Grist and Grist (Child support)

[2021] AATA 1975

Grist and Grist (Child support) [2021] AATA 1975 (13 April 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/HC020205

APPLICANT:  Mr Grist

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Grist

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny

DECISION DATE:  13 April 2021

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – earning capacity of liable parent – reduction in income – affecting rate of child support not a major purpose of decision to cease work – not just and equitable to retrospectively disturb decision of objections officer - 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 Grist and Mr Grist are the separated parents of [Child 1], born September 2002, [Child 2], born October 2004 and [Child 3], born February 2007. A child support case has been registered with the (then) Department of Human Services – Child Support (Child Support) since 12 June 2018 and registered for collection from 23 August 2018. Mr Grist is liable to pay child support to Ms Grist on the basis that Ms Grist has 100% care of the children. Mr Grist has been living in [Country 1] since 17 December 2019 and became a [Country 1] permanent resident on 28 January 2021.

2. Ms Grist has lodged previous change of assessment applications and the most recent departure determination was made by a Child Support objections officer on 28 November 2019, which set Mr Grist’s adjusted taxable income at $113,000 per annum for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 October 2020. On this basis Mr Grist’s annual child support liability was approximately $25,305.

3. On 19 December 2019, Mr Grist lodged a change of assessment application, indicating that he had no income from 7 December 2019 onwards. On 4 April 2020 decision-maker (DM) Reeves found no grounds to depart from the administrative assessment, being the previous departure determination made on 28 November 2019. On 29 May 2020 Mr Grist objected to the decision and on 20 October 2020 a Child Support objections officer disallowed the objection.

4. On 9 November 2020, Mr Grist applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing into Mr Grist’s application for review was held on 13 April 2021. Ms Grist and Mr Grist attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave evidence on affirmation. A representative of the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) did not attend the hearing.

5. I had before me the statement and documents provided by Child Support pursuant to subsection 37(1) and section 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, received on 14 December 2020 and 30 March 2021 respectively and numbered 1–642. I also considered additional documents provided by Mr Grist (marked A1–A114) and Ms Grist (marked B1–B30) as a result of written directions issued on 19 January 2021.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND ISSUES

1. The legislation relevant to this review is contained in the child support law, in particular the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration and Collection Act).

2. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. This requires the application of a statutory formula, which takes into account factors such as the number of children, the level of care provided and the income of each parent. Either the liable parent or the carer entitled to child support may apply to the Registrar for a determination to depart from the child support administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Act (section 98B). Section 98C provides that the Registrar may make a determination to depart from the formula assessment and establishes a three-step process. The Registrar, and the Tribunal standing in place of the Registrar, must be satisfied that a ground for departure exists and that it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a departure determination.

3. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are those set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act. 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 determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act.

4. In the legislation, each ground for departure is prefaced by the words, “in the special circumstances of the case”. Therefore, when considering whether any ground exists, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are “special circumstances” in the case. The phrase “special circumstances of the case” is not defined in the Act. The Full Family Court, in the case of Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 stated that:

   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 administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases.

5. Subsection 98C(3) of the Act provides that subsections 117(4) to (9) of the Act apply and the Tribunal must consider these when deciding whether it would be just and equitable or otherwise proper to make the departure decision.

6. On the day Mr Grist lodged his change of assessment application, child support liability was calculated on the basis of a departure determination made on 28 November 2019 that set Mr Grist’s adjusted taxable income at $113,000 until 31 October 2020 (folio 141). I note that when an administrative assessment is amended to give effect to a departure determination, it becomes “the administrative assessment”, for all purposes, including for the purposes of a subsequent application for a departure determination under Part 6A of the Act. The Family Court has confirmed this interpretation in the case of In the Marriage of J D and C A Perryman (1993).[1]

CONSIDERATION

[1] (1993) 17 Fam LR 200

A ground for departure

1. Mr Grist asked for a departure from the administrative assessment, seeking a decrease in his child support liability because he was no longer working and had no income (also known as “Reason 8A”). Ms Grist noted that Mr Grist had left Australia to avoid paying child support and continued to have earning capacity.

Income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of both parties

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides that, in the special circumstances of the case, a ground for departure may be established if application of the legislative provisions relating to an administrative assessment results in an “unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent” due to the income, property and financial resources of either parent.

Mr Grist – income, property and financial resources

1. Mr Grist submitted that he retired from his employment on medical grounds on 7 December 2019 and has not been working since then. He left Australia for [Country 1] on 17 December 2019. He was not permitted to work in [Country 1] and has been financially supported by his partner since December 2019.

2. Mr Grist provided a letter from his partner ([Ms A]) dated 6 January 2021 stating that she is working full-time and had been financially supporting Mr Grist since December 2019 (folio 635). Mr Grist also provided evidence that he has been granted [Country 1] permanent residency on 28 January 2021 (folio A36).

3. Mr Grist was previously employed by [Employer 1] as a [Occupation 1]. His last pay slip shows that he earned $55,044.34 to 7 December 2019 (folio 491). The “Last Day of Duty” form from [Employer 1] shows that Mr Grist’s last day of work was 7 December 2019 and that he had “resigned” from his employment (folio 340).

4. Departmental records indicate that Mr Grist’s 2019/20 taxable income was $52,692 (folio 582), based on his earnings from [Employer 1]. Mr Grist’s 2018/19 taxable income was $118,334 and his 2017/18 taxable income was $152,922 (folio 582).

5. There is no dispute that Mr Grist left Australia on 17 December 2019 (folio 276) for [Country 1]. He travelled under [a specified visa program]. This enables nationals of certain countries, including Australia, to travel to [Country 1] for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa, if certain requirements are met[2]. The duration of this stay cannot be extended. Thus prior to 16 March 2020 Mr Grist either needed to return to Australia or apply for a visa to remain in [Country 1] permanently.

   [2] [Source deleted]

6. Mr Grist said that he had not been working since December 2019 and he did not have the money to fly back to Australia in March 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic also meant that his return travel options were very limited. Mr Grist provided further evidence that he applied for [Country 1] permanent residence as an “immediate relative of a [Country 1] citizen” (as spouse of a [Country 1] citizen) on 9 March 2020 (folios A27/28). As noted above, he was granted permanent residency on 28 January 2021.

7. Based on the evidence before me I am persuaded that Mr Grist did not have any income from employment after he left the job with [Employer 1]. I note the objections officer considered that Mr Grist submitted a 2019/20 “overseas income declaration” of $112,166 on 12 October 2020 (folio 526). The [Country 1] financial year is the calendar year from 1 January to 31 December and the “declared income” is used in the administrative assessment to align financial reporting periods from other countries with the Australian financial year. It is evident however that Mr Grist’s declared income of $112,166 was earned in the 2019 calendar year and is partly based on 2018/19 taxable income and his 2019/20 taxable income.

8. Mr Grist’s income and financial resources in the 2019/20 Australian financial year amounted to $52,692 and I so find.

Mr Grist – earning capacity

1. Ms Grist submitted that Mr Grist reduced his working hours and is now not working to affect the administrative assessment. She said that Mr Grist left a well-paying job and moved to [Country 1] to avoid paying child support and his child support liability should be determined based on his earning capacity.

2. Mr Grist agreed that he ceased employment with [Employer 1] in December 2019. He said he retired from this work on medical grounds. He suffers from depression/anxiety and had to take a lot of time off due to his mental health issues. His employer ultimately gave him the option of resigning or having his employment terminated.

3. The relevant legislative provisions for consideration of a parent’s earning capacity are provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ib) and also in subsection 117(7B) of the Act. Essentially the provision restricts the circumstances in which a person’s earning capacity can be used as a basis to depart from a formula assessment.

4. There are three essential matters to be considered in determining whether the administrative assessment should be departed from on the grounds of earning capacity. In simple terms they can be explained as follows:

   ·the parent did not work despite ample opportunity to do so, reduced their hours of work or changed their occupation, industry or working pattern; and

   ·the parent’s decision not to work despite ample opportunity to do so or to reduce their hours of work or change their occupation, industry or working pattern was not justified because of caring responsibilities or their state of health; and

   ·the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of their decision not to work despite ample opportunity to do so or to reduce their hours of work or change their occupation, industry or working pattern to affect the administrative assessment of child support.

   All three of the above criteria must be met before a change of assessment can be made to take into account whether the parent has a greater earning capacity.

5. In this case there is no dispute that Mr Grist ceased his employment on 7 December 2019 and thus reduced his working hours to nil. There is no evidence that Mr Grist would have had constraints on his time that prevented him from employment, had he remained in Australia. Mr Grist has the necessary skills to undertake employment; he has worked for many years until December 2019 and shown capacity for full-time work in the past. Based on the evidence, I find that paragraph 117(7B)(a) of the Act is satisfied.

6. As noted, Mr Grist stated that he has been suffering from depression/anxiety for a number of years. He stated that his employer recognised that he was no longer capable of [undertaking work responsibilities] due to his mental health issues. He was given the choice to resign or have his employment terminated on medical grounds.

7. Mr Grist provided the following medical evidence in support of his contentions:

   ·A medical certificate dated 25 September 2018, declaring him unfit for work from 1 October 2018 to 31 October 2018 (folio A62) and a further medical certificate dated 17 December 2018 for the period 16 December 2018 to 19 December 2018 (folio A76).

   ·A medical certificate dated 19 February 2019 for 18 February 2019 (folio A53). A medical certificate dated 4 September 2019 for the period 3 September 2019 to 5 September 2019 (folio A57) and a further certificate dated 26 September 2019 for 25 September 2019 (folio A71).

   ·There are numerous medical certificates for October 2019 and November 2019. Overall it appears that Mr Grist had 12 days sick leave in October 2019 and 23 days sick leave in November 2019. It appears that he only worked for five days in November 2019 (from 2 to 6 November 2019).

   ·One medical certificate dated 1 October 2019 is for the period 12 June 2019 to 21 June 2019 (folio A66). The doctor writes that Mr Grist was seeing another GP at that time and Mr Grist said that he had also seen a specialist who advised him to take time off.

   ·A referral (folio A70) from Mr Grist’s GP to [Dr B] (consultant psychiatrist at [a specified] Medical Centre) for opinion and management. The referral is dated 29 November 2019 and notes that Mr Grist has a “history of depression and significant stress associated with his ex-wife. He works as a [Occupation 1] and is planning to relocate due to this stress. He requires psychiatry input for this employment as part of this process”.

   ·A report from [Dr C] (consultant psychiatrist) dated 25 March 2019 (folio A88–A90). [Dr C] notes that Mr Grist presents with symptoms of major depression together with pervasive sadness, lethargy, insomnia, poor concentration and poor self-confidence. He reported significant problems in the relationship with Ms Grist and, apart from his girlfriend, [Ms A] (a US citizen, visiting Australia), has little or no social support. Mr Grist was asked by his employer to take time off and was referred for counselling. [Dr C] notes that Mr Grist’s future plans include visiting a friend in Queensland and exploring options to migrate to [Country 1] with his girlfriend. [Dr C] prescribed mirtazapine [antidepressant medication] and notes that Mr Grist has follow-up appointments with a psychologist for CBT [cognitive behavioural therapy]. [Dr C] recommends that Mr Grist take four weeks’ time off from work.

   ·An “Interim Health Assessment” from [Employer 1], dated 24 May 2019 (folio A72), declaring Mr Grist “Fit for Duty – subject to review”. A follow-up report from Mr Grist’s treating doctor is requested by 22 August 2019.

   ·An undated letter from a person, who was called to be a support person during a meeting between Mr Grist and his employer (folio A35). The person states that Mr Grist was not offered another role within [Employer 1] as his line manager “believed the best course of action was for termination due to mental health issues”.

   ·Letters of support from [Mr D] (folio 190) and [Mr E] (folio 192) noting Mr Grist’s strained relationship with Ms Grist and Mr Grist’s deteriorating mental state.

8. I have carefully considered the evidence before me. There is no doubt, Mr Grist has been suffering from mental health issues for some time. He has seen a psychiatrist in March 2019 and was referred for further psychiatric assessment on 29 November 2019.

9. None of the evidence provided however appears to support a conclusion that Mr Grist would have been unable to work after December 2019. He was declared fit for work in May 2019 and none of the medical certificates provided afterwards indicate that he would have been able to work in his capacity as a [Occupation 1] for [Employer 1].

10. I note in particular that information obtained by Child Support indicates that Mr Grist was overseas from 2 October 2018 to 5 November 2018 (folio 277), a period covered by a medical certificate issued on 25 September 2019 (folio A62). He was also overseas from 2 April 2019 to 28 June 2019 (folios 276/277). Pay slips indicate that he took annual leave and long service leave from April to the beginning of June 2019 (folios 465-469), with the leave period from 12 June 2019 to 21 June 2019 covered by a belated medical certificate issued on 1 October 2019 (folio A66).

11. On the basis of the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that Mr Grist’s decision to resign from his employment on 7 December 2019, was justified by the state of his health, and this means paragraph 117(7B)(b) of the Act is also satisfied in this case.

12. Ms Grist argued that Mr Grist is not working to affect the child support assessment. She submitted that Mr Grist “refuses to pay child support and left the country to avoid it” (folio B13).

13. Mr Grist did not dispute that he left his employment on 7 December 2019, but stated that he was in such a bad state that he could not continue with his employment. He submitted that he “mentally could not cope with the stress of my work hours and going through my depression” (folio A34).

14. Mr Grist stated that he felt harassed by Ms Grist. She always found out where he lived though he moved a few times. She tried to damage his relationship with his new partner and he found this very difficult to deal with.

15. Ms Grist noted that Mr Grist’s family members and friends would always keep her informed of Mr Grist’s whereabouts.

16. Mr Grist said that he was in the middle of family court proceedings with Ms Grist and he was unable to cope with the stress. His partner also had to return to [Country 1] in late 2019, as her tourist visa was about to expire. She suggested that he should travel with her for three months and take this time to figure out what he wanted to do. He thus left Australia and entered [Country 1] on the (limited stay) [visa]. By the time the 90-day time limit of the [visa] expired in early March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had severely limited his options of returning to Australia. He therefore decided to remain with his partner and apply for permanent residency in [Country 1].

17. Mr Grist said that he was never late with his child support payments until he left his job. His stress levels were so high at that time (in late 2019) that the last thing he was thinking about was his child support payments.

18. As noted, the third criterion in relation to a person’s earning capacity represents a rebuttable presumption. The onus of proving a major purpose for the decision about their work is on the person who made the choice and: “If the Tribunal is not satisfied one way or the other, the person with the onus fails.”[3]

    [3] Carlson & Acuff & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 677, at [68]

1. Based on the evidence before me I am persuaded that Mr Grist was highly stressed and suffered from depression due to the strained relationship he has with Ms Grist. It appears that Mr Grist used his sick leave to remove himself from the stress he experienced in Australia and travelled overseas whenever possible.

2. [Dr C] states in the report of March 2019 that Mr Grist was socially isolated and his partner was his only support. When she had to return to [Country 1] as her tourist visa expired, he took the opportunity to accompany her.

3. I further note that Mr Grist’s child support liability was fully paid as of 11 December 2019 (folio 630), thus there is no indication that Mr Grist was not paying child support in the past.

4. Based on the evidence before me, Mr Grist has demonstrated to my satisfaction that it was not a major purpose of his decision to leave his employment and move to [Country 1] to avoid his responsibility to pay child support, but rather he saw no other option, but to remove himself from the stress he was experiencing and be with his new life partner. This means paragraph 117(7B)(c) of the Act does not apply in respect of Mr Grist’s circumstances.

5. As all three criteria provided for in subsection 117(7B) of the Act are not met, I cannot consider Mr Grist’s earning capacity further in relation to this review.

Ms Grist – income, property, and financial resources

1. Ms Grist stated that she commenced full-time employment with [Employer 2] in August 2020 (folio B11). Her payslips (folios B19–B28) indicate a salary of $91,641 per annum or $3,514.59 per fortnight.

2. Ms Grist’s 2019/20 income tax return shows a taxable income of $18,412, mainly comprising jobseeker payments and small investment income (folio B15).

3. Departmental records show that Ms Grist’s 2017/18 taxable income was $17,948 and her 2018/19 taxable income was $25,908 (folio 585).

4. There is no evidence that Ms Grist has any other source of income and I am therefore satisfied that Ms Grist’s income, property and financial resources are adequately reflected in her annual income tax returns.

Ms Grist – earning capacity

1. Ms Grist is currently in full-time employment and I am not persuaded that she has greater earning capacity than she currently exercises.

Conclusion – income, property, financial resources and earning capacity

1. When Mr Grist lodged his departure application on 19 December 2019 (in the 2019/20 financial year), his child support liability was $25,305 per annum, based on an annual income amount of $113,000 set by a previous departure determination.

2. I have found that Mr Grist’s actual income and financial resources in 2019/20 amounted to $52,692, based on his Australian income tax return, comprising earnings from employment for the period 1 July 2019 to 7 December 2019. There is no evidence that Mr Grist had any other income after 7 December 2019 and I was not persuaded that he had additional earning capacity.

3. I have estimated that Mr Grist’s child support liability for the children, if calculated on the basis of his 2019/20 taxable income would be $8,157 per annum at the time he lodged his application. Mr Grist did not have any income after 7 December 2019 and his child support liability would reduce to $4,329 (fixed annual rate for three children) from that date.

4. I find that the difference between an annual child support liability of $25,305 and the annual rate of child support based on Mr Grist’s actual financial resources, is so great that it gives rise to special circumstances in this particular case.

5. I am therefore satisfied that the ground for departure set out in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act has been made out in respect of Mr Grist’s income, property and financial resources only.

6. Subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i) of the Act is satisfied if “one, or more than one” of the grounds for departure are established. Having found one ground for departure established, I will now consider whether it is just and equitable to make a departure determination.

Just and equitable

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs that my attention is turned to what is fair to the parents and their children. To do so I must have regard to a number of factors set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act, such as the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardships that would be caused by departing, or not departing, from the statutory formula.

Mr Grist

1. Mr Grist’s income, property and financial resources have been discussed in some detail above. Mr Grist submitted a completed Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios A2–A10). He indicated that he had no income, but noted that his partner was earning approximately [$]500 per week. Mr Grist’s household expenses (excluding child support) amounted to [$]630 per week.

2. Mr Grist said that his partner is financial supporting him and they are just able to meet their financial commitments with the help of friends.

3. Mr Grist stated that he has not been able to work in [Country 1] until his permanent residency was approved and he had obtained a [identification number]. This has now occurred and he is actively looking for work. Mr Grist said he has had several interviews and is hopeful to secure a job offer soon.

Ms Grist

1. Ms Grist indicated on her Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios B3–B11) an average weekly (gross) income of $1,730, plus about $5 dividends from investments. Her payslips indicate that her gross income is about $1,756 per week. Ms Grist noted that she also receives family tax benefit payments, although these recently ceased due to two lump sum child support payments.

2. Ms Grist’s expenses (including taxation) for her and the children amount to $2,519 per week, including $600 per week private rent, $191 per week private school fees and $60 per week medical expenses for the children. On this basis Ms Grist’s expenses exceed her income by about $763 per week. Ms Grist noted previous family tax benefit payments of about $250 per week which would reduce that shortfall to some extent, but it is still significant.

3. Ms Grist noted that it costs a lot of money to provide for the children and Mr Grist should be contributing to these expenses by paying child support.

The children

1. The oldest child, [Child 1], turned 18 years of age [in] September 2020 and child support liability for [Child 1] has now ended. The other children are 14 and 17 years old and attend school. Ms Grist indicated that her expenses for the children include education costs of $191 per week (about $9,932 per year) and medical costs of $60 per week. Ms Grist did not suggest that the children have any other special needs or other out of the ordinary expenses.

2. I have no evidence before me that the children have income, property or financial resources relevant to my determination.

Otherwise proper

1. The requirement to consider whether it is “otherwise proper” to depart from the administrative assessment 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 or benefits (subsection 117(5) of the Act).

2. It is a prime objective of the child support legislation that parents should be obliged to support their own children to the extent of their real capacity, and that that obligation should not be unnecessarily abrogated to the public welfare system when the parents themselves have the capacity to maintain their children.

3. Ms Grist is in receipt of family assistance payments, which are affected by maintenance payments such as child support. Any increase to child support payable would result in an appropriate decrease in these payments. Such a result would be otherwise proper.

Conclusion

1. Section 98S of the Act describes the determinations that the Registrar, and the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Registrar, may make if it decides to depart from the administrative assessment. It is open to the Tribunal to set a rate of child support payable or set some of the variables used in the administrative assessment formula (for example, vary one or both parents’ adjusted taxable income).

2. Mr Grist lodged his departure application on 19 December 2019 on the basis that he was unemployed from 7 December 2019 and could not afford to pay child support based on an income amount of $113,000 (being $25,305 per annum), set by the previous departure determination on 28 November 2019 (folio 141). Ms Grist submitted that Mr Grist had capacity to earn a significantly higher income and could pay child support of about $27,000 per year.

3. Child Support records (folio 630) indicate that Mr Grist owed arrears of $23,322.96 on 31 October 2020. These were reduced to $14,967.14 on 11 November 2020, when Mr Grist’s 2019/20 tax refund was applied to the debt.

4. Mr Grist submitted that the remaining debt has since been paid from the proceeds of the sale of the family home. Ms Grist acknowledged that the family home was recently sold for about $830,000. The mortgage of about $440,000 had to be repaid and both she and Mr Grist owe substantial legal fees incurred during property settlement. Ms Grist said she asked Child Support to intervene and procure the outstanding arrears from the sale of the property before the settlement was finalised.

5. Based on all the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the current objections officer decision should be retrospectively disturbed. The decision made on 20 October 2020 was to refuse to make a change to the administrative assessment on the basis of Mr Grist’s application lodged on 19 December 2019. This meant that the previous departure determination of 28 November 2019 which set Mr Grist’s income at $113,000 for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 October 2020 remained in place. The child support liability pertaining to that departure determination has now been paid and the period has ended.

6. I do not consider that I should disturb that decision as any decision I make based on Mr Grist’s actual financial resources will result in an overpayment for Ms Grist. I am also not persuaded to (in effect) extend the previous departure determination and set Mr Grist’s income amount at $113,000 for a period after 31 October 2020. Mr Grist’s circumstances have changed significantly. He is now a [Country 1] resident and legally able to work in that country. It is very difficult to predict what his future employment prospects and earning capacity are likely to be.

7. I am therefore of the view that it is not just and equitable to make any changes to the objection decision under review. I have reached the same conclusion as the objections officer, albeit for different reasons, and will affirm their decision.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.