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

Aussie suburbs with the largest superannuation losses from collapsed funds: ‘Still unaware’

Published

on

Aussie suburbs with the largest superannuation losses from collapsed funds: ‘Still unaware’
ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland says many victims, located across the country, likely still don’t realise. · Getty/LinkedIn

There are still thousands of Australians who have lost retirement savings in their superannuation accounts that likely don’t realise. The Australian securities regulator is urging people to double check their account to make sure you’re not impacted by the high-profile collapse of two investment funds.

Some 12,000 Aussies had their superannuation funds switched into Shield and First Guardian. But years later about 9,000 still haven’t made an official complaint with the financial ombudsman, with only about 3,000 seeking compensation so far.

“In our view that’s not enough,” ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland told Yahoo Finance.

“We suspect a lot of people are still unaware.”

RELATED

Advertisement

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has shared postcode data with Yahoo Finance, showing the suburbs with the worst loses stemming from the $1 billion disaster.

Of the top postcodes across the country, four are in Queensland – 4740 Mackay, 4350 Toowoomba, 4670 Bundaberg and 4209 Coomera Pimpama.

Four are in Victoria – 3029 Truganina, 3064 Craigieburn, 3030 Werribee/Hoppers Crossing and 3977 Cranbourne/Cranbourne East/Cranbourne North.

While two others are in Western Australia – 6112 Armadale and 6171 Baldivis.

“Queensland, Victoria and WA are over represented,” Kirkland said.

Advertisement

“But really what we’re trying to say with releasing this data is that there are people who are affected by this in every part of the country.”

The top postcodes for each Australian jurisdiction

NSW

2259

Wyong · Tuggerah · Lake Munmorah.

VIC

Advertisement

3977

Cranbourne · Cranbourne North · Cranbourne East

QLD

4740

Mackay · North Mackay · West Mackay

Advertisement

SA

5114

Smithfield · Craigmore · Blakeview

WA

6112

Advertisement

Armadale · Piara Waters · Harrisdale

TAS

7250

Launceston · Riverside · Newstead

NT

Advertisement

0830

Palmerston City · Durack · Gray

ACT

2620

Queanbeyan · Googong · Karabar

Advertisement

Aussies urged to reach out to their superannuation fund

Many people may still not realise they were invested in Shield and First Guardian, because the funds sat behind well-known platforms or financial advisers. So if you happen to be in one of these postcodes and have not looked at your super in a few years, it is really worth checking, he said.

“If they’re not sure weather they invested in Shield or First Guardian they should reach out to the superannuation fund and ask about that,” Kirkland urged.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Lending Momentum Builds for 2026

Published

on

Lending Momentum Builds for 2026
Lenders anticipate elevated affordable housing activity for the rest of 2026, supported by recent expansions to the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC), including the 25% bond test and the i | LIHTC changes, expanded bond capacity, and deeper liquidity position affordable housing lenders for higher deal flow—even as costs, complexity, and equity gaps test execution.
Continue Reading

Finance

Banks must respond strategically to these six shifts – I by IMD

Published

on

Banks must respond strategically to these six shifts – I by IMD

To mark becoming a fully-fledged bank in the UK, the mega-fintech Revolut launched a TV advertising campaign featuring Irish comedian Graham Norton on a brown horse. As Norton explains cheekily at the end: “It’s a metaphor.” The advert, which is a parody of some of the advertising tropes historically used by legacy banks, is a fun watch, posing a simple but in fact consequential question – one that possibly keeps bank executives awake at night today: What is a bank?

It’s a clever provocation. In a few seconds, the ambitious digital startup turned financial services powerhouse challenges decades of accumulated assumptions about balance sheets, operating structures, and the very definition of financial intermediation. But do these hold water in 2026?

What will the banking leaders look like in five years?

Banking models, after all, were built for a different time, one defined by relatively stable geopolitics and smooth cross-border trade, fairly predictable regulations, centralized banking infrastructure, and long technology cycles. For decades, scale, capital strength, and regulatory privilege formed durable competitive moats. Banks sat at the center of client liquidity, orchestrating payments, lending, and risk with little serious threat to their primacy.

Today, those foundations are being relentlessly pounded and squeezed by a set of existential and overlapping forces that are galloping mercilessly forward. Economic statecraft is bumping up against revenue streams; intelligent automation and agentic AI are reshaping workflows, organizational structures, and decision-making. Open banking, enabled by regulations like the Revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) in the EU and similar elsewhere, disintermediates certain key functions that banks used to control end-to-end.

Once more, the customer is king and queen – and banks must rebuild for heightened customer-centricity, looking to the likes of Netflix, Uber, and Apple for inspiration – while at the same time strengthening resilience and compliance with more complex regulations.     

Advertisement

 I by IMD’s new report, The Future of Banking: The structural forces reshaping global banking – and the strategic decisions leaders cannot defer, identifies six structural shifts that will determine whether banks will be able to operate successfully over the coming decades or lose momentum and market share. The report examines these shifts through the perspectives of IMD professors, the real-world experience of bank leaders, and executives of breakthrough technology innovators, positioning as strategic partners to help banks build new competitive advantage.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending