Catanzariti and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr and Mrs Catanzariti against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) which affirmed a determination by the Department of Human Services that they had been overpaid social security payments and owed a debt to the Commonwealth. The core of the dispute revolved around how gambling receipts, specifically dividends paid into TattsBet accounts, should be treated as "income" for the purposes of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) during a defined debt period. The applicants contended that the SSAT's direction to treat all dividends paid into the TattsBet accounts as income overstated their actual income for Centrelink purposes.

The legal issues before the court were whether the SSAT's decision was correct or preferable, specifically concerning the calculation of income derived from gambling activities. The applicants did not dispute the exclusion of cash deposits or certain specific deposits from their Credit Union accounts as income, nor did they contest that only one-tenth of income derived from syndicate activities should be attributed to Mr Catanzariti. The sole point of contention was the SSAT's directive that all dividends paid into the TattsBet accounts should be considered income.

The court rejected the applicant's proposed method of calculating income based on the balance left in the TattsBet account at the end of each day. However, it also declined to accept the respondent's approach of simply aggregating all dividend amounts without accounting for the cost of wagers. The court reasoned that the definition of "income" under the *Social Security Act 1991* requires a more nuanced approach than a simple summation of gross receipts. The court found that not all dividends received from gambling should automatically be classified as income, and that the calculation must consider the outlays made on successful bets.

Consequently, the court set aside the SSAT's decision and remitted the matters to Centrelink for recalculation of the debts. The directions provided stipulated that Centrelink was to recalculate the debts by treating one-tenth of all dividends paid into the relevant TattsBet accounts as income, while excluding cash deposits and specific identified Credit Union deposits. The court made no order for the waiver of any recalculated debts.