advertisement

“On the $15,000 contribution I made that financial year, I’ve now paid 47.5 per cent tax, which is more tax than the maximum tax bracket that exists,” she said.

Tax accountant calls out ATO over ‘widespread’ errors in pre-filled data

As the tax office increasingly relies on data matching, the root problem of incorrect information being pre-filled into ATO systems has become much more “widespread” and problematic, tax accountant Belinda Raso says.

“It’s something that we’ve seen a lot,” she told Yahoo Finance. “It could be employment information, it could be the first home buyer Super Saver scheme, it could be bank interest, anything at all.”

Raso said in some cases, even if the taxpayer does spot the error and changes it at the time, the ATO’s data matching can subsequently override it and revert back to the incorrect information at a later date.

“Unless you get that information changed by the person or institution that’s responsible for that information, they’ll still keep going back to it,” she said.

Advertisement

The accountant said the growing reliance on “AI and data matching” means there needs to be a better form of recourse for taxpayers who are caught out by incorrect data being automatically input.

“If they’re going to have this pre-filled information on your return, for taxpayers we need to have some kind of mechanism,” she said. “Because the ATO is putting their hands up in the air, the Ombudsman’s putting their hands up in the air, and it’s up to taxpayers to then go; ‘Well look, this is wrong’.”

ATO says ‘no mechanism’ to fix the superannuation mistake

Jess’s superannuation fund confirmed they provided the correct information to the ATO.

In a statement to Yahoo Finance, the ATO admitted “there is no mechanism” to rectify such a mistake once funds have been released through the scheme.

“When individuals request a FHSS determination, ATO systems will pre-fill information for the individual,” an ATO spokesperson said. “The determination application form allows individuals to delete or vary any of the pre-filled information, as well as add new information where appropriate. Any information adjusted or provided by the individual can impact the amount of the contributions available for release.”

Advertisement

The spokesperson also noted that the ATO’s website and application forms “contain several warnings” for individuals using the FHSS.

“This includes advising them to check the accuracy of any pre-filled data in the determination form, and to amend it if there are errors or omissions. They are also required to declare that the information in the form is true and correct before they submit the form,” they said.

Any potential errors can be amended prior to funds being paid out. First home buyers “are able to amend or cancel their release request as long as they haven’t been paid any amounts. If they are able to cancel their release request at this point, they are then able to request a new determination to correct any errors but only if settlement on their intended property purchase has not yet occurred.

“Where an individual has made an error but has already been paid an amount through the FHSS scheme, the legislation provides no mechanism for the ATO to correct the individuals’ release,” the ATO spokesperson said.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter, and subscribe to the free daily newsletter.

Advertisement

Finance

UK Watchdog Urged to Consider Broader Oversight of AI Financial Firms | PYMNTS.com

Published

on

UK Watchdog Urged to Consider Broader Oversight of AI Financial Firms | PYMNTS.com

The UK’s financial regulator should consider expanding its oversight to cover advanced artificial intelligence models used in financial services, according to a review commissioned by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as policymakers assess whether existing rules can keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technology.

According to Bloomberg, the review recommends that the FCA evaluate whether large language models developed by companies including OpenAI and Anthropic should fall within the regulator’s remit if they play an increasingly significant role in consumer financial services. The report was led by Sheldon Mills, an executive director at the FCA, and was published on Monday.

The review concludes that the UK’s current activity-based regulatory framework does not require a wholesale overhaul. However, it warns that continued advances in AI capabilities and wider adoption of AI-powered financial products could expose gaps in existing oversight if technology providers increasingly influence regulated financial activities, Bloomberg reported.

Among its recommendations, the report calls for a review of the FCA’s regulatory perimeter and suggests strengthening the regulator’s authority under the UK’s Critical Third Parties regime. Such changes could allow the watchdog to exercise greater oversight of technology providers whose services have become integral to financial markets, including major AI developers and cloud infrastructure companies.

The recommendations reflect growing concern that artificial intelligence is reshaping how financial products are designed, distributed and used. Banks and other financial institutions are increasingly deploying generative AI to support customer service, fraud detection, compliance functions and financial guidance, while consumers are also turning directly to general-purpose AI tools for financial information.

Advertisement

The review also raises broader competition and market structure issues. As financial institutions rely on a relatively small number of AI model developers and cloud computing providers, operational dependencies could become concentrated among a handful of technology companies. That concentration may create systemic risks if disruptions or failures affect widely used platforms, while also potentially shifting market power away from regulated financial institutions toward large technology providers.

Those concerns mirror recommendations made earlier this year by the UK Parliament’s Treasury Committee, which urged the government to designate major AI and cloud providers as Critical Third Parties, arguing that regulators need stronger supervisory tools as digital infrastructure becomes increasingly central to financial stability.

The FCA launched the Mills Review in January to examine how artificial intelligence could transform retail financial services by the end of the decade. The consultation considered AI’s impact on competition, consumer behavior, market structure and the regulatory framework, with the aim of identifying whether financial regulation should evolve alongside technological change.

According to Bloomberg, the FCA will now consider the report’s recommendations, including whether its regulatory responsibilities should be expanded to reflect the growing influence of general-purpose AI systems in financial services. Any changes to the regulator’s statutory powers would require action by the UK government and would form part of broader efforts to balance innovation, consumer protection, financial stability and effective competition as AI adoption accelerates.

Source: Bloomberg

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

MAS moves to rein in autonomous AI agents in finance

Published

on

MAS moves to rein in autonomous AI agents in finance
MAS

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city state’s central bank and financial regulator, has joined forces with major financial institutions and FinTechs to release a white paper aimed at keeping AI agents in finance operating within safe limits.

The paper, called Safeguards for Agentic Finance at Runtime (SAFR), lays out an industry-built framework designed to let AI agents perform financial tasks in a manner that is safe, secure and dependable. It has been produced under BuildFin.ai, the MAS programme that backs the responsible creation and rollout of AI tools across the financial sector.

The push comes as AI agents take on more autonomous work at a pace that makes hands-on human oversight impractical. In response, firms require real-time controls that keep agent behaviour inside the mandates, policies and risk limits they have defined. SAFR answers this with a series of governance checkpoints that check and log each action an agent proposes before that task is carried out.

The framework extends the AI Risk Management toolkit created through MAS’ Project Mindforge, concentrating on how protections can be put into practice at the moment an agent acts. The white paper maps out how measures such as policy bound execution, real time validation, auditability and interoperability can be woven into system operations, giving institutions the confidence to deploy agents consistently.

Industry participants have already tested SAFR in several settings. These include agent-assisted payments and treasury work, where agents handle routine transactions inside set mandates to cut friction and lift efficiency; wealth management and advisory processes, where agents examine documents and produce structured assessments within tightly defined task limits to speed up compliance reviews; and client engagement, where agents create insights and draft materials within approved content boundaries so staff can serve clients more productively.

Stay ahead of the regulatory curve. Subscribe to FinTech Global’s newsletter today, and read the daily FinTech news for the strategic intelligence and early insight industry leaders rely on.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global

Investors

The following investor(s) were tagged in this article.

Continue Reading

Finance

The Worst Financial Advice People Keep Repeating Despite Being Wrong

Published

on

The Worst Financial Advice People Keep Repeating Despite Being Wrong

Talking about finances can be stressful, but it’s even more stressful if you’re not sure what advice is good and what advice might put you in a worse position than you started in.

Recently, a Reddit user who goes by market_vision1 asked, “What is the worst financial advice people still repeat?” I took out a little pen and paper while I was reading through these, like, “Lemme write that down. And that. Oh! And that, too!” I’m curious what you think, though. Are all of these things we should avoid financially?

1. “One of the more damaging ideas out there is ‘Oh, you’re young, don’t worry about money, just go have fun and worry about it when you are older.’ Of course, the number one regret I hear from clients nearing retirement is that they wish they had just started saving when they were younger.”

—u/hems86

Aaronamat / Getty Images

2. “The ‘tax bracket’ myth should be illegal. My uncle turned down a $10K raise because he thought he’d ‘lose money.’ He literally paid $10,000 to avoid $2,200 in taxes. That’s not a tax strategy. That’s a $7,800 donation to the Dumba— Fund, and he’s the chair.”

—u/Serious_Cress5040

Related: “31 Things Only Super Wealthy People Can Buy That You Probably Don’t Even Know Exist”

3. “People living outside of their means and not realizing it. They say things like, ‘You deserve X, don’t settle for less.’ Most of the people I see who are broke are not 100% victims of the system. The majority of people waste their money on dumb stuff that they can’t afford. They’ll tell me they’ve cut out all unnecessary spending, but when I look at their actual expenses, I see otherwise. Spending $800 a month on DoorDash, financing a new car with a $900 monthly payment, going on international vacations, spending 70% of their income on rent in a fancier apartment when there are options for cheaper living.”

—u/hems86

4. “I’m a financial planner, and some of the worst advice I’ve ever heard is ‘Don’t pay off your credit cards in full. Carrying a balance on your credit card builds your credit; paying it off every month hurts your score.’ People say this to me all the time when I ask why they carry a balance on their card with 25% interest when they have more than enough to pay it off.”

—u/hems86

Advertisement
Person looking stressed, holding a credit card and sitting at a laptop with scattered bills on a coffee table, in a living room setting
Srdjanns74 / Getty Images

5. “It’s not so much advice as it is a financial choice. I know people who are taking out 96-month loans on cars they never should’ve considered in the first place, just because they can make the car note when it’s stretched over eight years. They never considered the interest on the loan plus the rate cars depreciate and are befuddled when they can’t afford to trade it in.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending