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.”
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.
Most coverage of artificial intelligence in finance focuses on what these tools can do. Less attention is paid to how they perform under scrutiny, particularly in financial modeling, where small errors can carry real consequences.
After testing Anthropic’s Claude in real-world modeling scenarios, one conclusion stands out: Claude produces outputs that look credible at first glance but contain structural flaws that only an experienced professional would catch.
That gap between appearance and reliability is where risk begins.
Where AI Performs Well
Claude handled several foundational elements of financial modeling competently. It was able to:
Build basic revenue models
Advertisement
Generate standard financial statements
Apply consistent formatting, labels and units
The outputs appeared polished and professional. In some cases, they resembled models produced by junior analysts. That is what makes them risky.
The models looked right. The structure appeared logical. Formatting signaled credibility. For a time-constrained professional, those cues can create trust before a full audit is completed.
Related:Good Vibes Only: How Financial Advisors Can Build Custom Tools With AI
Advertisement
The Errors That Hide in Plain Sight
A closer review revealed issues that would likely go unnoticed without technical expertise:
Broken linkages between financial statements
Hardcoded values instead of centralized assumptions
Non-dynamic formulas and inconsistent logic across periods
Balance sheets that did not balance
Advertisement
Timing mismatches between beginning- and end-of-period values
Circular reference issues in areas like revolving credit
These are not edge cases. They point to a broader issue. The model may function, but it is not built on a reliable or auditable foundation.
Where Best Practices Break Down
Beyond individual errors, the models often failed to follow core financial modeling principles:
Assumptions were not clearly separated from calculations
Advertisement
Error checks were largely absent
KPIs lacked depth and industry-specific nuance
Formula design was inconsistent or inefficient
These gaps affect more than presentation. They determine whether a model can be trusted, adapted and audited under pressure.
The Real Risk Is Overconfidence
The key distinction is not between AI and human-built models. It is between models that are understood and those that are not. When a professional builds a model, every assumption and linkage is intentional. Even limitations are typically known. With AI-generated models, that understanding is outsourced.
Advertisement
This creates a different kind of risk:
The logic behind the model may not be fully clear
The structure may not align with internal standards
The review process may be less rigorous because the output appears complete
Related:Citi Brings Google-Powered AI Avatar to Wealth Clients
Advertisement
In practice, credibility is inferred from how the model looks, not how it was built.
Reviewing Is Not the Same as Building
There is also a practical workflow issue. Reviewing an AI-generated model is not equivalent to building one.
When reviewing:
You are interpreting logic you did not design
Errors can be harder to trace
Advertisement
Inconsistent structure increases audit time
In some cases, it is faster to build a clean model from scratch than to fix a flawed AI-generated one.
What This Means in Practice
Financial models support decisions involving significant capital. Even small issues can cascade:
Misstated cash flows can distort debt capacity
Timing errors can affect liquidity assumptions
Advertisement
Weak KPIs can lead to incomplete analysis
There is also a question of accountability. Regardless of how a model is created, responsibility for its output remains with the professional using it.
Where AI Fits Today
AI tools can still be useful in financial modeling. They can help:
Speed up repetitive components
Generate starting points for analysis
Advertisement
But they are not a substitute for professional judgment. Nor are they ready to operate without close oversight. For now, their role is best defined as assistive, not authoritative.
Related:The WealthStack Podcast: AI, Capacity and the Future of Advice with Mark Swan
A More Practical View of AI in Finance
The conversation around AI in finance does not need more optimism or skepticism. It needs more precision. AI can produce outputs that are visually convincing and directionally correct. In financial modeling, that is not enough.
The real risk is not that AI makes mistakes. It is those mistakes that are easy to miss, especially when the output looks finished. For financial professionals, the takeaway is simple: treat AI-generated models as drafts, not decision-ready tools.
CBA has tipped inflation to rise almost a full percentage point thanks to the Iran war. (Source: Getty) ·AFP via Getty Images
The Reserve Bank of Australia is facing an incredibly difficult call. The Board meets next week amid continued uncertainty over the war in Iran, and a week out from a Federal Budget expected to contain some big changes. Against that backdrop, it is expected to slug mortgage holders and businesses with a hike in the official cash rate.
But borrowers could – and should – be spared another blow, according to some prognosticators going against the grain. As house prices in major cities are rolling over, certain economic commentators think the RBA should stand pat.
A hike would be the third in a row, but the second since surging fuel prices took hold.
“Because that interest rate increase — or the equivalent — has already come through in higher petrol prices, I reckon they might hold the line,” said David Koch.
RELATED
Advertisement
The Economic Director at Compare the Market, and regular Yahoo Finance contributor, believes the bank could wait for at least some of the dust to settle and see what’s in the Federal Budget on May 12.
“They’ll be thinking about whether oil prices will stay high for longer, because if the Middle East crisis resolves itself, oil prices will drop significantly — and that would take a big chunk out of the inflation rate,” he said.
He also pointed to deteriorating conditions in the economy and historically glum consumer sentiment as factors that could reduce demand that caused inflation to tick back up this year in Australia’s productivity constrained economy.
“Consumer confidence has plunged and business confidence has fallen to almost record lows. Consumers cutting their spending is bad for the economy because small businesses start to suffer.
“And bosses not having confidence is bad for the economy too, because they won’t invest and they won’t hire people. So the Reserve Bank doesn’t want to crush consumers and businesses with another interest rate increase,” he said.
Advertisement
The ANZAC Day weekend brought another soft result in auction clearance rates in the country’s biggest housing markets (with Adelaide being a notable exception). In Sydney, auction clearance rates on Saturday were 49 per cent (compared to 63 per cent a year ago) and in Melbourne was 56 per cent (down from 61 per cent the same time last year), according to Domain.
Economist and former advisor to the Gillard government, Stephen Koukoulas, also believes the right move is not to hike, and says a softening housing market could play a part in a surprise decision to hold.
“The loss of momentum in house prices and outright falls now in Sydney and Melbourne is particularly interesting,” he said on Monday.
Advertisement
Despite the high probability of a hike, the RBA will have an incredibly tough call to make next week. (Source: Getty/Yahoo Finance)
While he noted the RBA doesn’t target house prices, the overall impact they have on the economy and sentiment is relevant.
“Given the importance of housing for household wealth and the efficient functioning of the banking system, house price falls will start to feature prominently in RBA thinking,” he claimed.
The frequently dovish economist, last week said lifting interest rates further into the already tough conditions for households “would be monetary policy vandalism”.
Ultimately, it could come down to a data point to be unveiled on Wednesday. The first set of inflation numbers since US and Israeli strikes on Iran led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and skyrocketing oil prices will be unveiled on Wednesday.
A large inflation spike in March is expected by economists, off the back of sharp increases to petrol and diesel prices which have filtered through to many sectors of the economy.
Commonwealth Bank economists have tipped inflation to rise almost a full percentage point for the month, from 3.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent.
Advertisement
The trimmed mean inflation, which removes the more volatile price increases such as petrol costs, will nudge up from 3.3 per cent to 3.5 per cent, they forecast.
CBA economists, in unison with the other Big Four banks, said the RBA was more likely than not to hike rates again off the back of Wednesday’s inflation data.
“The data will be keenly watched given the RBA is due to hand down its decision on interest rates on May 5, with money markets suggesting a 72 per cent chance of a 25 basis point rate hike,” the bank said.
The Reserve Bank favours the trimmed mean as a true measure of inflation, with the figures already well above the bank’s target band of between two per cent and three per cent.
with AAP
Advertisement
Get the latest Yahoo Finance news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram.
AgSouth Farm Credit and AgGeorgia Farm Credit are set to host a series of AGAware® Farm Finance Training workshops across Georgia in 2026, offering farmers comprehensive education in business and financial management, allowing them to better navigate the modern agricultural economy.
AgSouth Farm Credit and AgGeorgia Farm Credit announces upcoming 2026 AGAware® Farm Finance Training workshops in Georgia designed to equip farmers with essential business and financial management skills needed to succeed in today’s agricultural economy.
The training is open to anyone who wishes to develop a better understanding of how to run a successful farming operation of any type or size.
The AGAware® Workshops introduce farmers to a variety of financial related topics critical to running an operation. These topics include: balance sheets, income statements, family finance & family budgeting, risk management, accrual income, applying for financing, preparing a business plan, technology & record keeping, FSA/SBA and other Programs. AGAware® is also certified for FSA Direct Borrower Training Credits in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Workshops will be held at the following Georgia locations:
Advertisement
Friday, June 12 ǀ Swainsboro, GA
Southeastern Technical College
REGISTER: AgSouthFC.com/AGAware
Thursday, June 25 ǀ Athens, GA
Athens Clarke County Extension Office
REGISTER: AgGeorgia.com/AGAware
All classes are held from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., and a free lunch will be provided.
Advertisement
AgSouth Farm Credit created the national award-winning AGAware® program in 2011 to help ensure that future farmers will be prepared and strong financially so they may continue doing what it is they love. It’s been Farm Credit’s mission for more than one hundred years to serve farmers and rural America. Since the AGAware® program was established in 2011, more than 1,000 farmers in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have taken the classes and graduated from the program.
To see other 2026 AGAware workshop opportunities in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina go to AgGeorgia.com and AgSouthFC.com.
For more information about AGAware, contact Heather Brannen at [email protected] or Jessica Bassett at [email protected]