Dahl and Paddington (Child support)

[2019] AATA 693

Dahl and Paddington (Child support) [2019] AATA 693 (8 March 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/PC015706

APPLICANT:  Mrs Dahl

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Paddington

TRIBUNAL:Member S Brakespeare

DECISION DATE:  8 March 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 was correctly 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 Paddington is the parent liable to pay child support to Mrs Dahl in respect of their child [Child 1], who is six.

2. On 5 November 2018 Mr Paddington lodged an income estimate of $40,800 for the remaining estimate period 5 November 2018 to 30 June 2019. When annualised that income becomes $62,571. At the time, the administrative assessment was based on his 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $91,717.

3. On 5 November 2018 an officer of the Child Support Agency accepted the estimate and applied it to the administrative assessment from 5 November 2018.

4. Mrs Dahl objected to the decision. An objections officer disallowed the objection. Mrs Dahl lodged an application for review of the objection decision with the tribunal.

5. A hearing was held on 8 March 2019.  Both Mrs Dahl and Mr Paddington gave evidence on affirmation to the tribunal via conference telephone. The Child Support Agency provided a bundle of documents relevant to the review to the tribunal and the parties (101 pages).

6. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the tribunal will be referred to in the tribunal’s consideration of the issues which it has to decide.

ISSUE

1. The statutory provision relevant to this review is the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).

2. The issue relevant to this case is whether Mr Paddington’s income estimate of 5 November 2018 should be accepted and applied to the administrative assessment of child support.

CONSIDERATION

1. A person may make an estimate of income for a financial year, or part of a year, if the provisions in section 60 of the Act are met.

2. The tribunal finds that Mr Paddington made an estimate of income on 5 November 2018 in accordance with the provisions of section 60.

3. The start day of the election for a part year estimate must be either the day on which the person makes the election, or the first day of a child support period, so long as that day is not before the day the parent makes the election (subsection 60(5)). In this case the start day for the estimate is 5 November 2018. Mr Paddington estimated his income would be $1,300 per week for the remaining period. The total of the estimate is $40,800, which when annualised equates to $62,571, for the period 5 November 2018 to 30 June 2019.

4. Unless the income estimate is refused, the Child Support Agency must apply the estimate to the administrative assessment for a period beginning on the start day and ending on the last day of the income year, or, if the estimate is subsequently revoked and replaced by another estimate, on the start day for the later election (section 61).

5. The Child Support Agency can refuse to accept an income estimate for part of a year of income if the parent’s partial year income amount is less than what the Child Support Agency considers is likely to be the parent’s actual adjusted taxable income for the remaining period in relation to the income election (paragraph 63AA(2)(a)).

6. Mrs Dahl told the tribunal that she did not think the estimate should be accepted because Mr Paddington has a history of understating his income. She said he incurs child support debts when his income estimates are reconciled but then fails to pay the debts. Mrs Dahl said that Mr Paddington informed the Child Support Agency that his income had reduced as his hours of work had been cut; however she said that she has confirmed with Mr Paddington’s employer that his hours of work have not changed. Mrs Dahl said that Mr Paddington has cleared most of his arrears since the objection decision was made.

7. Mr Paddington told the tribunal that it is very difficult to estimate his income because he is only paid for the days he works. He admitted that in the weeks following his income estimate he earned more than $1,300 per week but after that his income dropped. In particular his income over the Christmas period was very low. Mr Paddington said that he has not amended the estimate because he believes it is still reasonably accurate given the fluctuations in his weekly income. He said that he will have a reduced pay on the week of the hearing because of bad weather. He is currently paying extra amounts with each child support instalment to clear his arrears.

8. Prior to lodging the estimate Mr Paddington was being assessed on his 2017/18 adjusted taxable income of $91,717. The tribunal notes from the pay advices on file that Mr Paddington’s annual income is recorded as $62,400. It is evident that he also works overtime on an ad hoc basis.  The tribunal finds that Mr Paddington was paid $1,244 on 5 November 2018 for 39.25 hours work in the preceding week.

9. The tribunal accepts that Mr Paddington’s income varies from week to week. On the evidence before it the tribunal is satisfied that the income estimate was reasonably accurate at the time it was made. The tribunal is not satisfied that there is a basis to refuse the estimate.

10. This means that the decision to accept the estimate and to apply it to the administrative assessment for the remaining period (5 November 2018 to 30 June 2019) is correct.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.