Amin and Nissen (Child support)
[2023] AATA 2160
•14 June 2023
Amin and Nissen (Child support) [2023] AATA 2160 (14 June 2023)
DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER: 2022/SC025263
APPLICANT: Mr Amin
OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar
Ms Nissen
TRIBUNAL:Member F Staden, Presiding Member
Senior Member K Dordevic
DECISION DATE: 14 June 2023
DECISION:
The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $60,000; and
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s self-support amount is reduced by 35%.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – a ground for departure established – decision to depart – decision under review set aside and substituted
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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
Mr Amin and Ms Nissen are the separated parents of [Child 1], born 2020. There has been a child support assessment for this case from 12 June 2020, with Mr Amin the parent liable to pay child support. Collection of child support by Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) has been in place from 12 June 2020. [Child 1] is recorded as being in the greater than primary care of Ms Nissen (100%) from the start of the assessment.
There have been no previous change of assessment decisions in this case.
On 5 January 2022, Child Support provided the parents with an updated assessment for the then current child support period:
· For the period 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2022, Mr Amin’s annual child support liability is $446 (the minimum annual rate) based on Mr Amin’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $25,730 and Ms Nissen’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $28,812.
Following submissions from Ms Nissen, on 17 May 2022 Child Support informed Mr Amin and Ms Nissen by letter that the incomes used for them in the child support assessment were being reviewed as there was information to suggest that either or both of those incomes did not reflect a parent’s capacity to financially support their child.
On 30 June 2022, Child Support informed Mr Amin and Ms Nissen by letter that the capacity to pay review was recommending that Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income be assessed as $46,500 and that no change be made to the adjusted taxable income used for Ms Nissen.
On 14 July 2022, Child Support provided the parents with an assessment for the upcoming child support period:
· For the period 1 August 2022 to 31 October 2023, Mr Amin’s annual child support liability is $459 (the minimum annual rate) based on Mr Amin’s provisional 2021/22 adjusted taxable income of $26,476 and Ms Nissen’s 2021/22 adjusted taxable income of $32,011.
On 19 August 2022, a Child Support primary decision maker determined the Registrar initiated change of assessment application and found that the child support assessment did not correctly reflect Mr Amin’s income, property and financial resources (Reason 8A) and that Reason 8A was therefore established. The decision maker made the following decision:
· For the period 17 May 2022 to 16 May 2024, Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income is set at $78,184.
On 19 September 2022, Mr Amin lodged an objection to the 19 August 2022 decision.
On 6 December 2022, an objections officer partly allowed Mr Amin’s objection. The officer found that Reason 8A was established and made the following decision:
· For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2023, Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income is set at $56,004; and
· For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2023, Mr Amin’s self-support amount is reduced by 50%.
On 14 December 2022, Mr Amin applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal) for review of the objections officer’s decision.
On 29 March 2023, a telephone directions hearing was conducted with Mr Amin and Ms Nissen. Directions were issued to the parents on that day in addition to a summons to Ms Amin (Mr Amin’s wife) pursuant to section 40A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and a notice to Western Union Holdings AU in accordance with subsection 95J(1) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
A hearing was held on 31 May 2023. Mr Amin and Ms Nissen gave sworn evidence by MS Teams audio. The tribunal had before it papers provided by Child Support (434 pages), Mr Amin (pages A1 to A63) and Ms Nissen (pages B1 to B75). Copies of these documents were provided to all parties.
The tribunal deferred making its decision to 14 June 2023. Relevant aspects of the evidence are referred to in the consideration below.
ISSUES
The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). The formula used to calculate the rate takes into account factors such as the number of children, the levels of care provided and the income of each parent.
Under section 98B of the Assessment Act, a liable parent or carer receiving child support can apply to the Child Support Registrar for a determination to depart from the administrative assessment. This is known as a change of assessment.
Under section 98C of the Assessment Act, the Child Support Registrar, here the tribunal, may change the assessment if the case meets the following three criteria:
· There is a ground to depart from the assessment (subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act lists those grounds). Only one ground has to be established for the tribunal to proceed to consider the next criterion (Marsh & Eccles [2008] FMCAfam 1417);
· It is “just and equitable” to make particular changes to the assessment; and
· It is “otherwise proper” to make those changes to the assessment.
CONSIDERATION
Issue 1: Is there a ground to depart from the administrative assessment?
Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Assessment Act provides a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the use of the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of a parent’s child support liability because the income, property and financial resources of either parent are not properly taken into account.
The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the Assessment Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93, the Full Family Court indicated that for there to be special circumstances, the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.
Mr Amin’s income, property and financial resources
Financial evidence
Child Support obtained the following bank statements for Mr Amin: [Bank 1] account [for] the period 28 November 2020 to 27 May 2022; [Bank 1] [account] for the period 11 August 2020 to 10 February 2022; and [Bank 2] account, [which] held $356.83 across the period 21 August 2020 to 20 May 2022.
The tribunal’s 29 March 2023 directions asked Mr Amin to provide, among other things, unredacted (apart from partial redaction of the account number) statements for the period 1 July 2022 to 31 March 2023 for all accounts he holds with financial institutions (including savings, cheque, credit cards, store credit cards and loans) held solely in his name, or jointly by him and another person, or accounts to which he is a signatory.
In response, Mr Amin provided: the summary section of a 10-page statement for his [Bank 1] [account] for the period 28 May 2022 to 27 November 2022, showing an opening balance of $307, total credits of $16,183, total debits of $16,460 and a closing balance of $30; heavily redacted statements for account [for] the period 9 January 2023 to 9 May 2023; and payment summaries only for his [Bank 3] Credit Card [for] the period 14 September 2022 to 14 April 2023.
The tribunal asked Mr Amin why he had not provided all the financial institution information requested in the form it was requested. He stated that he did not want Ms Nissen to know his personal information. The tribunal found this to be an unsatisfactory explanation. Mr Amin applied for this review, wanting a favourable decision about his income, yet did not provide the evidence to clearly show that all his income is being taken into account by the assessment.
In Humphries & Berry (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 409, Federal Magistrate Slack (as he was then) dealt with the issue of the disclosure of financial information in child support matters before the former Social Security Appeals Tribunal. His Honour stated that the principle of full and frank disclosure applicable to proceedings in the Family Court was also applicable to proceedings before the tribunal. He stated at [31]:
In financial proceedings under the Family Law Act, the authorities make it clear that a Court “should not be unduly cautious about making findings in favour of the other party if it is not satisfied that proper disclosure has been made (see Chang & Su (2002) FLC93-117)”. Such principles, in my consideration, have similar application to these matters before the SSAT.
Also, in Agrippa & Horton (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1144, Federal Magistrate Halligan stated at [25]:
… If the SSAT is satisfied that a parent has made a deliberate non-disclosure of his or her financial circumstances, it should be reasonably robust in assessing the non-disclosing parent’s financial circumstances adversely to that parent and in favour of the other parent. That is not to say that it may arrive at an entirely arbitrary result, but rather that it may draw generous inferences adverse to the non-disclosing party about that party’s financial circumstances.
Here the tribunal was satisfied that Mr Amin deliberately withheld financial evidence requested by the tribunal and, guided by the court decisions above, reached conclusions about his financial circumstances accordingly.
Income and expenditure
Mr Amin’s 22 January 2023 Statement of Financial Circumstances (SoFC) stated that his annual income is $34,800 a year ($670 a week); his total weekly expenditure is $575; his only significant asset is a car valued at $15,000; and his liabilities consist of a $27,000 credit card debt, a $9,000 car loan and a loan of more than $10,000 from his parents and sister.
The tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Amin’s SoFC was a reliable representation of his financial situation, given the many anomalies. For example, bank statements show regular weekly repayments of around $190 to $200 from November 2020 to March 2023 to Mr Amin’s [car] loan. This is equivalent to around $10,000 a year but such payments are not among Mr Amin’s declared expenditure and would constitute a third of his after-tax income.
Additionally, Mr Amin lists a $27,000 [Bank 3] credit card debt, which had an average minimum monthly repayment of around $475 for the six months of summaries provided. The fluctuating debt over time on the card indicates it is in use. It is possible that this card is effectively being used as a bank account. Mr Amin did refer to using two superannuation hardship payments of $10,000 each to clear credit card debt. Here the tribunal noted that Mr Amin has a [another] credit card which is not mentioned in his SoFC despite bank statements showing he makes a regular weekly payment of around $70 to it.
Below, the tribunal has focussed on the key issues of Mr Amin’s access to additional income and his access to a financial resource.
Additional income
The income Mr Amin listed on his SoFC is that from his [Employer 1] employment as a permanent part-time [occupation] since 2 June 2003. Payslips show that he currently works 20 hours a week at an hourly rate of $32.89, which equates to annual gross earnings of $34,200. He told the tribunal that he did not think these earnings had fallen during the pandemic.
Mr Amin agreed that he has previously earned money as a [Occupation 1] and [Occupation 2] but stated that since the pandemic his paid [Occupation 1]-related work has largely ceased. He gave evidence that in the period from 1 July 2022 to 31 March 2023 he had only earned $2,200 gross [and] $90 gross for a one-off [job]. Mr Amin said that this money and any other income he has previously earned from [Occupation 1] or [Occupation 2] is always paid into his bank account and declared to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Mr Amin stated that social media material provided by Ms Nissen about his other [work] during and after the pandemic related to [specified work] he had done as favours for friends or as his contribution to fundraisers. He disputed Ms Nissen’s evidence that he is often paid in cash for [the work].
The tribunal asked Mr Amin why, if he was no longer earning money as a [Occupation 1] or [Occupation 2], he had not sought additional employment. Mr Amin gave three reasons for this: It is difficult to find full-time employment. He is very depressed because of his lack of access to [Child 1] and the related court proceedings; he has not sought treatment for his depression. He is continuing to spend time looking after his elderly parents; his father is [age] and his mother, who had a blood clot 15 years ago, is [age]. The tribunal observed that Mr Amin’s caring responsibilities had not previously been raised as a factor restricting his earning capacity. He said that this was because he is a private person and does not like talking about his family.
The tribunal observed that Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable incomes for recent years are as follows: 2018/19 – $21,472; 2019/20 – $26,237; 2020/21 – $25,730; and 2021/22 – $28,187. These incomes are in line with Mr Amin’s earnings as a [occupation], noted above. They do not indicate the declaration of additional income even in the pre-pandemic period when Mr Amin agreed that he was working as a [Occupation 1] and [Occupation 2].
The [bank] statements obtained by Child Support showed that $32,205 was paid into Mr Amin’s account from sources other than [Employer 1] or a government department in the 18-month period from 28 November 2020 to 27 May 2022. Some of these payments had descriptions clearly indicating that they were for [Occupation 1 and Occupation 2 work]; some did not. Given the limited and redacted bank statement evidence provided by Mr Amin for later periods, the tribunal chose to rely upon this information when considering his income other than that earned as a [Occupation].
Mr Amin said that the source of the additional income is largely repayments from friends when he has paid for dinner plus loans from his parents, sister and fiancée, now wife, Ms Amin, whom he married in September 2022. On 29 March 2023, Ms Amin wrote to the tribunal about the significant financial support she has provided to Mr Amin over time, including paying for their wedding and honeymoon. On 30 March 2023, the tribunal issued a summons to Ms Amin, requesting that she provide evidence, for example, bank statements, of this support. Ms Amin did not comply, stating that in her view the summons was not properly worded. The tribunal observed that, regardless of the particulars of the summons, it was open to Ms Amin to provide evidence that she financially supports Mr Amin but she did not.
Overall, on the evidence before it, the tribunal was unpersuaded by Mr Amin’s explanation of his additional income and found that Mr Amin does earn money as a [Occupation 1] and [Occupation 2] and does not declare all of this income to the ATO. Allowing for some interpersonal transactions, the tribunal found that at least 85% of the $32,205 could reasonably be attributed to income from his [Occupation 1 and 2 work]. This equates to $18,250 ((($32,205*0.85)/18)*12) a year.
Financial resource
In his SoFC, Mr Amin reported that he pays $350 a week in rent, $18,200 a year. He provided a letter from his cousin, [stating] that since March 2021 Mr Amin has paid $350 a week to rent a granny flat at his home. Ms Nissen argued that Mr Amin lives rent free at his parents’ home; Mr Amin denied this. Mr Amin listed no utility costs in his SoFC and so it can be assumed that his rent covers such accommodation-related costs.
The tribunal observed that Mr Amin has consistently stated that his parents provide him with the money to pay his rent. He agreed that this was the case and pointed to the $10,000+ loan from his family in his SoFC. This amount is markedly less than the $18,200 annual rent claimed to be paid by Mr Amin and yet Mr Amin was clear that he had made no repayments to his parents and that there is no repayment plan in place. The tribunal found that the $18,200 in annual rental payments is not a loan as there is no repayment arrangement, rather it is a financial resource in the form of the provision of accommodation and related utility costs. The tribunal further found that an effective way of taking this financial resource into account in the assessment would be to reduce Mr Amin’s self-support amount by 35%.
Conclusion
The tribunal therefore found that, relevantly here, Mr Amin’s 2020/21 adjusted taxable income of $25,730 and his 2021/22 adjusted taxable income of $28,187 do not adequately reflect his income and financial resources for the purposes of child support. This constitutes a special circumstance in this case. As the application of the administrative assessment would thus result in an unjust and inequitable determination of financial support for [Child 1], in that Mr Amin would be assessed to pay less child support than warranted based on his income and financial resources, the tribunal found that a ground for departure, Reason 8A, was established. The issue of whether it is just and equitable to change the assessment in the particular circumstances of this case is considered below.
Issue 2: Is it just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment?
To decide whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment, the tribunal must consider the matters required by subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act, plus any other matters raised in the change of assessment application.
Duty of a parent to maintain a child/commitments necessary for self-support or the support of anyone else the parent has a duty to maintain
Section 3 of the Assessment Act makes it clear that the parents of a child have the primary duty to maintain the child, and that this duty has priority over all commitments of the parents other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person the parent has a duty to maintain.
Mr Amin and Ms Nissen each have the primary duty to financially support [Child 1]. Mr Amin did not identify anyone else he has a legal duty to maintain. Ms Nissen has a legal duty to maintain her two older children who are taken into account by the assessment as relevant dependent children. Neither of those children have any special needs related costs or other out of the ordinary costs.
Neither Mr Amin nor Ms Nissen identified any personal health-related costs or any other unusual self-support expenses for the tribunal to consider.
The proper needs of the child
In determining the proper needs of a child, it is necessary to consider any special needs of the child and the manner in which the parents expected the child to be cared for, educated or trained.
[Child 1] has no special needs related costs or child care expenses.
Income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child
It is accepted that [Child 1] has no access to income, property or financial resources which could be used for his self-support.
Mr Amin’s earning capacity
When Mr Amin’s [Occupation 1] and [Occupation 2] activities are taken into account along with his part-time [Occupation] employment, the tribunal was satisfied that Mr Amin is fully exercising his earning capacity.
Income, property and financial resources and earning capacity of Ms Nissen
Since her separation from Mr Amin, at around the time of the birth of [Child 1], Ms Nissen has provided 100% of [Child 1]’s care. Her earning capacity is therefore not at issue here as she is not working because of her caring responsibilities.
Ms Nissen’s 4 January 2023 SoFC showed her income to consist of parenting payment, family tax benefit, child support paid by her older two children’s father and child support paid by Mr Amin for [Child 1]. The tribunal accepted her testimony that her older children’s father voluntarily pays more than his assessed amount of child support, $500 rather than $315.47 a week. Ms Nissen stated that this is a temporary arrangement. The child support paid by Mr Amin has varied; under the objections officer decision being reviewed here, Mr Amin’s weekly rate of child support for [Child 1] was $136.32 at the date of Ms Nissen’s SoFC.
Ms Nissen has no assets of significance; she lives in a rental property and has no car. Her SoFC lists her as having $3,190 in liabilities: a [loan] of $990, a Visa card debt of $990 and “Buy Now Pay Later – AfterPay and PayPal” liabilities of $1,210. Ms Nissen wrote on her SoFC that she had allowed $200 a week in her SoFC average weekly expenditure for repayment of the last of these liabilities, which she said came about because of Christmas expenses, extra bills and the higher cost of living.
Mr Amin argued that Ms Nissen has additional income to that listed on her SoFC. He pointed to various social media postings in support of this. Specific examples raised by Mr Amin and Ms Nissen’s responses included:
· Ms Nissen continues to earn income by [working as Occupation 1] and does not declare this income to the ATO, Centrelink or Child Support. Ms Nissen said that she last earned income from [Occupation 1] in October 2019 when she last [worked] with Mr Amin and was paid $800. Sometime prior to that she earned $400 [with] Mr Amin. She agreed that she had declared neither amount to the appropriate agencies.
Mr Amin disputed Ms Nissen’s response, stating that he could provide evidence from multiple sources of Ms Nissen’s ongoing paid work as a [Occupation 1]. The tribunal noted that Mr Amin had been given ample opportunity to provide such evidence but had not done so. Mr Amin stated that he had not wanted to bombard the tribunal with material. In the context of the detailed other evidence he provided about Ms Nissen, the tribunal did not find this to be a persuasive response.
· Ms Nissen earned income as a [Occupation 3]. Ms Nissen said that this [event] was a fun activity during the pandemic for young people in the village where she grew up and that she made no income from her participation.
· Ms Nissen purchased an expensive computer. Ms Nissen said she bought a new computer in April 2021 as her old computer was dying and had to be replaced. She funded the purchase using lottery winnings of $2,625 and could provide evidence of this. Mr Amin accepted this explanation.
· Ms Nissen purchased an expensive mobile phone. Ms Nissen agreed that she bought a new phone and phones for her older children but stated that she bought them on two-year plans which made the cost more manageable. Mr Amin accepted this explanation.
· Ms Nissen spends a lot of money on her dog. Ms Nissen said that the dog was originally purchased by her older children’s father and that he pays all the dog’s costs, including food and veterinary expenses. Mr Amin accepted this explanation.
· Ms Nissen has an extensive collection of expensive designer clothes and shoes. Ms Nissen said that she had been collecting such clothes and shoes over many years including when she was in a relationship with Mr Amin. While some of the items he pointed to were bought by Mr Amin, many were bought by her older children’s father when they were married. Mr Amin disputed that he had bought any of the clothes pictured in the evidence he provided.
· Ms Nissen buys expensive food. Ms Nissen said that she frequently cooks. She is a careful shopper and so can afford to buy more for the same money. Her culture values food highly and so it is a priority for her, plus her older children’s father assists her with extra money for food on special occasions such as Christmas.
· Ms Nissen receives money from family and friends overseas. Ms Nissen said that apart from money for the children for birthdays and such like, she receives no money from overseas. Her last overseas trip was to [Country 1] in 2018 and was paid for by her parents. The tribunal sought evidence, through Child Support, from Western Union about any possible overseas transfers to Ms Nissen but this information was effectively unobtainable.
The tribunal found no evidence to indicate that Ms Nissen receives income from undeclared employment. She does receive funds from her older children’s father for dog related costs and contributions to food costs for celebratory occasions at which he is often a participant. Additionally, the older children’s father is temporarily paying $185 extra in child support a week to assist Ms Nissen to better meet the needs of her older two children.
Mr Amin argued that additional funds provided by the older children’s father, other than the dog-related funds, are a financial resource for Ms Nissen and as such should be taken into account by the assessment. The tribunal did not accept this argument. The tribunal found that the older children’s father’s contributions for food were more like one-off gifts than regular payments. In relation to the additional child support payments for the benefit of the two older children, the tribunal found no evidence to indicate that [Child 1] was the beneficiary of those funds. Additionally, the tribunal observed that if Ms Nissen had access to significant income not being considered by the assessment, it is unlikely that she would find herself needing to take out short term, high interest loans such as those listed in her liabilities. Overall, on the available evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that Ms Nissen’s adjusted taxable income adequately reflects her income, property and financial resources in the assessment.
Direct and indirect costs of providing care for the child incurred by the parent entitled to child support
Ms Nissen did not identify any particular costs associated with caring for [Child 1] that were outside the usual such costs.
What determination should be made taking into account the above factors?
The proposed departure determination is that:
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $60,000; and
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s self-support amount is reduced by 35%.
The start date of 17 May 2022 is the date on which Mr Amin and Ms Nissen were informed that Child Support were reviewing Mr Amin’s capacity to pay child support. The tribunal found this to be an appropriate start date as it is the date on which Mr Amin was first alerted to the questioning of his income amount and is also consistent with earlier decisions.
The end date of 31 October 2025 is later than the 16 May 2024 date in the original decision and two years after the end date in the objections officer decision. The tribunal found that a determination for a longer period than either of the previous decisions would provide both parties with certainty going forward. It is also the date by which Mr Amin’s 2024/25 adjusted taxable income should be available. It is to be hoped that this amount will better reflect Mr Amin’s income for the purposes of child support than his 2020/21 and 2021/22 adjusted taxable incomes.
The tribunal found above that Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income should be increased to take account of $18,250 a year in additional income from [Occupation 1 and Occupation 2 work]. This amount has to be grossed up to the amount it would be if it was the net income following appropriate taxation. When $18,250 is added to Mr Amin’s current annual after-tax income of $30,566, his total annual after-tax income is $48,816. This grosses up to $60,000 a year.
As noted above, the reduction of Mr Amin’s self support amount by 35% is in recognition of his access to free accommodation and associated utilities.
The impact of the proposed two changes to the child support assessment is to increase Mr Amin’s annual child support liability from the minimum annual rate to $7,188 for the period 17 May 2022 to 31 July 2022 and $7,104 for the child support period 1 August 2022 to 31 October 2023. Mr Amin’s annual child support liability for the remaining period covered by the proposed determination, 1 November 2023 to 31 October 2025, cannot be calculated until Ms Nissen’s relevant adjusted taxable incomes are known.
Any hardship resulting from the departure determination
In so far as is possible, given the unreliable nature of the available evidence about Mr Amin’s financial circumstances, the tribunal was satisfied that he has the financial capacity to meet the child support liability determined and to rectify any arrears owed.
Issue 3: Is it otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment?
The tribunal considered the impact of its proposed determination on the balance of financial support provided by the parents on one hand and the taxpayer on the other. It is necessary to decide whether this is a proper outcome given that parents have the primary responsibility to support their children.
Ms Nissen receives family tax benefit for her three children. The proposed determination may reduce the amount of that payment. Whatever the impact, the tribunal was satisfied that the proposed determination fairly shares the cost of [Child 1]’s care between the parents, taking into account the financial and other circumstances of each. The tribunal therefore found that the proposed determination is otherwise proper.
DECISION
The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $60,000; and
For the period 17 May 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Amin’s self-support amount is reduced by 35%.
0
3
0