Aartsen and Tedrick (Child support)

[2019] AATA 4873

Aartsen and Tedrick (Child support) [2019] AATA 4873 (8 August 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/BC016513

APPLICANT:  Ms Aartsen

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Tedrick

TRIBUNAL:Member A Byers

DECISION DATE:  8 August 2019

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – estimate of income – whether the estimate should have been refused – estimate of income accepted – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Tedrick is the parent liable to pay child support to Ms Aartsen for their two children.  On 8 February 2017 Mr Tedrick contacted the Child Support Agency (CSA) to advise his income had reduced because his work hours with [his employer] had reduced due to a duty change.      

2. Mr Tedrick is recorded as advising his income sources were his [employment] and investments.  Mr Tedrick indicated that he expected to derive $55,675.82 from 8 February to 30 June 2019, comprising [wages] of $53,716.92 and accrued investments of $1,958.90. 

3. By notices dated 8 February 2019 the CSA informed both parties of its decision to accept Mr Tedrick’s estimate for the period 8 February to 30 June 2019, which it calculated to equate to $142,109 per annum. This matter concerns whether that estimate should be accepted.

4. On 12 April 2019 an Objections Officer disallowed Ms Aartsen’s objection and on 10 May 2019 she sought review by the Tribunal of this decision.  The application was heard on 8 August 2019 in Brisbane with both parties appearing in person.  Both parties gave sworn evidence.

5. At hearing I accepted into evidence the Section 37(1) Statement and Documents provided by the CSA, comprising folios 1 to 144 (marked Exhibit 1).  At hearing Mr Tedrick supplied [pay] advices for the fortnights ending 15 February 2019 and 1 March 2019 which I accepted into evidence as Exhibit 2 due to their central relevance.  To avoid any disadvantage to Ms Aartsen, I gave her the relevant information on each advice and she is to be provided with copies with irrelevant personal details redacted.

CONSIDERATION

1. As I understood Mrs Aartsen, she has concerns with the way the relevant legislation appears to operate.  However, as I indicated, I am bound by that legislation.

2. The provisions covering estimates of adjusted taxable income are contained in Subdivisions C to E of Division 7 of Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.[1]  Section 60 provides, as far as is relevant:

   [1]        All legislative references are to this Act unless otherwise stated.

   60  Parent may elect to estimate his or her adjusted taxable income for a year of income

   (1)  A parent may, before a year of income starts or during a year of income, elect that the parent’s adjusted taxable income for the year of income is to be the amount that applies under subsection (2) or (3) if:

   (a)  the parent is to be assessed in respect of the costs of a child of the parent for a day in a child support period; and
   (b)  the amount that would apply under that subsection is not more than 85% of:

   (i)  the total of the parent’s adjusted taxable income determined in accordance with section 43 for the last relevant year of income for the child support period; ...

3. Subsections 60(3) and (4) then set out the manner in which a person is to make their estimate for a part year.  In particular, Mr Tedrick was required under subsection 60(4) to estimate his adjusted taxable income from 8 February to 30 June 2019 (the estimate period).  Under paragraph 63AA(2)(a), the CSA may refuse to accept a person’s estimate for part of a year (to 30 June) where it is considered the estimate is likely to be less than their actual adjusted taxable income for that period.

4. The present issue is therefore whether, at the time it was made (8 February 2019), Mr Tedrick’s estimate was likely to be less than his actual adjusted taxable income for the estimate period.  If it was likely to be less, the estimate must be rejected.  If not, it is accepted.

10.  Ms Aartsen objected to the CSA’s decision as to her knowledge his wage from [work] increases each year and he does a significant amount of overtime.  Ms Aartsen was also rightly concerned that the CSA did not wait for a response from [Mr Tedrick’s employer] regarding a request to supply wages details. 

11.  After some discussion, Ms Aartsen indicated she was not challenging Mr Tedrick’s estimate of his investment income for the estimate period.  I am satisfied from Mr Tedrick’s evidence that, as at 8 February 2019, there was no basis for a finding that this aspect of his estimate was deficient.

12.  As noted, Mr Tedrick produced pay advices for the fortnights ending 15 February 2019 and 1 March 2019.  The following table sets out the relevant details:

[Date 1]  [Date 2]

Standard hours  $3,477.30  $2,781.84
Overtime  $915.08  $1,006.58
[Occupation 1]$730.20              $730.20
[Night shift]  $137.26   -
Rec leave   -  $695.46

Rostered day   -  $11.64

Total  $5,259.84  $5,225.72  

13.  As noted, Mr Tedrick is recorded as estimating he would earn $53,716.92 in the 143-day period from 8 February to 30 June 2019.  This is evidently based on his expected pay for the fortnight ending 15 February 2019 rounded down to the nearest dollar:

$5,259 x 143/14 = $53,716.92

14.  This, together with Mr Tedrick’s estimate of investment income ($1,958.90), then provides the basis for the CSA’s calculation of his adjusted taxable income for the estimate period:

($53,716.92 + $1,958.90) x 365/143 = $142,109

15.  Notably, Mr Tedrick’s overtime is included in both pay advices and was plainly taken into account when he made his estimate.  Mr Tedrick explained that, until January 2019, he was getting extra overtime as the result of work associated with [a] project.  The drop in pay in late January 2019 coincided with the completion of the [project].

16.  Mr Tedrick indicated that the overtime appearing in the pay advices provided were indicative of what he was expecting for the remainder of the financial year and there is no evidence before me to suggest otherwise. 

17.  I note the CSA contacted [Mr Tedrick’s employer] on 29 April 2019 and were evidently informed Mr Tedrick “received a lot of overtime in his last pay”.  However, this may simply be a reference to an amount similar to the amounts found in the pay advices provided.  In any event, it relates to a single pay advice received over two months after Mr Tedrick’s estimate and therefore does not necessarily have any bearing on whether the estimate when made was likely to be less than his adjusted taxable income for the estimate period.

18.  Accordingly I am satisfied the CSA correctly accepted Mr Tedrick’s estimate.      

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.