Florey and Zane (Child support)

[2021] AATA 2727

Florey and Zane (Child support) [2021] AATA 2727 (17 June 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/PC020377

APPLICANT:  Mr Florey

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Zane

TRIBUNAL:Member J Leonard

DECISION DATE:  17 June 2021

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

·for the period from 17 October 2019 to 31 October 2021 the adjusted taxable income of Ms Zane is varied to $77,100.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the carer entitled to receive – ground for departure established –whether child’s talent amounts to special needs – 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. Ms Zane and Mr Florey are the parents of [Child 1] (born 2006). There has been a child support assessment in place since 2011 and Mr Florey is the liable parent under the assessment.

3. For the period from 1 September 2019 to 30 November 2020 Mr Florey was assessed to pay an annual rate of $25,268 based on a 2018–19 adjusted taxable income of $190,886 for Mr Florey and a 2018–19 adjusted taxable income of $45,921 for Ms Zane. The assessment was based on Ms Zane having a care percentage of 100% and Mr Florey having a care percentage of 0%.

4. On 6 November 2019 Mr Florey applied to the Department of Human Services (Child Support) for a departure from the administrative assessment on the basis of the income, property, and financial resources of Ms Zane. This is commonly referred to by Child Support as Reason 8A. Mr Florey subsequently advised Child Support that he also sought to depart from the administrative assessment on the basis that he has a responsibility to financially support his partner (Reason 9), and this significantly affects his ability to support [Child 1].

5. In response, Ms Zane cross-applied for a departure from the administrative assessment on the basis of the special needs of the child (the ground commonly referred to as Reason 2), the high costs of caring for, educating or training the child (Reason 3), her out of the ordinary necessary expenses to support herself (Reason 7) and because the assessment did not reflect her income, property, financial resources and earning capacity (Reason 8A and 8B). Ms Zane later withdrew Reason 7, 8A and 8B from her application.

6. On 30 May 2020 Child Support made the decision to change the assessment (the original decision) so that:

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 30 September 2021 Ms Zane’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $77,100;

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 30 September 2021 Mr Florey’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $192,597;

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 31 December 2021 the self-support amount for Mr Florey is increased by 100%; and

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 31 December 2021 the annual rate of child support is increased by $3,100.

7. On 26 June 2020 Mr Florey objected to this decision and on 5 September 2020 Ms Zane objected to this decision. On 17 November 2020 Child Support partly allowed the objection and made the decision to change the assessment (the objection decision) so that:

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 30 November 2021 Ms Zane’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $77,100;

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 30 November 2021 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Florey is varied to $218,716; and

   ·     for the period from 17 October 2019 to 31 December 2022 the annual rate payable by Mr Florey is increased by $6,897.

8. On 3 December 2020 Mr Florey applied for a review of the objection decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

9. A hearing was held on 17 June 2021. Ms Zane and Mr Florey gave evidence on affirmation by conference telephone. The Tribunal received documents folioed A1 to A53 from Mr Florey and B1 to B30 from Ms Zane. Prior to the hearing Child Support provided the Tribunal and the parties with a bundle of documents in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (628 pages). Mr Florey was represented by [Mr A], [Law Firm 1] who made oral submissions at the hearing.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). The rate of child support payable by the liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act.

2. 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). Section 98C of the Act 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 or not a ground is established to depart from the administrative assessment of child support; and if so

   ·     whether or not it is just and equitable to make a particular departure determination; and if so,

   ·     whether or not it is otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination.

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

4. 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 that:

   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.

5. 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”.

6. 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.

7. 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. In circumstances where multiple grounds for departure are put forward, the Tribunal need only be satisfied that one ground is established before going on to determine whether or not a particular determination is just and equitable and otherwise proper.

2. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides grounds for departure if the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent because of either party’s income, property and financial resources.

3. Ms Zane commenced full-time employment on 30 September 2019 at which time the administrative assessment was based on her 2018/19 adjusted taxable income. Ms Zane’s 2019/20 total gross income of $54,728 comprised of income from Centrelink of $4,114 and her employment income of $50,614. This does not reflect a whole year of employment. Ms Zane was employed on an annual salary of $67,100 and receives tax free income from [Agency 1] of between $5,000 and $10,000 per annum.

4. Income from [Agency 1] does not form part of a parent’s taxable income, however the Tribunal considers it is a financial resource available to assist in the support of [Child 1]. If Ms Zane’s annual salary and income from [Agency 1] was applied to the assessment (totalling approximately $77,100) it would result in a reduction of approximately $3,500 per annum to the child support liability payable by Mr Florey from October 2019.

5. On this basis the Tribunal determines that a ground for departure from the administrative assessment has been established due to the special circumstances which render the assessment unfair.

Issue 2 – Is it just and 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 or not it is just and equitable as regards the children, 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 subsection 117(4) of the Act: Tyagi & Meares(SSAT Appeal) [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 duty has priority over nearly all other commitments.

2. In this case the parents have the primary duty to financially support [Child 1]. 

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. Ms Zane told the Tribunal that she had initially applied for consideration of the out of pocket expenses she incurred in relation to [Child 1]’s treatment by a psychotherapist. She received a Medicare rebate in relation to some of the consultations and also a health fund rebate. The frequency of consultations has decreased and the Tribunal determines that the costs Ms Zane incurred did not significantly affect her capacity to support [Child 1].

3. Prior to [Child 1] moving from Western Australia to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in September 2019 she had been attending a fee-paying Anglican College. Mr Florey was paying 100% of the school fees.

4. [Child 1] was enrolled in a local public school in the ACT. Shortly afterwards [Child 1] commenced in [a named program], a specialist performing arts day school program through [Organisation 1] which provides a performing arts training program and school subjects delivered by [Education Provider 1].

5. In 2019 [Child 1] was undertaking Year 8. The tuition costs associated with [Education Provider 1] were $1,632.40 in 2020 and $1,760 in 2021. Additional fees were payable in respect of books, and particular subject charges.

6. Ms Zane submitted that the [Education Provider 1] curriculum aligns with Australian National Standards and provides students with the choice to incorporate elective subjects with academic studies, just like any other high school. Remote education allows [Child 1] to log in, participate in live feeds and receive assistance with homework. In a written submission Ms Zane states in part:

   The [named] program delivers specialised training for talented school aged industry professionals in training. Students leave the Program with a Year 12 Graduating Certificate, ATAR, and 2 Diplomas in Performing Arts. This training and education is necessary for success in the industry and will result in employment opportunities.

7. Mr Florey stated [Child 1] was not being educated in the manner both parents intended. He did not sign the enrolment form and the education [Child 1] receives from the [Education Provider 1] is not similar to the education she received at the Anglican College. He is not supportive of [Child 1] attending a school which specialises at this stage in her education. In his written submission Mr Florey stated in part:

   29. The attachment Ms Zane includes that provides details of the [Organisation 1] Application and Enrolment process makes it very clear that the schools primary aim is for year 12 graduates to graduate with only a Certificate IV in [Discipline 1] and there is no compulsory requirement to work towards achieving an ATAR…

   32. There is absolutely no way in which Distance Education was ever the way in which I expected or intended [Child 1] to be educated…

   35. As such, the costs associated with educating [Child 1] via Distance Education do not relate to educating the child in the way BOTH parents expected or intended and do not establish grounds for departure from the basic assessment formula...

8. [Mr A] submitted that [Child 1] was able to receive pastoral support at her former church-based school in Western Australia and the ethos of the school guided the parents in their decision making when enrolling her. The education [Child 1] receives through the [Education Provider 1] is not similar in nature.

9. While [Child 1] is able to complete the same subject selection through the [Education Provider 1], the Tribunal finds the mode of delivery, distance education with onsite support, is different to the manner of education she would receive at her former Anglican College where there were onsite teachers expert in particular subject matters providing face-to-face education each school day. The Tribunal concludes that [Child 1] is not being educated in the manner expected by Mr Florey and so there is no basis to depart from the administrative assessment in respect of [Child 1]’s school fees.

34.  Ms Zane also submitted she incurs significant costs resulting from [Child 1]’s participation in the [named] program and that [Child 1] is being trained in the manner expected by both parents.

35.  Ms Zane submitted that [Child 1] has been attending drama classes since aged four. Mr Florey has supported her attendance in after school and school holiday programs, and therefore a precedent has been established that [Child 1] is being trained in a manner expected by both parents.

36.  Mr Florey stated he supports [Child 1] in her interests, extracurricular activities and hobbies however this is vastly different to the experience she is receiving by being enrolled  in a performing arts program at a private school.

37.  In 2019 [Child 1] was accepted into Year 8 at [Organisation 1] through an application and audition. Ms Zane submitted [Child 1] has a special need which is being met by [Organisation 1]. In order to meet her ambition to perform in live theatre and become a paid professional she needs specialist training. She has recently signed with a casting agency and her grades in screen acting and theatre are quite high. She wouldn’t have been selected to attend [Organisation 1] if she did not have the ability to make it in the industry. [Organisation 1] do not accept all students who audition. Ms Zane submitted the [named] program at [Organisation 1] develops and maintains [Child 1]’s particular talent at a cost of $9,200 per annum.

38.  Mr Florey submitted that [Child 1] does not have a special need. While he has always supported [Child 1]’s extracurricular activities such as dance, drama and music it was never his expectation that [Child 1] would attend a performing arts school “at great expense”. He stated that as a 15-year-old [Child 1] shows interest in many vocational areas. In a written submission he stated in part:

16. Ms Zane claims that [Child 1]’s acceptance into the Performing school is evidence that [Child 1] has an out of the ordinary special talent / gifted ability that is likely to lead to out of the ordinary

elite success or prominence.

17. Ms Zane further states that the acceptance into the performing arts school is adequate
evidence of this because she claims that, ‘placement offers only to those who perform to
standard and have the potential to succeed in the performing arts industry’.

18. Yet the attachment Ms Zane includes that is hand annotated with ‘*Perform Aust. Application
and Audition process’ states that, ‘The [named] program is aimed at vocationally talented students
who want to improve their skills and are perhaps looking to enter the entertainment industry -
but it’s also for those who love the performing arts and want to devote more time to them in
school hours than they can in their current school situation’ i.e. the program is not exclusively
for students showing an out of the ordinary talent / gifted ability that is likely to lead to an out
of the ordinary elite success or prominence.

19. It is aimed at students who show some degree of talent (as many young people show in
performing arts) who would like to be able to devote less time to academic school work and

more time to the performing arts during school hours and perhaps are looking to enter the

entertainment industry.

39.  [Mr A] submitted that a desire to work in the performing arts is different to a special need.

40.  The Tribunal is satisfied that [Child 1]’s acceptance into the [named] program shows that she has been identified as having talent however there was no evidence before the Tribunal that it is desirable for her welfare that she be equipped for and trained in performing arts so that she can perform at an elite level. 

41.  The Tribunal considered other cases in which the issue of a child’s special needs/talents have been considered which involve children who have already been selected to compete at a national or international level, and it is clear that [Child 1] is not at this level, although she may well be in due course.

42.  The Tribunal finds that [Child 1] is not being trained in a manner expected by both parents. On balance, the Tribunal was not persuaded that there are special circumstances in this case such that [Child 1]’s skills are of a standard that her talent for performing arts amounts to a special need. The Tribunal concludes that a ground to depart from the administrative assessment is not established.

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

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that [Child 1] has no income, earning capacity, property and financial resources which should be taken into account for the purpose of child support.

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

1. Ms Zane and Mr Florey are employed full time and they do not have any unused earning capacity.

Ms Zane

1. As previously discussed Ms Zane commenced full-time employment in September 2019. Taking into consideration her employment income, [Agency 1] allowance and permissible deduction, the Tribunal proposes to vary her income to $77,100 which reflects in large her full-time employment.

2. Ms Zane’s current annual salary is $75,109. The Tribunal anticipates that her 2020/21 income tax return will be an accurate reflection of her employment income and permissible deductions. Ms Zane receives allowances from [Agency 1] and her year to date income as at 29 April 2021 was $7,863. Given the care percentages used in the child support assessment, this tax-exempt allowance is not so significant that special circumstances are present such that the assessment of child support (a reduction of approximately $19 per week) results in an unjust or inequitable level of financial support to be provided by Mr Florey on an ongoing basis.

3. Ms Zane pays rent of $600 per week and her Statement of Financial Circumstances shows no unusual expenses. She receives family assistance.

Mr Florey

1. Mr Florey’s adjusted taxable income in 2018/19 was $190,886. His 2019/20 adjusted taxable income was $218,729. Mr Florey stated that his 2019/20 taxable income included a taxable relocation allowance of $29,120 paid in November 2019. The amount was determined by his company based on a formula which considers the number of adults and children in the family. Evidence of the actual relocation expenses incurred were not available for the Tribunal to consider. If the amount was disregarded Mr Florey’s 2019/20 income would be similar to his 2018/19 adjusted taxable income.

2. Mr Florey’s payslip for March 2021 shows ‘TFR $189,142’. Mr Florey advised this  does not include his incentive payment. In September 2020 he received an incentive payment of $4,500 in cash and $44,000 in shares.

3. The Tribunal does not find that there are special circumstances in this case such that the administrative assessment should be departed from in respect of Mr Florey’s income or financial resources. The administrative assessment will reflect Mr Florey’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $190,886 until his 2019/20 adjusted taxable income of $218,729 takes effect. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal considered that even though Mr Florey  incurred expenses in November 2019 associated with his relocation, he also benefited from a significant share allocation in September 2020 that represents a financial resource. The Tribunal anticipates that Mr Florey’s 2020/21 income tax return will reflect the dividends he receives from his shares. It is appropriate that this is taken into consideration in the administrative assessment through the lodgement of Mr Florey’s income tax return.

4. The Statement of Financial Circumstances provided by Mr Florey shows expenses associated with the support of his partner and her children. He pays rent of $65 per week and meets all household expenses. He also sets aside $115 per week ($5,980 per annum) to cover the cost of flights, accommodation and car hire to visit [Child 1] once per year. His Statement of Financial Circumstances disclosed personal expenditure of $2,351 per week which included $266 per week in respect of [Ms B]’s children.

5. There may be a reason for changing an assessment if, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of high costs involved in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child (subparagraph 117(2)(b)(i) of the Assessment Act).

6. A parent's costs of spending time with or communicating with the child are high if during a child support period they total more than 5% of the parent's adjusted taxable income.

7. Mr Florey provided receipts totalling $2,769 in relation to his travel, accommodation and car hire expenses associated with his travel to the ACT to visit [Child 1] for seven nights in December 2020/January 2021. Mr Florey explained that this was the only visit in the period October 2019 to April 2021 largely due to the restrictions placed upon travel by COVID-19 and the lack of agreement regarding ongoing visits.

8. As the costs incurred by Mr Florey do not total more than 5% of this adjusted taxable income, the Tribunal finds that the costs of maintaining [Child 1] are not significantly affected by the demonstrated costs of spending time with her.

The necessary commitments of self-support or to support any other child or person

1. Mr Florey became partnered to [Ms B] in October 2019. [Ms B] has two dependent children who are diagnosed with medical conditions and who receive funding under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The children aged 17 and eight are home schooled  because of their medical conditions.  [Ms B] was in receipt of carer payment from Centrelink until she became partnered to Mr Florey. Under the Social Security Act 1991 [Ms B] and Mr Florey are a member of a couple. Her payment was cancelled because Mr Florey’s income is relevant in determining [Ms B]’s rate of carer payment under the income test and she ceased to be qualified for payment. She remains eligible for carer allowance in respect of the children.

2. Ms Zane stated Mr Florey earns more than 200% of her income. Ms Zane was of the view that now that [Ms B] is partnered she could work if she chose to, as Mr Florey is able to assist with the care of her children.

3. Mr Florey stated because of her significant caring responsibilities [Ms B] is unable to find employment. She is no longer qualified for income support because of his earnings, and he has a duty to support her financially. [Mr A] submitted that although Mr Florey does not have a legal obligation to support the children, he has a moral obligation to do so.

4. [Mr A] submitted that [Ms B]’s children cannot go to a mainstream school and . because of her commitments to their special needs she cannot engage in the workforce or earn independent income.

5. The Tribunal accepts that a person can have a legal duty to maintain a partner if the partner is unable to support themselves. On the basis of the available evidence the Tribunal was persuaded that Mr Florey has a legal duty to support [Ms B] who is unable to financially support herself due to her significant caring responsibilities and the effect of Mr Florey’s income in determining her eligibility for payment under the Social Security Act 1991.

6. In relation to Mr Florey’s claim that his capacity to provide financial support for [Child 1] is significantly reduced because of his duty to maintain his partner, the legislative test is detailed in subparagraph 117(2)(a)(i) of the Assessment Act. The test is whether:

   (a)   that, in the special circumstances of the case, the capacity of either parent to provide financial support for the child is significantly reduced because of:

   (i)the duty of the parent to maintain any other child or another person; or …

7. The Child Support Guide states that the fact that a parent’s spouse is staying home to care for a child or children of the marriage does not, of itself, meet the test. Nor, it states, is it sufficient that the parent’s income does not meet the needs of the household as a result of the spouse’s unemployment or under-employment. Rather, the applicant must also show that there are special circumstances[2].

   [2] Clause 2.6.15

8. The Tribunal is not bound by policy. However, in Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs[3] the Full Federal Court held that a Tribunal should take into account relevant government policy which is not inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the legislation. In this instance, the Tribunal accepts that the policy is consistent with the objects of the Act and assists in making a decision under the legislation.

   [3] 1979 ALD 60

9. Mr Florey’s income and financial resources have been discussed above. Although Mr Florey’s available resources are reduced because of his duty to support [Ms B], the Tribunal was not persuaded that this significantly reduces his capacity to support [Child 1]. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal took into consideration Mr Florey’s overall financial situation together with the financial support he provides in respect of [Ms B]’s children and the money he sets aside to visit [Child 1] which is not currently being expended.

10. Ms Zane does not have a responsibility to support any person other than [Child 1].

Any hardship that would be caused

1. Ms Zane has access to gross income of around $85,000 per annum to meet her day to day expenses and has savings of around $19,000.

2. Mr Florey currently has access to gross income of approximately $193,000 per annum and has significantly increased his share portfolio in the 2020/21 financial year. As at 25 May 2021 he had child support arrears of $778.

3. The Tribunal notes that in his application for a departure from the administrative assessment made on 6 November 2019 Mr Florey requested that any change be backdated to 17 October 2019. 

4. In this case the Tribunal finds it just and equitable to commence the departure determination from 17 October 2019.

5. Having considered the interests of both parents and [Child 1], the Tribunal proposes to make the following determination:

   ·for the period from 17 October 2019 to 31 October 2021 the adjusted taxable income of Ms Zane is varied to $77,100.

1. The Tribunal applied the newly calculated income for Ms Zane in the child support formula and found the level of child support payable by Mr Florey would be approximately $21,725 per annum from 17 October 2019.

2. The Tribunal acknowledges the proposed determination may cause some hardship to Ms Zane given the expenses she incurs in respect of [Child 1]’s attendance at [Organisation 1]. The Tribunal is of the view that the determination will not cause hardship to Mr Florey.

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 the 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 Zane receives family assistance in respect of [Child 1]. 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 17 October 2019 to 31 October 2021 the adjusted taxable income of Ms Zane is varied to $77,100.