[Pete Timmins]

Here is the response from the ESL Insurance Monitor – In response to your first few points, here is some more information about the charging of the levy this financial year and next: An ESL/ FSL charge is triggered when an insurance policy is renewed or commenced at any point in the 2016-17 financial year. It is an annual fee which relates to the insurance company’s funding of emergency services for the same financial year, and is not tied to the life of an insurance policy. An insurance company that receives a premium during 2016-17 is obligated to pay a contribution towards the funding of the emergency services for that financial year. The obligation is based on the entire amount of the premium received – not just the portion that relates to the 2016-17 financial year. Therefore, insurers will set an ESL charge on a policy to reflect this full year obligation, regardless of whether the insurance cover falls into one or two financial years.

The property-based levy, which is to be charged alongside council rates from 1 July 2017, will fund the emergency services for the 2017-18 financial year. As you can see, this funds a different time period to the levy which is charged on insurance premiums. The only way that a policyholder would be ‘double charged’ is if they were to have an ESL included on an insurance policy that commences after 1 July 2017. If that were to happen, the Monitor would like to know.

With regards to your last point about a renewal near the end of the financial year. You are quite right in assuming that if all things remained equal, a policy renewed or commenced on 30 June 2017 would expect to attract the full ESL charge. However, insurance companies have indicated to the Monitor that due to their concerns that policyholders may choose to defer taking out insurance towards the end of the financial year, in an attempt to avoid paying an ESL, they intend to reduce the rates of ESL charged as the end of the scheme approaches. So while the ESL charge is not actually pro-rated, the results of the insurance companies actions may create the appearance of such for those renewing/commencing policies in the last few months of operation.

[Pete Timmins]

We have opted for the early receipt of 2016 land values.

Does anyone know if the media campaign will:

1. Advise those landholders, that were not due for a revaluation, that they will be receiving Notices of Valuation early in the New Year for ESPL purposes? and
2. In our case where we have accepted the offer of early valuations, will the landholders be notified before the Notices of Valuation are issued?

I have also asked this of ESPL Info.

Thanks
Pete

[Pete Timmins]

I asked that question via ESPL Info on 13-Sep-16 and have not yet had a response.

[Pete Timmins]

This is the response I received from the ESPL Info Team (The Treasury) – Thanks very much for your email. Since your query is largely insurance premium and ESL related I have forwarded it to the Insurance Monitor for their response (I have copied them into this email). I expect they will be in contact with you shortly.

[Pete Timmins]

Hi fellow Revenue Professionals,

Like Mchelle received last year, I have recently received a request from the NSW Aboriginal Land Council for exemption from rates Under Sec 556(1) (h), as the local aboriginal land council is a public benevolent institution/public charity. The only supporting documentation to date they have supplied is a copy of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Charity Register Summary.

Sec 556 (1) (h) states that exemption applies to land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity. My question is, if the dwellings are being used as residential accommodation does that meet the criteria of being occupied by the institution? I would also be interested to know how many other councils may be receiving these requests.

Thanks
Pete

[Pete Timmins]

Hi John,

At this point in time we are intending to go with the cost recovery option.

Regards
Pete

[Pete Timmins]

Hi Linda,

We were also advised by one of our local solicitors about this change. Like you we would only consider the BPay option.

Pete

[Author]

Posts