Epton and Derrick (Child support)

[2018] AATA 3491

Epton and Derrick (Child support) [2018] AATA 3491 (5 June 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/PC013477

APPLICANT:  Mr Epton

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Derrick

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis

DECISION DATE:  05 June 2018

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period from 1 September 2017 to 31 December 2018 Mr Epton’ adjusted taxable income is varied to $64,040.

CATCHWORDS
Child support - Departure determination - Income, property and financial resources of parents - Business income of liable parent - Period of departure - 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. This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.

2. Mr  Epton and Ms  Derrick are the parents of [Child 1] (born January 2007) and [Child 2] (born April 2009).  There has been a child support assessment in place since 31 January 2013 with collection by the Department of Human Services, Child Support (the Child Support Agency) since 26 August 2016.  Mr Epton is the liable parent under the assessment.

3. For the period 1 December 2016 to 31 August 2017, the annual rate of child support payable was $4,984 per annum based on Mr Epton’ 2015/16 adjusted taxable income of $76,994 and Ms Derrick’s 2015/16 adjusted taxable income of $96,515.

4. For the period 1 September 2017 to 30 November 2018, the annual rate of child support payable would be $1,500 per annum based on Mr Epton’ 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $53,002 and Ms Derrick’s 2016-17 adjusted taxable income of $88,003.

5. On 13 April 2017 Ms Derrick applied to the Child Support Agency for a departure from the assessment of child support on the basis of Mr Epton’ income, property, financial resources or earning capacity (the grounds commonly known as Reasons 8A and 8B).  Mr Epton made a cross application on the basis of Ms Derrick’s income, property and financial resources.

6. On 11 July 2017 the Child Support Agency made the decision to change the assessment so that for the period 13 April 2017 to 31 December 2019 Mr Epton’ adjusted taxable income is set at $99,973 (the original decision).

7. On 10 August 2017 Mr Epton objected to this decision and on 28 September 2017 the Child Support Agency allowed the objection in part so that for the period 1 September 2017 to 30 September 2018 Mr Epton’ adjusted taxable income is set at $75,554 (the objection decision).

8. On 4 December 2017 Mr Epton applied for a review of the objection decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) and an extension of time was allowed.

9. A telephone directions hearing was held on 29 March 2018. Both Mr Epton and Ms Derrick attended by conference telephone. Prior to the telephone directions hearing the Child Support Agency provided the Tribunal and the parties with a bundle of documents in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (320 pages).

10. Mr Epton and Ms Derrick were directed to provide further information to the Tribunal and both complied.

11. A hearing was held on 5 June 2018.  Both Mr Epton and Ms Derrick gave evidence on affirmation by conference telephone.  The Tribunal received documents folioed A1 to A59 from Mr Epton and B1 to B29 from Ms Derrick.  These were distributed to the parties prior to the hearing.

12. At the telephone directions hearing and at the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal clarified with Mr Epton and Ms Derrick the reasons for their applications.  Mr Epton said the decision made by the Child Support Agency did not reflect his income as there were several instances where legitimate business costs had been added to his income.   Mr Epton also confirmed he was only interested in the Tribunal considering matters in relation to his income.  Ms Derrick said she was simply looking for a fair and equitable decision.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).

2. The rate of child support payable by the liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act.

3. Under Part 6A of the Act, the liable parent or the carer of the child or children may apply to the Child Support Registrar for a determination to depart from the administrative assessment (section 98B).

4. Section 98C provides that the Registrar may make a determination to depart from the administrative assessment and it establishes a three step process such that the issues for determination by this Tribunal are:

   ·     whether a ground is established to depart from the administrative assessment of child support; and if so

   ·     whether it is just and equitable to make a particular departure determination; and if so,

   ·     whether it is otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination.

5. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act.

6. Each ground is prefaced by the words “in the special circumstances of the case”. The meaning of this expression is not defined in the Act, but the Family Court in Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93 has held:

   as a generality it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the Legislature is that the court will not interfere with the formula in the ordinary run of cases.

7. In Philippe and Philippe (1978) FLC 90-433 the Court held that “special circumstances” are “facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases”.

8. If the Tribunal is satisfied that a ground exists and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act.

9. The range of determinations which can be made includes variations to the annual rate of child support payable; or to the adjusted taxable incomes of the parents and/or carer; or to other components of the statutory formula used to calculate child support.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – is there a ground for departure?

1. A ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, application of the administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support to be provided by the liable parent in respect of the child because of the income, property or financial resources of either parent (subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act).

2. The administrative assessment in place prior to Ms Derrick’s application for a departure from the administrative assessment was based on an adjustable taxable income for Mr Epton of $76,994.

3. Information provided to the Tribunal by Mr Epton in the form of his Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessment shows his taxable income for 2016/17 as $52,356.  This is comprised of income of $53,200 plus gross interest of $1,442 less $2,286 for the cost of managing his tax affairs.

4. Mr Epton is a [occupation] who runs his own business called [Company 1] .  [Company 1] is Trustee for [Family Trust 1] and the business was first registered in 2005.  Mr Epton is the sole director and shareholder of [Company 1], however, he told the Tribunal that Ms Derrick remains a director of [Family Trust 1].  He said this was not his wish but Ms Derrick had yet to resign her position as a director.

5. In response to the Tribunal’s directions, Mr Epton provided detailed financial information relating to [Family Trust 1] including the trust tax return for 2016/17, balance sheet, profit and loss statement and notes to the financial statements.  The Tribunal finds in relation to [Family Trust 1] that:

• Revenue was $252,313 in 2016/17 and $264,796 in 2015/16 (documents provided by the Child Support Agency show revenue in 2014/15 of $423,030);

• Expenses were $252,384 in 2016/17 and $188,199 in 2015/16 (documents provided by the Child Support Agency show expenses in 2014/15 of $258,415);

• The trust made a loss in 2016/17 of $71 and a profit in 2015/16 of $78,041; and

• Mr Epton received a beneficiary distribution in 2015/16 of $77,241 and in 2016/17 he instead received a salary of $53,200.  There were no distributions in 2016/17.

1. Mr Epton also provided the Tribunal with a Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 1 March 2018.  Mr Epton sates the following:

• His total average weekly income is $1,155;

• His total average weekly expenditure is $2,150 which includes rent of $450 per week, food for the children of $100 per week, clothing and shoes for the children of $100 per week, children’s activities of $150 per week, education expenses for the children of $180 per week and other expenses for the children of $107 per week;

• He owns a [motor] vehicle valued at $14,000, a jetski valued at $7,000 and household contents valued at $10,000;

• His superannuation is valued at $200,000 and he has $20,600 in two bank accounts; and

• He has a visa credit card and makes minimum payments of $90 per month.

1. Mr Epton told the Tribunal the nature of his business had changed with the recent downturn in [Industry 1].  He advised he now focussed on [other areas]and this had impacted the profitability of the business.  He said that [work in other areas]was more competitive although there was less exposure as payment was generally within 30 days as opposed to 60-90 days in construction.  Mr Epton said he could no longer expect double figure margins and profits had declined as a result.

2. In relation to the relevant trust expenses, the Tribunal finds the following:

Expenses	2016/17	2015/16
Accounting and bookkeeping fees	$11,036	$11,425
Donations	$800	$430
Electricity and gas	$114	$828
Client gifts	$376	-
Hire of plant and equipment	$4,680	$1,917
Insurance	$3,539	$2,510
Memberships	$1,250	$79
Motor vehicle expenses	$12,930	$10,273
Rent	$7,460	$4,400
Subscriptions	$915	$470
Superannuation contributions	$5,700	-
Telephone	$5,123	$3,610
Wages	$53,200	-
Waste disposal	$1,292	$93

1. Mr Epton told the Tribunal the majority of the expenses outlined in the table above were for business purposes although he acknowledged there was a personal benefit arising from some of the costs including internet, telephone, his use of the motor vehicle and rent. 

2. The Tribunal asked Mr Epton about the accounting and bookkeeping fees and he said this included not just the normal accounting fees for the business but also the cost of employing a bookkeeper to prepare his Business Activity Statements as he was most often working on site.  Mr Epton said electricity and gas costs were only the work related portion of these expenses.  The hire of plant and equipment was a work related cost as was waste disposal.  Mr Epton explained that increases in insurance included a necessary upgrade to workers compensation insurance with the move to maintenance work.  Mr Epton said memberships and subscriptions were higher again because of the move into maintenance work and the need to join groups like[industry associations].

3. In relation to the figure for wages, Mr Epton explained this was the salary he now paid himself rather than receiving a distribution from the trust.  The Tribunal notes the sum for superannuation contributions listed in the trust expenses, at $5,700, was slightly higher than the statutory contribution of 9.5 per cent on a wage of $53,200.

4. Mr Epton said the rental expense included $4,800 per annum for rent of [work]space as well as a claim for business use of garage space at his home and his home office.

5. The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation provided by Mr Epton for his business expenses.  In relation to expenses where there was some associated personal benefit, the Tribunal suggested 30 per cent would be a reasonable allocation of expenses for personal use in the circumstances of this case.  Mr Epton said he felt this was high.

6. Ms Derrick said many of the matters Mr Epton had provided information about had not been properly substantiated.  She said he had only provided evidence in relation to the telephone and waste costs.  Ms Derrick said Mr Epton was not forthcoming and was unreliable.  She said she found his expenses to be very high and believed Mr Epton hid his expenses within the trust structure to avoid his child support obligations.  For example, his telephone costs were much greater than could ordinarily be expected for such a business.

7. Ms Derrick said she did not agree with the evidence Mr Epton had provided to the Tribunal.  She said he could not possibly be spending the amounts claimed in his Statement of Financial Circumstances and drew the attention of the Tribunal to the high levels of expenditure for his telephone and for school expenses.  Ms Derrick said Mr Epton only had the children four nights every fortnight and could not possibly be spending that much on the children or their education as school fees were split equally.

8. Mr Epton said he had been spending more than he earned and was trying to reduce his expenditure, for example, he had renegotiated his telephone contract but that was not reflected in his Statement of Financial Circumstances.  Mr Epton disagreed with Ms Derrick in relation to his expenditure on the children.  The Tribunal notes Mr Epton’ annual expenditure, according to his Statement of Financial Circumstances, is $111,800 while his income is $60,060.

9. Ms Derrick also raised the issue of a rental property owned by Mr Epton in [Country 1] and bank accounts he has in [Country 1].  Mr Epton told the Tribunal the property in [Country 1] was held in a living trust for his mother who received all rental income.  Mr Epton provided evidence in the form of a letter dated 11 May 2018 from [a law firm in Country 1], , stating the following in relation to [Family Trust 2]:

   The Trust owns only one property which is situated at [Address 1].  The Trustees of [Family Trust 2] are [a law firm and several individuals].  The Title to [Address 1] is held in the name of the three Trustees as is confirmed by title search [a] copy of which is attached.

10. Mr Epton also provided the Tribunal with a letter from his mother, [Ms A], dated 15 April 2018, stating, in relation to [Family Trust 2], “Neither of my sons have received a cent from this Trust.”  She goes on to state in relation to a [Country 1] bank account held jointly in both her name and Mr Epton’ name that, “Each year I put money in this account for his 2 children as I do likewise for his brother’s children.  The total is very small – under $2,000.”

11. The Tribunal is satisfied that it does not need to take into account income related to the property in [Country 1] for the purposes of determining Mr Epton’ income, property and financial resources.

12. The Tribunal also explained to Ms Derrick that the hearing process was not an exercise in forensic accounting.  Rather than undertaking a major investigation of Mr Epton’ financial circumstances, the Tribunal must instead be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, about his income, property and financial resources.

13. The Tribunal does acknowledge, however, that there are certain advantages in being self-employed which are not generally available to salary and wage earners.  Such advantages may include being able to write off personal expenses against the business, reducing personal tax liability as a result of the way the business is structured and being able to claim business expenses which offer a parent some personal gain.  In such cases, assessing child support on the basis of taxable income only can result in an unjust and inequitable level of child support.

14. While this may be quite legitimate for tax purposes, the Family Court has found that such practices may not properly reflect the true financial resources or capacity of a person to contribute to the financial support of their children and may therefore be ignored.  For example, in Voss & Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 1296, the Court commented on the common situation of a self-employed person's taxable income not corresponding with his or her income or financial resources for child support purposes:

    There is a body of cases where simple reference to a person's tax return does not provide an appropriate quantification of their capacity to provide financial support. Most commonly this occurs in cases involving the self-employed, where it is well accepted that legal structures and arrangements may generate taxable income that doesn't properly reflect the realistic capacity of the person to provide financial support for their children.

15. For the purposes of assessing child support, the Tribunal finds Mr Epton income and financial resources to be $64,040.  The Tribunal has arrived at this figure in the following manner:

Amount ($)	Description
52,356	Taxable income for 2016/17.
646	The statutory superannuation contribution on a wage of $53,200 would be $5,054.  Mr Epton has declared superannuation contributions of $5,700.  As it is reasonable to expect that Mr Epton have superannuation in line with an ordinary salary and wage earner, the difference, being $646, is added back to his income.
1,176	Donations ($800) and client gifts ($376) are discretionary items and are a resource that would otherwise be available for the purposes of child support.
3,879	This figure represents 30 per cent of the motor vehicle expenses claimed for the trust.  The Tribunal finds this to be a reasonable amount based on the circumstances of this case.
2,660	Mr Epton provided evidence of business related expenses for rent of factory space totalling $4,800 per annum.  The amount of $2,660 represents the difference between the rent for [work] space and the total rent expense for the trust of $7,460.  Although Mr Epton said he used some garage space at his residential premises for work purposes, the Tribunal nonetheless finds $2,660 to be a reasonable amount based on the circumstances of this case.
1,537	This figure represents 30 per cent of the telephone expenses claimed for the trust.  The Tribunal finds this to be a reasonable amount based on the circumstances of this case.
1,786	Mr Epton has claimed $2,286 in his individual tax return for the cost of managing his tax affairs.  The Tribunal is of the view this amount is high for an individual salary and wage earner especially given the amount claimed for accounting and bookkeeping fees for the trust.  The Tribunal will allow a deduction amount of $500 and $1,786 represents the difference between this and the amount claimed of $2,286.

1. The Tribunal therefore considers $64,040 to be a fair reflection of the income and financial resources available to Mr Epton for the purposes of child support.

2. The administrative assessment in place prior to Ms Derrick’s application for a departure on 13 April 2017 was based on an adjustable taxable income for Mr Epton of $76,994, however, from 1 September 2017 the assessment decreased in accordance with the earnings he declared of $53,002.  The Tribunal has found that $64,040 is a fair reflection of the income and financial resources available to Mr Epton which is significantly higher than the income applied to the assessment from 1 September 2017.

3. When Mr Epton’ and Ms Derrick’s respective incomes are applied in the child support formula, Mr Epton’ child support liability increases by approximately $1,870 per annum.

4. The Tribunal finds this to be significantly more than his liability under the administrative assessment from 1 September 2017 and determines there are special circumstances and application of the administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support to be provided by Mr Epton in respect of the children.

1. On this basis the Tribunal finds there is a ground for departure from the administrative assessment.

Issue 2 – is it just or equitable to make a particular determination?

1. As the Tribunal finds there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support to make a particular determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A) of the Act. This in turn requires the Tribunal to consider the matters discussed below,[1] which are as set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act:

   [1] The Tribunal is required to give ‘overt consideration’ to relevant factors listed in section 117(4) of the Act: Tyagi & Meares [2008] FMCAfam 886.

   (4)    In determining whether it would be just and equitable as regards the child, the carer entitled to child support and the liable parent to make a particular order under this Division, the court must have regard to:

   (a)the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3); and

   (b)the proper needs of the child; and

   (c)the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child; and

   (d)the income, property and financial resources of each parent who is a party to the proceeding; and

   (da)    the earning capacity of each parent who is a party to the proceeding; and

   (e)the commitments of each parent who is a party to the proceeding that are necessary to enable the parent to support:

   (i)himself or herself; or

   (ii)any other child or another person that the person has a duty to maintain; and

   (f)the direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer entitled to child support in providing care for the child; and

   (g)any hardship that would be caused:

   (i)to:

   (A)the child; or

   (B)the carer entitled to child support;

   by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order; and

   (ii)to:

   (A)the liable parent; or

   (B)any other child or another person that the liable parent has a duty to support;

   by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order; and

   (iii)to any resident child of the parent (see subsection (10)) by the making of, or the refusal to make, the order.

The nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3 of the Act)

1. Section 3 of the Act states that it is the primary duty of a parent to maintain the child and this has priority over nearly all other commitments.

2. In this case the Tribunal is not aware that either parent has a responsibility to any other child or person.

The proper needs of the child

1. In relation to the proper needs of the child, regard must be had to the manner in which the child is being, and in which the parents expected the child to be, cared for, educated or trained, and any special needs of the child (subsection 117(6) of the Act).

2. The Tribunal was not made aware that the parents expected [Child 1] and [Child 2] to be cared for, educated or trained in a particular way or that the children had any special needs. The Tribunal is satisfied it is therefore appropriate to calculate the costs of their needs by reference to the Costs of the Children Table (provided for in section 155 of the Act).

The income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child

1. The Tribunal finds the children have no income, earning capacity, property and financial resources which are to be taken into account for the purpose of child support.

The income property, financial resources and earning capacity of each parent

1. The Tribunal has already considered in detail Mr Epton’ income, property and financial resources.

2. Ms Derrick told the Tribunal she was employed as a part-time [occupation] working four days per week.  She provided the Tribunal with evidence in the form of three payslips from her employer, the Department of Education, with the payslip for the pay period 23 March 2018 to 5 April 2018 showing gross year to date income of $68,628.  This equates to approximately $89,000 per annum. 

3. The income currently used in the assessment for Ms Derrick is her 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $88,003.  The Tribunal is satisfied her income currently is approximately $89,000 per annum and is fairly represented in the current assessment.

4. Mr Epton did not raise any concerns about the assessment of Ms Derrick’s income.  He was solely concerned with the way his income was treated.

5. The Statement of Financial Circumstances provided to the Tribunal by Ms Derrick dated 28 February 2018 shows a total average weekly income of $1,900.50 and total weekly household expenditure of $1,393.  Superannuation in her [account]is valued at $163,553.  Ms Derrick has land, with no dwelling, valued at $400,000 and funds of approximately $207,000 in two bank accounts.  Ms Derrick has a mortgage of $360,000 and is currently renting.  Ms Derrick owns a motor vehicle valued at $25,000 and [shares] valued at $3,000.

6. Ms Derrick told the Tribunal as a single parent with two children she led a very modest lifestyle.  She was busy at work, did not have much social life and lived week-to-week on her income with little left for savings.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that the earning capacity criteria (set out in subsection 117(7B) of the Act) are not met in this case.

Any hardship that would be caused

1. The Tribunal has found that Mr Epton currently has access to income of $64,040 and Ms Derrick has an income of approximately $89,000.

2. The Tribunal asked Mr Epton about the outlook for his business and he said the [Industry 1] was in a state of flux and by diversifying into maintenance he had found new work.  He said being self-employed was very hard in comparison to a few years ago.  Mr Epton said he did not live the high life and wanted to pay child support according to his income.

3. Ms Derrick said she did not consider the income figure in Mr Epton’ personal tax return to be legitimate and felt he could afford to pay more in support of his children.

4. At the time Ms Derrick made her application for a change of assessment on 13 April 2017 the annual rate of child support payable was based on Mr Epton’ 2015/16 adjusted taxable income of $76,994 and Ms Derrick’s 2015/16 adjusted taxable income of $96,515.

5. The administrative assessment from 1 September 2017 would have been based on a declared income for Mr Epton of $53,002.

6. The Tribunal proposes to make the following determination:

• for the period from 1 September 2017 to 31 December 2018 Mr Epton’ adjusted taxable income is varied to $64,040.

1. The Tribunal proposes to apply its decision from 1 September 2017 as this is the date from which his 2016/17 income applied in the administrative assessment. This will increase child support payments from 1 September 2017.

2. Setting this determination until 31 December 2018 will allow Mr Epton time to complete his 2017/18 financials for the trust.  Given the instability in [Industry 1]at present, the Tribunal does not consider it prudent to extend its determination beyond this date.  Mr Epton and Ms Derrick will then be required to make a further application for a change of assessment should either of them believe their financial circumstances at the time warrant it.

3. While Mr Epton’ expenses, as set out in his Statement of Financial Circumstances, exceed his income, the Tribunal is not convinced this is a completely accurate representation.  On Mr Epton’ own admission, he is seeking to reduce his expenditure and his telephone expenses, for example, have changed since he completed the form.

4. The Tribunal does not consider its decision will cause hardship to Mr Epton, Ms Derrick or the children.

Any other relevant matters

1. Ms Derrick raised the matter of backdating the determination and said when she applied for a change to the administrative assessment, she felt Mr Epton was running his personal expenses through the business and his income had dropped substantially.

2. Ms Derrick also asked the Tribunal to consider outstanding child support owed by Mr Epton which accumulated during the private collection arrangement between the parents.

3. The Tribunal is limited to making a determination in respect of a day in a period that is not more than 18 months prior to the date the change of assessment application was made (paragraph 98S(3B)(a) of the Act).  As collection by the Child Support Agency commenced on 26 August 2016, this is the earliest date open to the Tribunal from which to make a determination.

4. Ms Derrick provided evidence to the Tribunal in the form of an email to Mr Epton dated 2 June 2016.  The email states, “You have been paying $240 weekly since 1 December until Friday 3 June 2016 - this equates to 27 weeks of Child support being underpaid by $87 per week.  27 X $87 = $2,349”.

5. As the underpayment alleged by Ms Derrick occurred during the private collection period, the Tribunal is unable to address this matter.  The Tribunal notes that when applying for collection by the Child Support Agency Ms Derrick also applied for the collection of arrears.

6. The Tribunal also considered whether or not it is just and equitable to backdate the determination at all (that is, prior to the change of assessment application date).  Having considered the circumstances of the case the Tribunal finds it just and equitable to commence the departure determination from 1 September 2017 rather than the date of application.

Issue 3 – is it otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination

1. The third step is to consider whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Subsection 117(5) sets out the matters that must be considered when deciding whether it would be “otherwise proper” to make a departure determination. It focuses on the balance of support carried between the parents on one hand and the taxpayer on the other. It is appropriate for children to be primarily supported by their parents rather than by government assistance. The Tribunal must consider whether the level of a benefit, in particular family tax benefit, received by the party caring for the children may be affected by the level of child support.

2. The Tribunal finds that Ms Derrick receives family assistance in respect of the children.  The Tribunal is satisfied that its determination will result in an appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community and would be otherwise proper.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period from 1 September 2017 to 31 December 2018 Mr Epton’ adjusted taxable income is varied to $64,040.