Cocker and Staggers (Child support)

[2024] AATA 779

Cocker and Staggers (Child support) [2024] AATA 779 (1 March 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/MC027054

APPLICANT:  Mr Cocker

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Staggers

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member K Dordevic

DECISION DATE:  1 March 2024

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review - particulars of the administrative assessment – application of adjusted taxable income - no reasonable prospect of success - application for review dismissed

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the application for review has no reasonable prospect of success and dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).

2. The reasons for this decision are set out in the following paragraphs.

3. Mr Cocker lodged an application with the Social Services and Child Support Division on 13 November 2023 in respect of a decision made by an objection officer to disallow an objection to a decision made on 18 May 2023 to apply Mr Cocker’s 2021 adjusted taxable income of $119,317 to the child support assessment from 1 September 2021. Mr Cocker stated that his reasons for application were that he had received a total and permanent disability (TPD) payment following neck, elbow and hand surgery and to help look after himself. In his view the TPD payment should not form part of his adjusted taxable income for child support purposes as it was not money he earned through work.

4. An early case appraisal conference took take place on 9 January 2024.  Both Mr Cocker and Ms Staggers attended the conference via telephone. The Conference Registrar discussed the merits of the application with Mr Cocker and Ms Staggers.

5. On 29 January 2024 the Tribunal sent a letter to Mr Cocker via his nominated email address advising:

   PROPOSED DISMISSAL OF YOUR APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
    
   The Tribunal is considering whether to dismiss your application under section 42B(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.
   
   
   You have 21 days from the date of this letter to give us any evidence or written submission that you wish to have considered before that decision is considered.

   Please respond to [email protected]

6. No response was received from Mr Cocker by close of business on 29 February 2024.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no merit to Mr Cocker’s application for the following reasons.

8. Section 56 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) states that for the purposes of assessing a parent in respect to their child support liability, if the parent’s taxable income has been assessed under an Income Tax Assessment Act for the last relevant year of income in relation to the child support period, the parent’s taxable income for that year is the amount assessed. In short, if the Australian Taxation Office has determined a person’s taxable income, that is the income amount to be used by Child Support in calculating the child support liability for the last relevant income year of the child support period.

9. The relevant child support period began on 1 September 2021. Therefore, as outlined in section 5 of the Act, the “last relevant year of income” is the last year of income that ended before the start of the child support period, this being the 2021 financial year.

10.  Mr Cocker’s 2021 adjusted taxable income was $119,317. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that Child Support has correctly applied Mr Cocker’s 2021 adjusted taxable income to the administrative assessment. There is no basis on which Mr Cocker may receive a more favourable determination by this Tribunal.

11.  The Tribunal dismisses the application as it has no reasonable prospect of success.