Getson and Blanchfield (Child support)

[2021] AATA 5207

Getson and Blanchfield (Child support) [2021] AATA 5207 (29 November 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/SC022481

APPLICANT:  Ms Getson

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Blanchfield

TRIBUNAL:Member P Noonan

DECISION DATE:  29 November 2021

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 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. Ms Getson and Mr Blanchfield have had an active child support assessment since 18 December 2020.

2. The child support assessment was based on Ms Getson’s 2021/22 estimate of income of $38,325 and Mr Blanchfield’s 2020/21 taxable income of $67,936.

3. On 26 July 2021 Mr Blanchfield lodged an estimate of income. On 26 July 2021 Services Australia accepted Mr Blanchfield’s estimate of income of $57,536 (annualised) for the period 1 August 2021 to 3 June 2022. Ms Getson subsequently objected to this decision. On 23 September 2021 an objections officer disallowed her objection.

4. On 7 October 2021 Ms Getson applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for a review of the objections officer’s decision.

5. The Tribunal conducted a hearing into the application on 29 November 2021 and Ms Getson and Mr Blanchfield both gave evidence on affirmation by conference telephone.  

6. The Tribunal also had before it hearing papers prepared by Services Australia (folios 1 to 126) and further submissions by Ms Getson (folios A1 to A4), a copy of which was provided to the parties to the matter. 

ISSUES

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

2. The issues which arise in this case are:

   ·     Is the estimate less than the likely actual income?

   ·     Should the estimate have been accepted or refused?

CONSIDERATION

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

2. An income estimate may be rejected if it is less than what the Child Support Registrar (or the Tribunal on review) considers is likely to be the actual amount of the parent’s adjusted taxable income: paragraph 63AA(2)(a) of the Act.

3. Mr Blanchfield previously informed Services Australia that his income estimate was based upon his gross earnings from his employment. He supplied two payslips which Services Australia found to be an accurate reflection of his earnings estimate.  Mr Blanchfield also submitted a financial statement from his accountant that he did not receive any income from self-employment in the previous financial year. Services Australia also conducted a search of Australian Taxation Office records which reflected that Mr Blanchfield had not received any income from sources other than his salary from his current employer.

4. Mr Blanchfield gave evidence to the Tribunal that he has three businesses. The first, [Business 1], has shut down. His second, [Business 2], has a bank account and a domain but no stock. His third business is [Business 3] which is a business he is trying to get going but it has been badly affected by the pandemic. He has three bank accounts. He has been transferring money from his personal [bank] account to his [Business 2] account to pay child support to save on transactions and make interest.

5. Ms Getson submitted that she is disappointed that Mr Blanchfield has claimed estimated deductions, on the apparent advice of Services Australia, which reduced his income estimate to a level at least 15% below his previous income and therefore to a level where it could be legislatively accepted. She is also disappointed that his estimate was accepted without further inquiry into his business affairs or before she had an opportunity to receive and comment upon the evidence.

6. The Tribunal notes that Services Australia informed Ms Getson that they will reconcile Mr Blanchfield’s estimate of income at the end of the relevant child support period and financial year. She was also informed of the change of assessment in the special circumstances option with respect to her ongoing concerns about Mr Blanchfield’s income and access to financial resources.

7. When a person provides an estimate, they are required merely to forecast their taxable income and any other components that can form part of their adjusted taxable income. On the basis of the information before Services Australia, at the time the decision under review was undertaken, the Tribunal concludes that it was reasonable for the Child Support Registrar to have accepted Mr Blanchfield’s income estimate as it was reasonably likely to correlate with his actual adjusted taxable income.

8. The Tribunal considers that Mr Blanchfield’s estimate of income meets the relevant parameters set out under section 60 of the Act. As the Tribunal has found that the estimate was likely to be in accordance with Mr Blanchfield’s actual adjusted taxable income, at the time it was lodged, it follows that the estimate was correctly accepted.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.