Coverdale and Easton (Child support)

[2018] AATA 1704

Coverdale and Easton (Child support) [2018] AATA 1704 (20 April 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/BC012515

APPLICANT:  Mr Coverdale

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Easton

TRIBUNAL:Member K Buxton

DECISION DATE:  20 April 2018

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale will be varied to:

• $13,500 per annum for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019;

• $12,000 per annum for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2019; and

• $13,000 per annum for the period 1 January 2020 until a terminating event occurs and the child support case ends.

CATCHWORDS

Child Support – Departure determination – Income and financial resources of parents – Business income – Education of child in a manner expected by both parents – Orthodontic costs for the child – 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 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. Ms Easton and Mr Coverdale are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. Mr Coverdale has sought review by this tribunal of a decision of the Child Support Agency (CSA) about the amount of child support assessed as payable by Mr Coverdale to Ms Easton for [Child 1], who is recorded as in the 100% care of Ms Easton. [Child 2], who lives with Mr Coverdale, is over 18 years of age and is no longer included in the child support case.

2. Prior to 30 March 2017, at a time when each parent had a child of the child support assessment in their 100% care, child support was determined by reference to an earlier departure decision. After [Child 2] ceased to be included in the child support case the administrative assessment of child support calculated the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale for the period 30 March 2017 to 16 June 2017 as $3,630, based on 2016 adjusted taxable incomes of $55,267 for Mr Coverdale and $87,030 for Ms Easton. For the period 17 June 2017 the annual rate of child support increased to $4,917.

3. On 8 February 2017 Ms Easton applied for a departure from the administrative assessment, under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act), on the basis that the income and financial resources available to Mr Coverdale were not reflected in the adjusted taxable income used for him in the administrative assessment of child support. She also sought a contribution, through the child support assessment, to private school fees and orthodontic costs for [Child 1].

4. On 3 May 2017 a delegate of the Child Support Registrar at the CSA determined that a ground existed to depart from the administrative assessment and decided that, for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 August 2019, Mr Coverdale’s adjusted taxable income was to be set at $88,000 per annum. The delegate also decided to increase the annual rate of child support by $1,187 per annum for a two year period from 1 April 2017 on account of the orthodontic expenses, and by amounts for private school fees of $2,903 for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 December 2017, $2,443 for the 2018 year and $2,400 for the 2019 year.

5. Mr Coverdale objected to the delegate’s decision and, on 29 August 2017, an objections officer “partly allowed” the objection, deciding that, for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 December 2019, Mr Coverdale’s adjusted taxable income was to be set at $117,330 per annum, and leaving in place the decision with respect to the increases (as set out above) to the annual rate of child support for orthodontic and schooling costs.

6. Mr Coverdale applied to the tribunal for review of the objection decision. A hearing took place on 18 April 2018. Mr Coverdale and Ms Easton participated in the hearing by conference telephone and gave sworn evidence. In reaching its decision, the tribunal has considered that sworn evidence together with the subsection 37(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 Statement and Documents prepared by the CSA (Exhibit 1) and documentation provided by Mr Coverdale (Exhibit A), and Ms Easton (Exhibit B).

CONSIDERATION

The legislative framework

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. A formula is used which takes into account variables including each parent’s adjusted taxable income for the last relevant year of income, the number of children and the level of care provided by each parent. The legislative intent is that the tribunal will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases.

2. Part 6A of the Act allows for a departure from an administrative assessment (a process commonly known as a change of assessment). Under subsection 98C(1), a change of assessment can be made only if:

   a.   a ground (or more than one ground) for departure exists; and

   b.   departure from the administrative assessment would be:

   i.just and equitable as regards the children and each parent; and

   ii.otherwise proper.

3. Subsection 98C(2) of the Act provides that the grounds for departure are the same as those set out in subsection 117(2). If satisfied that a ground or grounds exist and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the tribunal may make one of the range of determinations, prescribed in section 98S of the Act, which include varying the rate of child support payable, the adjusted taxable income and the cost percentage for a child.

Ground for departure

Income, property, financial resources and earning capacity

10.The Act provides, as grounds for departure from the administrative assessment of child support (in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia)):

(c) that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child: …

(ia) because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent.

11.  The words “in the special circumstances of the case” are not defined in the legislation. Whilst it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. In Gyselman v Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93, it was held that "special circumstances" were "facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases". The tribunal will consider whether the application of the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support payable, having regard to the evidence relevant to the parents’ financial positions.

Ms Easton’s income and financial resources

12.  Ms Easton is employed on a full-time basis as a team leader in a community services provider. At the time of her departure application, the child support assessment used 2016 adjusted taxable income of $87,030 for Ms Easton. This was replaced with her 2017 adjusted taxable income of $96,409 in September. Ms Easton stated that she had received a pay increase while acting in a higher role during the 2016/17 year which lead to the higher taxable income for that year. However, she no longer acts in the higher role and presented payslips showing that her current income from employment is about $88,000 per annum. The tribunal notes that the child support assessment utilises all of her income, including her increased income in the 2016/17 year, by applying the income from each financial year to the child support period which immediately follows. Ms Easton’s current income will be reflected in the child support period immediately following the lodgement of her income tax return for the 2017/18 year.

Mr Coverdale’s income and financial resources

13.  Mr Coverdale stated that since May 2017 he has been employed on a full-time basis as [an occupation]. His payslips indicate that he is earning just over $1,400 per week, or about $74,000 annually. Mr Coverdale owns, jointly with his wife, two rental properties which, after expenses, generate about $6,000 a year in losses for Mr Coverdale. These losses are reported in his income tax returns and he accepts that these losses should be added back to his income for child support purposes.

14.  Prior to his current employment, Mr Coverdale derived his main income from self-employment through [Company 1], [a] services company of which he is the sole director, shareholder and employee. [Company 1] paid to Mr Coverdale wages for the services he provided, and he declared these wages in his taxable income. [Company 1] also earned a pre-tax profit in the 2016/17 year of $27,842.26. The financial statements for [Company 1] show total income of about $105,000 and total expenses of about $77,000 in that period. The majority of those expenses appear reasonable, and these include wages and superannuation paid to Mr Coverdale that he reported in his income tax return. However, also included in the expenses is an amount for depreciation of plant of $11,016 (the figure $16,993 was discussed during the hearing, but the tribunal notes that this was for the previous financial year). Mr Coverdale gave evidence during the hearing that this was not a cash expense of the business. The tribunal considers that the amount should be added back to the available profit for the 2016/17 year, which would total $38,858.26. Mr Coverdale’s taxable income for the 2016/17 year was $37,458, together with rental losses of $6,153, leading to adjusted taxable income of about $43,770, according to his income tax returns. When the financial resources from [Company 1] are considered, Mr Coverdale had available income and financial resources from his work with the company and deductible rental losses, which together amounted to about $82,500 in the 2016/17 year.

15.  Mr Coverdale explained that [Company 1] also pays $10,200 each year in rent jointly to him and his wife for use of a large storage facility on their residential property. The tribunal has considered whether any personal benefit is derived by Mr Coverdale as a result of this arrangement. The effect of Mr Coverdale’s evidence is that he declared this rent as part of his taxable income and does not therefore receive a financial benefit. If that is the case, it is not clear why this arrangement exists. It may be that expenses in financing or maintaining the property are claimed by Mr Coverdale as deductible expenses in circumstances where they would otherwise be personal expenses. However, the evidence did not demonstrate any such expenses or provide any real insight into why Mr Coverdale and his wife have entered into this arrangement. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Coverdale receives a financial benefit from the rental payment which is not taken into account in his taxable income.

16.  The main source of income of [Company 1] for the 2016/17 year was payments from [Company 2], a company of which Mr Coverdale used to be a director, but of which his wife has for some years been the sole director and shareholder. Mr Coverdale stated during the hearing that his wife was responsible for all of the administration of the company, including booking in work and dealing with salaries, billing, business activity statements and the tax affairs of the company. He stated that her income was derived from available profits each year. Mr Coverdale stated that the company had many employees and contractors. He stated that he was often travelling to undertake contract work for the company, but that other employees and contractors would also undertake this work. He stated that he was remunerated by [Company 2] through payments it made to [Company 1] for his physical work. He submitted that the company was in his wife’s name and that therefore, as a matter of law, the profits were hers alone. However, both during the hearing and in written submissions lodged with the tribunal prior to the hearing Mr Coverdale conceded that it was reasonable to attribute 50% of the company’s profit to him as he and his wife jointly operated the company. He submitted that it was not reasonable to attribute any greater share of the profit to him because his physical contribution had already been remunerated through the payment to [Company 1]. Mr Coverdale stated that his wife was employed in a separate full-time role but that she often worked after hours, including late at night, to administer Airside. The tribunal has carefully considered the submissions made by Mr Coverdale and accepts that it is reasonable to apportion 50% of the available profits of [Company 2] to Mr Coverdale, but not more. In the 2016/17 year [Company 2] reported profit of about $16,000 derived from total income of about $975,000 less expenses of about $959,000. The majority of the expenses appear reasonable, and these include payments of [Company 1] and other labourers and employees. Mr Coverdale stated that his wife did no pay herself a salary. Also included in the expenses is an amount for depreciation of plant of $11,293. Mr Coverdale gave evidence during the hearing that this was not a cash expense of the business. The tribunal considers that the amount should be added back to the available profit for the 2016/17 year, which would total about $27,000. Half of this amount, or $13,500, should be attributed to Mr Coverdale as income or financial resources available during that year. The tribunal therefore finds that Mr Coverdale had total income and financial resources available to him of at least $96,000 in the 2016/17 year.

17.  The tribunal notes that [Company 2] also pays rent, of $5,200 per annum, to Mr Coverdale and his wife for use of the storage facility on their residential property. As with the rent paid by [Company 1], Mr Coverdale stated that he declares his portion as income, and there is no evidence of particular financial benefit to Mr Coverdale in this arrangement.

18.  Mr Coverdale stated that [Company 1] ceased to trade during the 2017/18 financial year, but continued to receive income in that year and is anticipated to report a profit of $2,213 for that year. The expenses claimed by [Company 1] including the amount of $10,016 for depreciation, which is a non-cash expense and should therefore be added back, lead to the conclusion that the profit available to Mr Coverdale from that entity for the 2017/18 year will be about $12,000.

19.  Mr Coverdale stated that [Company 2] was likely to cease to trade shortly after the conclusion of the 2017/18 year. He also stated that the turnover of the company had significantly reduced, and attributed this to a downturn in the industry and increase in competition. Mr Coverdale produced to the tribunal draft accounts for [Company 2] for the first two quarters of the 2017/18 financial year showing profits of about $18,000 together with depreciation of about $5,000 claimed as a deductible expense for that six month period. Annualised, these figures together would lead to available total financial resources of around $46,000 for [Company 2]. However, Mr Coverdale gave evidence at the hearing that the latest quarter’s figures showed a loss and that the anticipated profits would be modest for the 2017/18 year and the company would cease to trade shortly after the end of the financial year. The draft accounts for the quarter were not made available to the tribunal.

20.  Ms Easton submitted during the hearing that Mr Coverdale had frequently asserted in the past that [Company 2] was to cease to trade and questioned the veracity of Mr Coverdale’s claim. The tribunal notes that Mr Coverdale also stated that [Company 2] had contractual commitments until at least July 2018. He had also given evidence, in the context of his submission that he was not the controller of [Company 2] but that was his wife’s role, that the company could continue whether he undertook the contract work or not. On balance, the tribunal considers that [Company 2] will likely continue its operations for the foreseeable future. However, now that Mr Coverdale is engaged in full-time arms-length employment he will not be undertaking contract work for [Company 2] on a full-time basis and this may lead to a reduction in both turnover and profitability. The tribunal considers that [Company 2] is likely to continue to make a modest profit in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years, half of which should continue to be attributed to Mr Coverdale. If profit plus depreciation for [Company 2] in the first six months of trading total about $23,000 and the company is continuing to trade, but suffered some third quarter losses it is reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that total profits are likely to be less for the 2017/18 year than previous years, but that some claimed depreciation should also be added back. In attempting to attribute to My Coverdale 50% of [Company 2’s] somewhat notional 2017/18 profits, the tribunal will conclude that it is reasonable to add a total of $10,000 from [Company 2] to his income from other sources for that period. 

21.  The tribunal therefore finds that, in the 2017/18 year, Mr Coverdale’s income and financial resources will be comprised of salary of about $74,000 and rental income, offset by expenses, together with profit and added back costs of $12,000 from [Company 1] and $10,000 from [Company 2]. The tribunal therefore finds that Mr Coverdale is likely to have income and financial resources available to him of about $96,000 in the 2017/18 year.

22.  The tribunal accepts that the availability of income and financial resources from [Company 1] will cease from the end of the 2017/18 year and therefore, from 1 July 2018, Mr Coverdale is likely to have income and financial resources, on an ongoing basis, of about $74,000 per annum from employment plus financial resources from [Company 2] of at least $10,000 per annum, and perhaps more, which is likely to continue unless [Company 2] ceases to trade. The tribunal is not in a position to determine whether [Company 2], an entity which has traded for many years and has contractual commitments until at least July 2018, will cease to trade or not. If [Company 2] continues to be operated profitably by Mr Coverdale’s wife, with or without his labour, he is still likely to benefit financially from that continued operation.

Conclusions in relation to the departure ground

1. The tribunal notes that it is not possible to determine with absolute precision the financial resources that have been available to Mr Coverdale through his work and the business in the past nor to predict with absolute accuracy the financial resources that will be available to him in the future.

2. The tribunal has found that Mr Coverdale had income and financial resources available to him of at least $96,000 in the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years. The administrative assessment of child support does not take account of the income and financial resources available to Mr Coverdale through the operation of the [Company 2] and [Company 1] businesses. The administrative assessment of child support calculated the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale for the period 30 March 2017 to 16 June 2017 as $3,630 based on 2016 adjusted taxable incomes of $55,267 for Mr Coverdale and $87,030 for Ms Easton and from 17 June 2017 that annual rate increased to $4,917.

3. If child support were calculated using an income of $96,000 per annum for Mr Coverdale, and using either Ms Easton’s 2016 or 2017 adjusted taxable income (which, whilst different, would alter the annual rate of child support by less than $1 per day due to the recorded levels of care and the operation of the formula used in the assessment which the tribunal does not regard as a significant impact the assessment), the annual rate of child support payable by him to Ms Easton would increase substantially to about $10,000 per annum for [Child 1] from April 2017 onwards. This calculation takes account of the allowance in the formula for Mr Coverdale’s other dependent children. The administratively assessed rate of around $3,630 per annum for the same period provide Ms Easton with substantially less financial support for the child who is recorded as in her care 100% of the time. Mr Coverdale has had resources available to him from the operation of the businesses and, later, from employment from which he could contribute to the needs of the child. The existence of those factors together set this case apart from others, making it special.

26.  The tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment of child support produces a result which is unjust and inequitable having regard to the parents’ respective incomes and financial resources, particularly having regard to the disparity between the annual rate of child support calculated in the administrative assessment and that arrived with regard to the actual income and financial resources available to Mr Coverdale from the businesses. The tribunal therefore finds that there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment.

Just and equitable

27.  The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs attention to what is fair to the parents and their children. Regard must be had to a variety of factors such as the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula.

28.  [Child 1] is currently receiving orthodontic treatment. Ms Easton is meeting the cost of the treatment directly and has produced evidence of the necessary out-of-pocket expenses for the treatment which amount to $4,790 to be paid over a two year period. Ms Easton submitted, and Mr Coverdale accepted during the hearing, that these costs were in addition to the usual costs of caring for [Child 1] and the tribunal is satisfied that the costs significantly affect Ms Easton’s capacity to meet her needs. The parents accepted that it would be just and equitable for these costs to be shared equally between the parents by way of an increase to the rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale equivalent to 50% of the costs, or about $1,200 per annum for two years, and the tribunal proposed a departure which takes account of the orthodontic costs in that way.

29.  [Child 1] attends [college] and is in year 9 in 2018. A schedule of fees produced by Ms Easton shows that compulsory tuition fees for year 8 in 2017 year were $4,353. The school’s website shows the 2018 fee schedule is $4,842 for year 9, $4,527 for year 10 and $5,118 for years 11 and 12. Ms Easton stated that the school generally applied a modest increase to the fees each year. Mr Coverdale had submitted in writing that he did not choose this particular school for [Child 1]. However, the parents’ older child attended at a fee paying school and neither parent seriously contended that private secondary education was anything other than the manner in which the parents had intended to educate [Child 1]. The tribunal accepts that Ms Easton is liable directly to the school for the fees. She sought a 50% contribution from Mr Coverdale towards those fees through the child support assessment. Ms Easton stated that she expected [Child 1] would complete her schooling at the college in grade 12 in 2021. The tribunal considers that the parents’ actions over time are consistent with an expectation that [Child 1] would be educated privately. Having regard to Ms Easton’s income, the tribunal is satisfied that this cost of educating [Child 1] in the manner that was expected by the parents has substantially affected the costs incurred by Ms Easton in maintaining [Child 1]. The tribunal proposes a departure that requires Mr Coverdale to contribute 50% of the cost of educating [Child 1].

30.  Ms Easton lives with [Child 1] in a home that she owns and she has a home loan secured by a mortgage over that property. She did not report any particular needs of the children that would set them apart from the needs of average children of their ages apart from their private school fees. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the self-support amount allowed for by the child support formula (of approximately $24,000 per annum) is not an appropriate measure of Ms Easton’s proper needs.  

31.  The tribunal does not propose any changes in relation to Ms Easton’s adjusted taxable incomes from time to time, which are reasonably reflective of her available income and financial resources and which can therefore continue to be dealt with through the application of her adjusted taxable income to the administrative formula. The tribunal notes that for the 2016/17 year Ms Easton was assessed on adjusted taxable income for the previous year that was lower than her then current income, but also notes that the impact on the formula was insignificant. Further, the tribunal notes that the higher income is being taken into account in the assessment for the current child support period. The formula is operating as intended in relation to Ms Easton’s adjusted taxable incomes.

32.  Mr Coverdale lives with his wife and their children, and [Child 2], in a home that he owns jointly with his wife and they have a home loan secured by a mortgage over that property. He also jointly owns with his wife two investment properties. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the self-support amount allowed for by the child support formula (of approximately $24,000 per annum) is not an appropriate measure of Mr Coverdale’s proper needs.  

33.  The tribunal does not propose setting an adjusted taxable income for Mr Coverdale but, rather, proposes setting the rate of child support he is to pay. The tribunal has considered his income and financial resources of at least $96,000 available to him from his businesses and employment across the 2017 and 2018 financial years. The tribunal notes that Mr Coverdale states that his only regular source of income is his regular wage of $1,400 per week. However, Mr Coverdale continues to hold, jointly with his wife, two investment properties and lives in the same home that he has been in for some time. He owns and operates his motor vehicle and meets his regular necessary and discretionary business expenses from his available financial resources. Mr Coverdale’s wife operates a business of which he was previously a director and he accepts that half of the profits should be attributed to him. He stated that the business will cease to trade, but there is no evidence before the tribunal other than Mr Coverdale’s oral evidence given at hearing to support the contention that this will occur. The tribunal concludes that Mr Coverdale has been in a substantially similar financial position for the last few years and that he should be assessed to pay child support in a substantially similar way for a reasonable period into the future.

34.  Mr Coverdale submitted that any proposed departure should take account of a two year period from April 2017. This would leave a further period of just over two years before the child support case ended in relation to which Ms Easton would be required to lodge a departure in respect of [Child 1’s] school fees. The tribunal considers that, in the interests of what is fair to both the parents and the child, a decision should be made which will remain in place until the child support case ends for [Child 1]. With this in mind, and having regard to the current financial positions of the parents, and the view of the tribunal that these positions are unlikely to vary dramatically in the coming years, the tribunal has determined to vary the annual rates of child support as follows.

35.  For the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019 the tribunal proposes to vary the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale to $13,500 for [Child 1] to reflect the income and financial resources available to the parents and her needs, including school fees and orthodontic costs incurred over that two year period, and Mr Coverdale’s 50% contribution to those needs. For the period 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2019 the annual rate of child support will be set at $12,000 to reflect completion of payment for the orthodontic costs and a modest decrease in Year 10 school fees. From 1 January 2020 until a terminating event occurs and the child support case is ended the tribunal proposes to vary the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale to $13,000 per annum for [Child 1] to reflect the needs of [Child 1], include higher school fees and a likely increase to her general costs in the future, and the resources of the parents. The tribunal considers these to be just and equitable rates of child support having regard to the circumstances of the parents and the needs of the children. The tribunal does not propose any increase to this rate additionally on account of private school fees or special needs. The tribunal has considered these needs in the calculation of the proposed annual rates of child support and the tribunal is satisfied that the needs of [Child 1], including the costs of her private education and orthodontic care can be met by Ms Easton through her own resources and through child support from Mr Coverdale at the proposed levels.

36.  The proposed departure will create arrears for Mr Coverdale when compared to the administrative assessment, but will reduce arrears that have arisen since the decision under review. The tribunal is not satisfied that any hardship is created as a result of that creation of arrears. It is proper that Mr Coverdale is assessed on his actual income and financial resources. The tribunal is satisfied that the proposed variation to the rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale is just and equitable in all of the circumstances set out above.

Otherwise proper

37.  The requirement to consider whether a departure would be otherwise proper directs attention to what is fair to the community. It is necessary to consider the effect of any departure from the administrative assessment on entitlements to income-tested pensions, allowances and benefits. Parents rather than the community have the primary duty to maintain a child. Varying the rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale based on his income and financial resources that are not reflected in the administrative assessment will result in an appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community. Such a result would be otherwise proper.

Conclusion

38.  Ms Easton sought a departure from the administrative assessment of child support in February 2017 at a time when Mr Coverdale was assessed to pay child support calculated using adjusted taxable income for Mr Coverdale which did not take into account his actual income and financial resources from the businesses or the proper needs of [Child 1]. The tribunal had found a ground to depart from the administrative assessment and has determined to vary the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale to $13,500 per annum for [Child 1] for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019. This rate takes account of the incomes and financial resources of the parents and the proper needs of [Child 1], in particular her schooling costs and costs of orthodontic care, payment for which should be finalised by Ms Easton in around March 2019. After that date, the annual rate of child support will be set at $12,000 per annum to reflect a small downward adjustment in school fees for that year and the fact that orthodontic costs are no longer included. The annual rate of child support will then be set at $13,000 per annum from 1 January 2020 until a terminating event occurs for [Child 1] and the child support case is ended to account for any increases in school fees and the costs of the child generally at that time. The tribunal has found that a departure in those terms is just and equitable and otherwise proper.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Coverdale will be varied to:

• $13,500 per annum for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019;

• $12,000 per annum for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2019; and

• $13,000 per annum for the period 1 January 2020 until a terminating event occurs and the child support case ends.