Halford and Travers (Child support)

[2019] AATA 1728

Halford and Travers (Child support) [2019] AATA 1728 (26 March 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/BC015769

APPLICANT:  Ms Halford

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr [Travers]

TRIBUNAL:Member W Kennedy

DECISION DATE:  26 March 2019

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – estimate of income - whether the estimate should have been refused - estimate of income was incorrect - 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 Halford and Mr Travers are the parents of children in respect of whom there is a child support assessment.  This application for review concerns the income of Ms Halford used in the child support assessment.

2. From 1 July 2018 the child support assessment would have been based on Ms Halford’s 2016/17 taxable income of $39,279.00.  However, on 12 June 2018 the Child Support Agency of the Department of Human Services (the Department) decided to accept Ms Halford’s estimate that her income from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 would be $27,687.00.

3. On 12 September 2018 Mr Travers objected to the decision of 12 June 2018, stating that he believed that Ms Halford had underestimated her income.  On 8 November 2018 an extension of time was allowed and on 15 January 2019 a Department objections officer decided to allow Mr Travers’’ objection, finding that, based on the information subsequently provided by Ms Halford, her income was greater than the estimate previously accepted.  As a result the child support assessment reverted to being based on Ms Halford’s taxable income. 

4. On 16 January 2019 Ms Halford applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision of the Department.  The application was heard and determined on 26 March 2019.  Ms Halford and Mr Travers both attended by conference telephone and gave their oral evidence under affirmation.  The parties had access to the papers provided by the Department, which were numbered 1 to 178.  The Child Support Registrar did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

ISSUES

1. In this case the Tribunal has to decide whether the estimate accepted by the Department on 12 June 2018 should be used in the child support assessment.

CONSIDERATION

1. The law that applies to this application is found in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).  Under section 60 of the Act, a parent may lodge an estimate of their income and, under certain circumstances, the Department may accept that estimate for child support assessment purposes.  In the current case Ms Halford made an estimate on 12 June 2018 and this was accepted by the Department. 

2. Based on the information supplied by Ms Halford the Department calculated that the applicable income estimate was $27,687.00 and this was applied to the child support assessment with effect from 1 July 2018.

3. The documents before the Tribunal show that Ms Halford advised the Department that she earned $460.00 per week from her employment and that she received newstart allowance (NSA) of $142.00 per fortnight.

4. In response to further inquiries from the Department, on 14 November 2018 Ms Halford provided documents which showed that she was in receipt of NSA of $278.98 per fortnight.  At the hearing Ms Halford said that when she had advised the Department of the estimate on 12 June 2018 she had said that she received $142.00 per week NSA but that it had been mistakenly recorded as $142.00 per fortnight.  This resulted in an incorrect estimate being considered and accepted.

5. The Tribunal must decide whether the estimate originally accepted by the Department should have been accepted or not.  Based on the documentation and the oral evidence the Tribunal finds that the estimate provided on 12 June 2018 is incorrect and should not have been accepted by the Registrar.  As a result the objection decision to not accept the estimate is affirmed.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.