Heath and Cao (Child support)
[2019] AATA 6342
•11 December 2019
Heath and Cao (Child support) [2019] AATA 6342 (11 December 2019)
DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER: 2019/PC017122
APPLICANT: Mr Heath
OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar
Ms Cao
REVIEW NUMBER: 2019/PC017325
APPLICANT: Ms Cao
OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar
Mr Heath
TRIBUNAL:Member S Hoffman
DECISION DATE: 11 December 2019
DECISION:
The decision under review is varied so that:
· There are no changes to the assessments currently in place that apply until 31 December 2019 (see Appendix A).
· For the period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 Mr Heath’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $42,147.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – Departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the parents – paying parent has no capacity to contribute to school fees – adjusted taxable income of the liable parent varied – decision under review varied
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
This review is about the child support assessment in respect of two children aged seven and four years old. The case was first registered on 24 March 2017 with the Department of Human Services – Child Support Agency (the CSA) collecting child support from then. The father pays child support to the mother.
On 20 November 2018, the father lodged an application for a change of assessment with the CSA. At that time, according to the CSA’s records, the mother was providing 62% of the children’s care and the father was providing 38% of their care. He was required to pay the mother $10,228 a year based on his 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $72,000 (as determined by a previous change of assessment decision) and the mother’s 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $12,012. The annual liability of $10,228 included a contribution to the cost of school fees of $2,440 a year.
On 22 March 2019 a senior case officer from the CSA decided to vary the annual rate of child support payable by the father to $2,754 for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2019 (the original decision). The senior case officer noted that from 1 August 2019, the annual rate of child support payable by the father would increase by $3,410 in accordance with a decision made on 29 August 2018 by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), differently constituted.
The mother objected to the original decision and on 5 August 2019, an objections officer from the CSA set aside the original decision and replaced it with the following decision (the objection decision):
· For the period 7 December 2018 to 31 July 2019, the father’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $43,233.
The effect of that decision was that the father was required to pay $5,536 a year in child support for the period 7 to 31 December 2018, which included a contribution of $2,440 a year to school fees in accordance with the AAT decision of 29 August 2018. The annual liability increased to $6,506 from 1 January 2019 as the contribution to school fees increased to $3,410 a year from that date.[1]
[1] Without the contribution to school fees, the rate of child support was $3,096 a year.
On 4 September 2019, the father lodged an application for review with the AAT and on 4 September 2019 the mother lodged an application for review. A directions hearing was held on 6 November 2019 after which directions were issued. The matter was heard on 11 December 2019. Both parties attended in person and gave sworn evidence.
The tribunal had before it documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 451 and 452 to 488); by the father (numbered A1 to A71); and by the mother (numbered B1 to B25). Copies of these documents were sent to the parties before the hearing.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act1989 (the Act). The Act provides for an administrative assessment of child support to be paid. Pursuant to section 98C of the Act, a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:
i.A ground is established; and
ii.It would be just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent and the carer entitled to child support to make a particular determination; and
iii.It would be otherwise proper to make a particular determination.
The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act.
If the tribunal is satisfied that the three requirements are met, it may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act, which include 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 – Does a ground exist to depart from the administrative assessment?
Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the rate of child support because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent.
What is the father’s income for child support purposes?
The father works as a [Occupation 1]. When he lodged his change of assessment application on 20 November 2018, he was being assessed for child support based on him working full-time and having an income of $72,000 a year.
It is agreed that the father has since reduced his hours and is now working part-time. A letter dated 15 November 2018 from the [Employer 1] records that he started working part-time from 23 November 2018. He provided the CSA with payslips for the period 14 December 2018 to 10 January 2019 (four weeks) and 25 January to 7 February 2019 (two weeks), which show his pay was $4,748 over the six weeks. That is equivalent to $41,149 a year.
The father also provided payslips for the periods 14 June to 27 June 2019 and 12 July to 25 July 2019, showing fortnightly income of $1,440 and $1,471 respectively, equivalent to $37,440 and $38,246 a year respectively.
According to his 2018/19 tax return, the father’s taxable income was $57,218. That figure includes a period when he was working full-time. He provided his final payslip for 2018/19 which does not show year to date figures but does show that he salary sacrificed $481 that fortnight.
According to payslips he provided for 2019/20, the father has continued to salary sacrifice that amount each fortnight, which is equivalent to $12,506 a year.
According to the payslips, the father’s salary is $32,241 a year. There was no evidence of him working overtime. He was also paid a commuted allowance of $234.86 a fortnight. Such allowances are usually paid in lieu of shift penalties being paid. That adds $6,106 to the father’s annual pay. In addition the father gets a benefit for salary sacrificing some of his pay; the benefit amounts to approximately $3,800 a year. This brings the total to $42,147 a year.
The father lodged an estimate of income of $38,325 which has applied from 1 August 2019.
The father said that he has been exploring ways to increase his income which include [activity 1] and an online [business]. The mother said she was aware the father advertised and held a workshop which was attended by people and the father agreed this had happened. There was no evidence that he has so far generated income in an amount that would affect the rate of child support.
There was nothing in the father’s Statement of Financial Circumstances (SFC) that suggested $42,147 does not adequately reflect the father’s income for child support purposes.
What is the mother’s income for child support purposes?
The mother described herself as a stay-at-home mum. Her taxable income for 2018/19, based on her tax return, was $19,989.
The mother submitted an SFC, and it is apparent from that document that she no assets of high value that would warrant increasing her income for child support purposes above her taxable income.
The tribunal is satisfied that the mother’s taxable income of $19,989 adequately reflected her income, property and financial resources at the time the change of assessment application was lodged.
How does the administrative assessment compare with an assessment of child support using the tribunal’s income figures for the parents?
The administrative assessment that applied on 20 November 2018 when the father lodged his change of assessment application was that he was required to pay $10,228 a year in child support to the mother, based on his 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $72,000 and the mother’s 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $12,012. The annual liability of $10,228 included an increase to the annual rate of $2,440 in respect of school fees, which means the liability based only on the adjusted taxable incomes of the parents was $7,788.
Using incomes of $42,147 for the father and $19,989 for the mother results in a child support liability of $2,918 a year payable by the father without any adjustment in respect of school fees.[2]
[2] The increase in the mother’s income from $12,172 to $19,989 makes no difference to the rate of child support as both amounts are less than the amount allowed for in the child support formula for self-support.
The tribunal would stress that because of the complexity of the child support formula, its calculations of rates of child support are just estimates.
Given the difference of $4,870 between the father being required to pay $7,788 a year or $2,918 a year before any additional amounts for school fees, the tribunal is satisfied that in the special circumstances of this case, the administrative assessment does result in an unjust and inequitable rate of child support, and that a ground for departure from the administrative assessment has been established pursuant to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act.
Issue 2 – Is it just and equitable to make a particular departure determination?
As the tribunal is satisfied that there is a ground to depart from an administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable as regards the children, the father and the mother 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 a variety of factors, as set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act.[3]
[3] The tribunal is required to give ‘overt consideration’ to relevant factors listed in subsection 117(4) of the Act: Tyagi & Meares [2008] FMCAfam 886.
Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that parents have the primary duty to maintain their children, and that this duty has priority over all commitments of the parents other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person the parent has a duty to maintain. In this case the father and the mother have the primary duty to financially support their children.
Income, property and financial resources – the father
According to the father’s SFC, his income from employment is $735 a week ($38,220 a year) and he also receives $123 a week in family tax benefit (FTB), giving a weekly gross income of $858.
In his SFC, the father listed weekly expenses of $1,489 plus $335 but it was evident that there were errors in these figures as discussed during the hearing. Based on the father’s figures, his expenses exceeded his income by $966 a week ($858 – $335 – $1,489) or $48,300 a year. The tribunal considers that in his SFC, the father overstated the cost of food, children’s activities and child-minding. He allowed too much for tax, child support and double-counted the cost of health insurance premiums. There was also an arithmetical error.
From his payslip for fortnight ended 22 August 2019, the father’s weekly gross pay is $735. He pays tax of $61 a week and $240 a week goes towards the cost of salary packaging the cost of his car. The father said that this covers fuel, registration and maintenance costs.
A further $124 a week is deducted from his gross pay in respect of child support and $15 in union fees. The father’s net pay is $295 a week. Adding FTB means that the cash available to the father is $418 a week.
From this the father pays $360 a week rent, leaving $58 a week to cover food, utilities and other expenses, which is clearly inadequate.
Assuming the father spends $120 a week on food for himself and the children, $65 a week on utilities and household supplies, $10 a week on clothing and shoes, $10 a week on children’s activities, $15 on medical insurance and $20 a week on other items, totalling $240 a week, there is a shortfall of $182 a week ($240 – $58) or $9,464 a year.
The tribunal asked the father how he managed financially as clearly his income was not covering his expenses. As noted, his child support payments are deducted from his pay. He did not record credit card liabilities. He said that be borrowed from his mother and had hoped to repay her from his tax refund of $1,834 but that was taken and offset against his child support arrears. The father said that he used to have an old car which he sold for $2,000 but that money has since run out.
The mother said that he and the children and his mother went to a hotel in Mandurah in July 2019 and more recently. The father said the July occasion was for two nights whereas it was three nights in October and his mother treated them, which was about $500.
The mother raised the issue of the amount the father pays for his car. The AAT decision of 29 August 2018 referred to the father having a 2014 car purchased under a novated lease which he paid from his pre-tax income. According to that decision, he told the AAT he would incur a significant financial penalty if he tried to end the lease before the seven-year term expired.
The documents include a letter dated 15 June 2018 from [Organisation 1] giving a payout quote of $37,024 which would apply until 22 June 2018. In his SFC submitted for this review, the father referred to that letter. He valued the car at about $19,000.
The tribunal observes that if the father did not have to make the car lease payments, he would still incur motor vehicle costs. He said that he spent $100 a week on fuel. The tribunal is unsure if that is an accurate figure; it may be overstated. In any event there are costs associated with running a vehicle. The mother allowed $52 a week for her motor vehicle costs but the father’s vehicle costs are likely to be higher – say $80 a week – given he drives a bigger car and the distance he travels to get to work.
It is apparent to the tribunal that the father does not earn enough to cover his financial commitments. As set out above, the tribunal worked out that the shortfall is $182 a week.
If the father did not have the novated lease and his car expenses were $80 a week rather than $240 a week, the shortfall would be reduced by $160 from $182 a week to $22 a week or $1,144 a year. But that is not his position.
The tribunal observes that the father purchased the car and took on that financial commitment in 2014, well before this case commenced in 2017. As the figures above show, the father’s income does not cover his expenses by about $182 a week. During 2019 he was required to contribute $3,410 a year or $65 a week towards school fees. His income during calendar year 2019 was not sufficient to cover them.
According to departmental records, the father’s child support arrears as at 26 November 2019 were $1,594 including penalties.
Income, property and financial resources – the mother
The mother lives in rental accommodation with the children. She wrote in her SFC that her income excluding child support is $627 a week made up of parenting payment and FTB. With child support she receives $736 a week ($38,272 a year).
The mother listed expenses totalling $1,477 a week and therefore has a shortfall of about $777 a week ($1,477 – $700) or $40,404 a year.
According to her SFC dated 8 September 2019, the mother spent $240 a week on education expenses. She said that cost is now down to $191 a week ($9,932 a year) as the annual payment has been spread over a longer period. The tribunal will discuss school fees at greater length below but observes that even if she was not paying $9,932 a year on education expenses, the mother’s income does not cover her outgoings.
The mother recorded rent of $430 a week. She said that her parents transfer $120 a fortnight to help her with rent. The background to this is that the mother was assaulted in her home just over two years ago. She moved immediately and stayed there for two years. She has recently moved to where she currently lives. Her parents were keen for her and the children to have a bigger home in a safe neighbourhood near their home which was behind the parents’ decision to contribute to the rent.
The tribunal asked the mother how she managed financially as clearly her income was insufficient even with the help with the rent. The mother said that her mother has lent her $1,500 which her father does not know about. Her FTB top-up payment was about $3,000.
As a result of the assault, the mother has undergone surgery in the past and requires further surgery scheduled for February 2020, which will cost $3,000 or more. She said her 65-year-old father works extra time as an orderly to help her out financially.
In her SFC the mother recorded that she owes $4,000 to her parents. She has no credit card debts. Her car is a [specified] which she valued at $4,000. She owns a 2011 trailer which she valued at $400 and household contents worth $1,000.
The father did not dispute the evidence given by the mother to do with her income, property and financial resources.
Other issues pertaining to the parents’ incomes, property and financial resources
Subsection 117(7B) of the Act prescribes the circumstances in which a parent’s earning capacity may be taken into account; certain criteria have to be met. These include that the parent has failed to demonstrate that decisions made about their work arrangements were not substantially motivated by the effect they would have on the rate of child support.
The mother said that the father reduced his hours from full-time to part-time because of his caring responsibilities and also to affect the rate of child support as he did not want to contribute to school fees. A third reason was that reducing his hours could help him get more custody of the children.
It is agreed that in accordance with court orders dated [in] October 2018, the children live with the mother and spend time with the father based on a fortnightly schedule. The first week the father provides care from Wednesday afternoon to start of school on a Friday (or 4 pm on a Friday if not a school day); and the following week, the children spend time with the father from Friday afternoon to the start of school on the Monday (or 4 pm on the Monday if not a school day). In addition, during end of term and Christmas school holidays, the time the children spend with the father is extended as set out in the court orders.
The orders state that the times are subject to the father’s work roster and that he should be able to supervise the children directly. That is, he cannot delegate their care to someone else on his behalf. If he was not able to provide care at the times set out for him, then he could contact the mother and she would provide the care instead.
The father said at hearing that he thought when the orders were made he might have to resign from his job. The mother acknowledged that it would have been difficult for the father to get the children to school by 8.30 am and be on time for work on the days the children were in his care. This appears to be Thursday and Friday of one week a fortnight, and Monday of the alternate week. The father would also be required to be at school to collect the children from school two afternoons during one week and one afternoon the following week.
The father said that he negotiated hours with his employers that let him keep his job and be available to directly supervise the children at the times they were due to be in his care. He said he loved his job which was apparent from how he spoke about it. The mother confirmed that he loved his job.
The mother’s position was essentially that the father did not have to be available to collect or drop off the children at school on most days. On that basis the reduction in his hours did not make sense. The CSA documents include an undated letter from the mother which addresses this point. She wrote:
Mr Heath has claimed in past assessments that since October 2018, that he had to drop down to part-time work because the court orders stipulate that he be personally available for the children. Whilst this is true, he does need to be personally available by order of the court, there is also the option to utilise my help, when needed any time in his prescribed time with the children, so this should not preclude him from working. I am happy to help out but this would mean Mr Heath giving up some time with the children if needed, for work. The decision to reduce his hours is a choice he is making, not one enforced by the courts, nor necessary, when I am willing to reasonably accommodate…
He needs to work ten days in every 21 and only has the children for 5 nights of this 3-week cycle…Mr Heath already has the capacity to work full-time as per this proposal by HR. He has never been prohibited from doing so based on the current custody orders. He does not have the children from one week of the fortnight from when he drops the children off at school on Friday morning, until he picks them up the following Friday afternoon. I have always been amenable to helping Mr Heath where he needs, but he refuses my offers of assistance…The reduction of hours has a lot less to do with logistics or court orders and potentially a lot more to do with his attempts to gain 50/50 week about custody that he is seeking, and to avoid paying school fees.
In a written submission to the tribunal dated 24 September 2019, the father wrote that his employer, the [Employer 1], is not that flexible and his roster cannot be adapted to suit his personal needs. The father wrote that his employer’s HR Department made an incredible effort to give him part-time work during the periods he was not caring for the children. The tribunal observes that the father’s roster appears to operate on a 21‑day cycle whereas the care arrangements as per the court orders are based on a fortnightly pattern. This suggests that adapting his work hours to suit the court orders is not straightforward. The mother acknowledged at hearing that the nature of the father’s job meant his hours were not that flexible.
The tribunal notes that the mother accepted that the father reduced his hours of work because of the care of the children but she also contended that he did this to affect the rate of child support. The tribunal does not accept that the father was substantially motivated to change his work patterns to affect the rate of child support. It does not make sense that he would reduce his hours working in a job he enjoys, thereby leading to a reduction in his gross pay of about $30,000 a year, to achieve a reduction in child support of about $8,370 a year.[4]
[4] Made up of the difference referenced in paragraph 27 of $4,870 plus a contribution to school fees of about $3,500.
The tribunal is satisfied that the father has satisfactorily accounted for the change to his work arrangement as being largely attributable to the change in his caring responsibilities.
The mother’s taxable income has been below the self-support amount since 2016/7. She self-described as a stay-at-home mum. The father referred to the mother’s earning capacity. However, as already set out in this section, earning capacity becomes relevant if a parent has changed their work arrangements, in which case their reason for doing so is examined to ascertain if the change was substantially motivated by the effect such a change would have on the rate of child support. The tribunal is satisfied that the mother is not employed because of her caring responsibilities.
The tribunal concludes that it is not open to it to make an earning capacity determination in respect of either parent and need not consider the application of subsection 117(7B) of the Act in relation to either parent any further.
The tribunal is required to have regard to the commitments of each parent that are necessary to enable the parent to support himself or herself, or any other child or another person that the person has a duty to maintain (paragraph 117(4)(e) of the Act).
The tribunal has already referred to the mother’s medical costs. Generally, if the tribunal was to vary a child support assessment because of a parent’s self-support needs, it would do so by increasing the self-support component in the child support formula. In this case, the mother’s income is less than the self-support amount so adjusting the self-support amount would have no effect on the rate of child support.
Costs related to the children
In determining the proper needs of the children, it is necessary to have regard to the manner in which they are being, and in which the parents expected them to be, cared for, educated or trained, and any special needs they may have (subsection 117(6) of the Act).
The mother wants the father to contribute to the cost of the children attending a private school, [School 1].
The tribunal notes that in the AAT decision of 29 August 2018, it is recorded that in his written application to the tribunal, the father “stated that it was his wish that the children receive a private education”. On that basis, this tribunal is satisfied that the starting point is that the father should contribute to the private school fees of the children. However, that is contingent on other factors, including his financial capacity to do so.
It was noted in the AAT decision just referred to that the father stated his wish was that the children were privately educated in the mainstream education system. The father agreed that he signed the forms for the older child to attend [named] kindergarten in 2016 but it was only for that year and he never signed the forms for subsequent years. According to that decision he changed his mind after separation, in part for financial reasons but also because he was not happy with [the] teaching methods.
The two children now attend [School 1]. The mother said that school fee schedules run from October to October, and that from 4 November 2019, she is paying $383.53 a fortnight in school fees, which amounts to $9,972 a year; this includes payments other than fees. In a form submitted to the CSA, the mother stated that the total tuition fees based on the 2019 fee schedule were $7,660.
The mother explained at hearing that as the younger child grew older, she would spend more hours at Kindy, and then school; and as her attendance hours increased, so would the fees.
In a submission dated 20 November 2019, the mother wrote that in 2021, the older child will be in Class 2 and the younger child will be in Kindy 6. After various discounts and disregarding levies, the cost for both children will be $9,583 a year.
The mother has made the point at different times that she pays for additional school costs without the father contributing. The child support formula is designed to cover the costs associated with children attending schools that apply to all schools. Through the payment of child support, the father makes a contribution to those costs.
In a letter to the CSA (undated but probably written in about February 2019), the mother wrote that she disagreed with the father’s response that it was not compulsory for the children to attend [School 1]. That was referenced to a court hearing to do with the children’s education and court orders made subsequent to that. The court orders of 22 October 2018 permit the mother to accept an offer for the younger child to attend the [named] program at the school. The tribunal is satisfied that the orders do not make it compulsory for the younger child to attend [School 1]. There was no evidence before the tribunal of orders being made with regard to costs.
It is apparent that it is the mother who feels strongly about the children attending the [School 1]. She said that in the future, when the younger child attends school rather than Kindy, she can find work. She said that they were not intending to be on the poverty line for long. In a letter to the CSA the mother wrote that she did intend to return to full‑time work once the youngest child was full-time at school. The father is also trying to find ways of generating additional income to that which he earns from his employment with the [Employer 1].
At the moment, however, given the evidence before the tribunal, it is satisfied that since he started working part-time, the father does not have the capacity to make a contribution to school fees. The tribunal’s decision will not require the father to make a contribution to private school fees from 1 January 2020.
At the directions hearing there was discussion around counselling costs for the older child. The parents said that they had agreed to split these costs 50/50 and whoever took the child to the sessions would pay, but that was not working out equitably. The parents were in broad agreement that they did not want these costs factored into the child support assessment. There was limited evidence before the tribunal as to the costs incurred in relation to counselling. The father said at hearing that the counselling had stopped as they could not afford it. In light of these factors, the tribunal is satisfied that the assessment should not be varied in respect of costs incurred for psychological counselling for the children.
Hardship
The tribunal is required to consider any hardship its determination might cause and is guided by Gyselman and Gyselman[5] in this respect:
This requires the Court to balance the ‘hardship’ which the parents or the children may suffer as a result of either making or refusing to make the order. It is a recognition of the circumstance that in this area there is likely to be hardship both ways and the Court is required to take into account the balance of that hardship and give it the weight which is appropriate to the circumstances of the individual case.
[5] [1991] FamCA 93.
It is apparent to the tribunal that the parents’ incomes are insufficient to cover their expenses and cannot cover the school fees. The father said that he was concerned about the financial stress on him and his family, and on the mother and her family. He said he felt desperate and did not know what to do.
The mother has said that she intends to return to work full-time when the youngest child starts school and the father has said he is looking for ways to generate income in addition to what he earns from working part-time. Both parents are assisted by their parents.
The tribunal is of the view that both parents are currently in financial hardship. As other decision makers have pointed out, changing the child support assessment for past periods can impact not only arrears of child support but can also affect FTB payments which both parents receive. To minimise this, the tribunal has decided that its determination will not affect the assessments already notified to the parents that apply to 31 December 2019.
The tribunal has summarised these at Appendix A, attached to these Reasons for Decision.
Any other relevant matters
The tribunal may take into account any other matters it considers relevant in making a particular departure determination (subsection 117(9) of the Act).
The tribunal has determined not to deviate from assessments that apply until 31 December 2019, in order to minimise the effect its decision will have on arrears or overpayments of child support, and on the parents’ FTB payments.
The tribunal has decided to increase the father’s adjusted taxable income from 1 January 2020 compared with the estimate of income that applied from 1 August 2019 to reflect the benefit he gets from salary sacrificing his pay. Despite this, from 1 January 2020, the father’s child support liability reduces as he will no longer be contributing to the school fees for the children. The father has arrears of child support and with his regular payments reduced, he is better placed to make good the arrears.
The tribunal’s decision applies until 31 January 2021 to give the parents some certainty into the future.
It is open to either parent to lodge a further change of assessment application if their circumstances change, even if that is before the end date of this determination.
Issue 3 – Is it otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination?
The requirement to consider whether a departure determination would be otherwise proper is concerned with what is fair to the community; it is preferable for a child or children to be primarily supported by their parents rather than by government assistance. Paragraph 117(5)(b) of the Act means that the tribunal must consider whether the level of a benefit, in particular family tax benefit, received by the party caring for a child or children, may be affected by the level of child support.
Both parents are in receipt of family tax benefit. 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 decision under review is varied so that:
· There are no changes to the assessments currently in place that apply until 31 December 2019 (see Appendix A).
· For the period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2021 the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $42,147.
Appendix A
The figures below (apart from in the last row) are drawn from the most recent assessment notices issued for the dates in the “period covered” column.
| Assessment notice issued | Period covered | Father’s ATI $ | Annual rate of child support based on incomes $ | Contribution to school fees $ | Total annual rate of child support $ |
| 2 November 2018 | 22 October 2018 to 30 November 2018 | 72,000 | 7,788 | 2,440 | 10,228 |
| 8 August 2019 | 1 December 2018 to 6 December 2018 | 72,000 | 7,788 | 2,440 | 10,228 |
| 8 August 2019 | 7 December 2018 to 31 December 2018 | 43,233 2018 taxable | 3,096 | 2,440 | 5,536 |
| 8 August 2019 | 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2019 | 43,233 | 3,096 | 3,410 | 6,506 |
| 1 November 2019 | 1 August 2019 to 30 November 2019 | 38,325 estimate | 2,284 | 3,410 | 5,694 |
| 1 November 2019 | 1 December 2019 to 31 December 2019 | 38,325 | 2,202 | 3,410 | 5,612 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Tribunal’s determination | 1 January 2010 to 31 January 2021 | 42,147 | 2,834 (estimate) | 2,834 (estimate) |
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Intention
-
Remedies
0