Heywood and Annon (Child support)

[2022] AATA 640

Heywood and Annon (Child support) [2022] AATA 640 (1 March 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/MC022366

APPLICANT:  Ms Heywood

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Annon

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny

DECISION DATE:  01 March 2022

DECISION:

The decision under review is set aside and a decision substituted that:

• For the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2021 the rate of child support payable by Mr Annon is set at $370 per week, and

• For the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2024 the rate of child support payable by Mr Annon is set at $400 per week.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – benefits derived from business – income from family trust – a ground for departure established – 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 omitted 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 Heywood and Mr Annon are the separated parents of [the child], born [on] January 2019. A child support case has been registered with the (then) Department of Human Services – Child Support (Child Support) since 30 January 2019. Child support is payable on the basis that Ms Heywood has 100% care of [the child] and Mr Annon is assessed as liable to pay child support to Ms Heywood.

2. There has been a previous departure determination in this case, lodged on 12 August 2019 by Ms Heywood and ultimately decided by a Child Support objections officer on 2 April 2020, which set Mr Annon’s adjusted taxable income at $136,000 for the period 1 September 2019 to 31 December 2022. This resulted in a child support liability of $13,342 per annum.

3. The decision was subject to a “COVID-19 clause”, which provided for the departure determination to cease if Mr Annon’s income was impacted by the pandemic. Mr Annon applied for the departure determination to cease on 14 May 2020 and on 2 June 2020 a decision was made for the child support assessment to revert to the “standard formula” assessment from 14 May 2020.

4. Thus for the period 14 May 2020 to 30 June 2020 Mr Annon’s child support liability was $4,830 per annum, based on an income estimate of $62,421 for Mr Annon and an income estimate of $22,291 for Ms Heywood. From 1 July 2020 to 30 November 2020 the rate of child support payable was $8,996 per annum based on Mr Annon’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $96,912 and Ms Heywood’s income estimate of $19,944.

5. On 1 July 2020 Ms Heywood objected to the decision to enact the COVID clause and on 4 September 2020 her objection was disallowed. On 7 July 2020 Ms Heywood applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an extension of time to apply for a review of the original objection decision made on 2 April 2020, but the Tribunal (differently constituted) refused the extension application in a decision of 8 September 2020.

6. On 9 October 2020 Ms Heywood applied to the Tribunal for a review of the second objection decision (to enact the COVID clause) and on 4 January 2021 Ms Heywood withdrew her application.

7. On 14 July 2020, Ms Heywood also applied to Child Support for a further change of assessment on the basis that Mr Annon’s income, property, and financial resources were not accurately reflected in the assessment and that she incurred high childcare costs. Her application was placed “on hold”, pending the outcome of her applications before the Tribunal.

8. On 9 June 2021, [a] decision maker decided to change the administrative assessment on the basis of high childcare costs and Mr Annon’s income and financial resources and determined that for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 October 2023 Mr Annon’s adjusted taxable income was set at $292,414.

9. On 2 July 2021, Mr Annon objected to the decision and on 26 August 2021, a Child Support objections officer decided to partly allow the objection. The objections officer decided that for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2024 Mr Annon’s adjusted taxable income was set at $165,000 per annum and that for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2022 the annual rate of child support payable was increased by $1,732 (being 50% of annual childcare fees).

10. On 21 September 2021, Ms Heywood applied to the Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing into Ms Heywood’s application for review was held on
    1 March 2022. Both Ms Heywood and Mr Annon attended the hearing by conference telephone and gave evidence on affirmation. 

11. I had before me the statement and documents provided by Child Support pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, received on 25 October 2021 and numbered 1–779. I also considered additional documents provided by Ms Heywood (marked A1–A155) and Mr Annon (marked B1–B89) as a result of written directions issued on 16 December 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.

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 one (or more) grounds 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.

CONSIDERATION

A ground for departure

1. Ms Heywood asked for a departure from the administrative assessment on the basis that the assessment does not correctly reflect the parties’ respective income, property and financial resources (also known as “Reason 8A”) and that the costs of maintaining [the child] are significantly affected because of high childcare costs (also known as “Reason 6”).

2. Neither party submitted that the other had greater earning capacity for the purposes of this review and I have thus not considered this issue further.

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 Annon – income, property and financial resources

1. At the time Ms Heywood lodged her application on 14 July 2020 child support liability was $8,996 per annum, based on Mr Annon’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $96,912. Ms Heywood submitted that Mr Annon is the director of two businesses and has far greater financial resources than the income declared in his tax returns.

   Business ownership/control

2. Mr Annon agreed that he is listed as “director” for [Company 1] and [Company 2]. Mr Annon said that his father originally started a business in 1996 and he had been working for his father as [an Occupation] since he was 21 years old. In 2016 his father’s company went into liquidation and a new company ([Company 1]) was established to continue the business. It was not easy to restart the business and he was made director of [Company 1] and his father is the “Managing Director”. In 2019 a second business ([Company 2]) was acquired and he is the sole director of that business.

3. Mr Annon agreed that he was signatory for all of the business accounts but submitted that this did not mean however that they were “his companies”. His father still works every day at [Company 1] and he makes the business decisions.

4. Financial information submitted for both businesses indicates that Mr Annon is the director and public officer. Business tax returns are submitted under his name (e.g. folio B15) and he signs the company financial reports (e.g. folio B55). He has also entered into finance/loan agreements on behalf of [Company 1] (folio 326).

5. Information obtained from the Australian Taxation Office indicates that [Mr A] is also a director of [Company 1] (folio 362) but there is no evidence that [Mr A] exercises any legal control over either [Company 1] or [Company 2]. It appears that it is Mr Annon who ultimately exercises control over the businesses, although he possibly does discuss business decisions with his father.

6. I note that it is a long-established principle of law when a person conducts their business through an intermediary such as a company or trust that it is proper to “lift the corporate veil” to determine the value of a company or trust to that person.[1] In Ashton, the Court stated that “this Court is not bound by the formalities designed to obtain advantages and protection for the husband who stands in reality in the positions of the owner”. Similarly, the Full Court of the family Court said: “in our view, the company [the Trustee of the Family Trusts] is a mere puppet of the husband” and could be disregarded. These principles have been affirmed by the Family Court in cases such as In the Marriage of Carey (1994), FamCA 74 FLC 92-489, with regard to the determination of a parent’s income for child support purposes. In these cases, effective control of the businesses was found to rest with the person conducting the business and not the intermediary.

   [1] Stein v Stein (1986) FamCA 27, FLC 91-779 and Ashton and Ashton (1986) FamCA 20, FLC 91-777

7. Taking into account the caselaw and evidence before me I find that effective control of [Company 1] and [Company 2] rest with Mr Annon.

   Business income

8. Mr Annon provided tax returns for [Company 1] and [Company 2] for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years and financial reports for the 2020/21 financial year.

   [Company 1]

9. The profit/loss statement for [Company 1] (folio B51/52) shows a gross profit from trading (after cost of sales) of $3,266,704 in 2020/21, an increase from the gross profit of $2,759,240 in 2019/20. Business expenses amounted to $2,937,234 in 2020/21 and $2,572,070 in 2019/20.

10. In 2019/20 [Company 1] recorded a net operating profit of $171,774. This was added to profits retained at the end of 2018/19 (being $884,650) for a total profit of $1,056,424. Dividends of $45,000 were paid and $1,011,424 was retained at the end of the 2019/20 financial year.

11. In 2020/21 [Company 1] recorded a net operating profit of $382,022. This was added to profits retained at the end of 2019/20 (being $1,011,424) for a total profit of $1,393,446. Dividends of $240,000 were paid and $1,153,446 was retained at the end of the 2020/21 financial year.

12. The 2019/20 company tax return indicates an “accounting profit” of $182,152. The company ultimately declared a taxable income of $50,967 after depreciation and immediate asset write off deductions were taken into account (folio B19/20).

13. The 2020/21 company tax return indicates a business loss of $789,839 and the company ultimately declared a taxable income/loss of $837,462 after depreciation and immediate asset write off deductions were taken into account (folio B78/79).

14. It appears that $240,000 was paid to the Annon Family Trust (folio B74). Information obtained from the Australian Taxation Office (folio 368) indicates that the trust has two beneficiaries, [Mr A] (beneficiary since 1 July 2010) and [Ms B], Mr Annon’s wife (beneficiary since 17 August 2020).

    [Company 2]

15. The profit/loss statement for [Company 2] (folio B44) shows a gross profit from trading (after cost of sales) of $602,830 in 2020/21, a decrease from the gross profit of $878,305 in 2019/20. Business expenses amounted to $671,920 in 2020/21 and $624,740 in 2019/20.

16. In 2019/20 [Company 2] recorded a net operating profit of $207,622. In 2018/19 the company made a loss of $9,704, thus total profit in 2019/20 (after accounting for previous losses) was of $197,918, which was retained at the end of the 2019/20 financial year.

17. In 2020/21 [Company 2] recorded a net operating loss of $42,723. This was added to profits retained at the end of 2019/20 (being $197,918) for a total profit of $155,195, all of which was retained at the end of the 2020/21 financial year.

18. The 2019/20 company tax return indicates a taxable income of $167,069 after depreciation deductions were taken into account (folio B24/25). The 2020/21 company tax return indicates a business loss of -$61,705 and the company ultimately declared a taxable income/loss of -$101,411 (folio B59/60).

    Personal income

19. Mr Annon said that he is employed by [Company 1] as [an Occupation] and he receives a regular wage from the company. Child Support records indicate that his 2017/18 taxable income was $99,928 and the 2018/19 taxable income was $96,912 (folio 742).

20. Mr Annon’s 2019/20 personal tax return shows a taxable income of $64,317, comprising wages from [Company 1] and some dividend income (folios B34/35). In 2020/21 Mr Annon declared a taxable income of $65,454 (folios B82/83).

21. Bank account statements obtained by Child Support show that Mr Annon’s wages are paid into account no. xxxxx6947 (folios 292/293 and 696/697). They show that a regular weekly amount of $1,178 was paid into Mr Annon’s account from 4 February 2021 to
    12 August 2021, identified as “[Company 1] wage”. The bank statements further indicate an amount of $1,778 deposited weekly between 31 December 2020 and
    28 January 2021. The corresponding business account (xxxx7530, folios 268-276) however indicates amounts of $1,178 being paid to Mr Annon between 31 December 2020 and 28 January 2021.

22. I cannot explain this discrepancy, but I will accept that regular weekly payments into Mr Annon’s personal bank account were $1,178. Most probably throughout the entire 2020/21 financial year.

23. I also note that an additional amount of $7,778 was deposited from [Company 1] on 24 December 2020 (folio 293). Although this amount is not deducted from the business account until 14 January 2021 (folio 272).

24. I note a weekly amount of $1,178 (if paid throughout 2020/21), plus $7,778 amounts to $69,034.[2] Mr Annon declared wages from [deleted] of $65,360 in his 2020/21 income tax return. I also note that the amount of $1,178 represents a net amount paid into Mr Annon’s bank account. A weekly wage of $1,178 net equates to approximately $1,520 per week gross[3] or approximately $79,040 per annum in 2020/21. Again, I cannot explain these discrepancies and Mr Annon was reluctant to provide further details.

    Summary

    [2] $1,178 x 52 = $61,256 + $7,778 = $69,034

    [3] >

    Ms Heywood submitted that there were a number of inconsistencies in the financial information provided by Mr Annon and obtained by Child Support. She alleged that Mr Annon was using the company and trust structures to minimise his income for child support purposes. She noted that Mr Annon transferred his shares in [Company 1] shortly after [the child] was born in January 2019 (folios A79 and A81) and his wife was appointed as beneficiary of the Annon Family Trust in August 2020 (folio 368).

25. Mr Annon confirmed that his current income from his employer is $1,920 per week (gross) or about $99,840 per annum and Ms Heywood submitted that this was a further indication that Mr Annon had control over the company finances and could set his own income amount.

26. Mr Annon said that he did not “understand numbers” and did not know how the Family Trust operated or whether it received any money from the companies. He said his father makes the business decisions and the accountants produce the financial statements and tax returns for the businesses. He had no input into any of these. As far as he was concerned, no money was taken out of the companies for private purposes. He certainly did not take any money from the companies. He was relying on his regular wages to pay his bills.

27. Mr Annon also noted that he did not provide bank account statements to anyone. These were procured by Child Support and he was reluctant to discuss any financial information in front of Ms Heywood.

28. I have considered the evidence before me. As noted above, I am satisfied that Mr Annon’s gross income from employment (based on a regular net payment of $1,178 per week) amounts to an annual gross income of $79,040. I am also satisfied that an amount of $240,000 was transferred into the Annon Family Trust, being the dividend paid by [Company 1] to the trust for the 2020/21 financial year. Whilst Mr Annon is not listed as a beneficiary of the trust, his wife, [Ms B] is one of two beneficiaries. I see no reason why Mr Annon should not have access to 50% of the distribution from [Company 1], given that it is Mr Annon, not his wife, who works in the company.

29. I will accept Mr Annon’s and the accountant’s (folio 444) evidence that [Company 2] relied on its profits to repay a loan from [Company 1] and it needed a substantial amount of working capital to continue operating and meet its financial obligations. I have therefore not taken any financial resources from [Company 2] into consideration.

30. I therefore find that Mr Annon’s income and financial resources from employment and from profits distributed by [Company 1] would amount to about $199,040 in the 2020/21 financial year.

Ms Heywood – income, property and financial resources

1. Ms Heywood is reliant on Centrelink payments. She provided Centrelink Income Statements (folios A109–A114) indicating that she receives parenting payment of about $880.10 per fortnight, pension education supplement of $62.40 per fortnight and family tax benefit payments of about $185.92 per fortnight.

2. Her 2020/21 personal tax return indicates a taxable income of $27,826, comprising Centrelink payments only (folio A137). Ms Heywood’s 2019/20 taxable income was $26,678 (folio 738).

3. Ms Heywood said that she was employed by [Employer] prior to [the child]’s birth. She is able to return to the position, but her employer is unwilling to consider part-time work to enable her to continue her current studies and look after [the child]. She has been asking for a redundancy, but this is proving difficult to obtain.

1. I have no evidence that Ms Heywood has any other source of income, and I am therefore satisfied that Ms Heywood’s income, property and financial resources are adequately represented by her annual income tax returns.

Conclusion – income, property and financial resources of both parties

1. When Ms Heywood lodged her departure application on 14 July 2020 (the 2020/21 financial year), the rate of child support was $8,996 per annum based on Mr Annon’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income of $96,912 and Ms Heywood’s income estimate of $19,944.

2. I have found that Mr Annon’s actual income and financial resources in 2020/21 amounted to $199,040 and I have estimated that Mr Annon’s child support liability for [the child], if calculated on the basis of his actual financial resources would be $19,257 per year at the time Ms Heywood lodged her application. This amount changes only marginally (less than $2 per week) if Ms Heywood’s actual 2020/21 taxable income is used in the assessment.

3. I find that the difference between an annual child support liability of $19,257 and the annual rate of child support ($8,996) based on Mr Annon’s 2018/19 adjusted taxable income, is so great that it gives rise to special circumstances in this particular case.

4. 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 Annon’s income, property and financial resources only.

5. 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 child], the parents’ commitments and any hardships that would be caused by departing, or not departing, from the statutory formula.

Mr Annon

1. Mr Annon’s income, property and financial resources have been discussed in some detail above. I have found in the 2020/21 financial year Mr Annon’s income, property and financial resources amounted to $199,040.

2. Mr Annon provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios B1–B9) on which he indicated a current income from employment of $1,920 per week (about $99,840 per year). He listed taxation, superannuation and private health insurance expenses of $557 per week.

3. Household expenses for himself and his other two children amount to $1,217 per week, including mortgage payments of $450 per week. Mr Annon noted that his wife works part time earning about $660 per week. The relevant bank statement (account xxxx3052) indicates that Ms Annon receives about $1,302 net per fortnight or $651 per week (folio 548). I am of the view that it is reasonable to assume that she contributes to (at least) one third of general household expenses.

4. On this basis Mr Annon would have to meet expenses of $1,368 per week[4] from his weekly wages of $1,920, resulting in a weekly surplus of $552 and I therefore find that Mr Annon is able to meet all of his financial commitments.

   [4] $557 + $811, being two thirds of $1,217

Ms Heywood

1. Ms Heywood indicated on her Statement of Financial Circumstances (folios A3–A11) that her income is about $424 per week. Centrelink notices provided by Ms Heywood show that she receives a total of $1,128.42 per fortnight or about $564.21 per week. She noted expenses of approximately $1,293 per week, including taxation and repayment of a [Bank] loan ($270 per fortnight) and private rent of $300 per week.

2. I note Ms Heywood assumed a tax rate of $125 per week, based on withholdings from Centrelink, but tax on her actual taxable income is about $35 per week (folio A 142). Most of the tax collected by Centrelink is being refunded. Thus her expenses are about $1,200 per week. These exceed her weekly income by about $636 and Ms Heywood noted that she often relies on food hampers from charitable organisations, as there is no money for groceries.

3. Ms Heywood indicated that essential expenses for [the child] amount to approximately $472 per week (or $24,544 per year) and include about $100 per week for childcare costs. She provided evidence that [the child] attends childcare three days per week. From December 2020 to December 2021 she was able to obtain an increased childcare subsidy (CCS) payment from Centrelink, as she is studying (folios A101–A104). Her “out-of-pocket” costs for that period thus amounted to about $18.60 per week or about $967 for the year.

4. Ms Heywood said that she no longer has access to the increased subsidy. From January 2022 the new CCS amount is $271.02 per week and childcare fees are $375 per week for three days. She will now have to pay about $103.98 per week “out-of-pocket” costs. Ms Heywood stated that attending childcare/kindergarten is important for [the child]’s development and Mr Annon ought to be contributing to these costs.

5. From the information provided by Ms Heywood it appears that [the child] attends childcare throughout the entire year, except for a one-week period over Christmas. On this basis then Ms Heywood’s childcare cost would amount to about $5,200 per annum ($100 per week).

6. [The child] is now three years old. She has no income, property or financial resources relevant to my determination. Overall it appears that Ms Heywood relies on child support payments from Mr Annon to meet [the child]’s expenses.

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 Heywood 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. When Ms Heywood lodged her departure application on 14 July 2020 Mr Annon’s child support liability was $8,990 per annum. Ms Heywood submitted that Mr Annon has access to greater financial resources from the business and he is able to decide his own wages. Mr Annon recently increased his wages from about $65,545 (according to his 2020/21 income tax return) to about $100,000 per annum. She suggested that Mr Annon ought to be able to pay child support of about $2,500 per month (or about $577 per week). He has already been paying child support at a rate of $2,000 per month recently (to make up arrears), so there should be a capacity to pay more.

3. Mr Annon submitted that his maximum salary from [Company 1] was probably about $80,000 to $100,000 per year and he did not derive any other benefits from the businesses and/or the family trust. He did not think that he could afford to pay any more child support than about $1,000 to $1,200 per month or about $230 to $280 per week.

4. I have found that Mr Annon’s income and financial resources in 2020/21 amounted to about $199,040. This would result in a child support liability of approximately $370 per week, about $30 more per week than Mr Annon is assessed to pay under the current departure determination.

5. I am cognisant that some of the information provided by Mr Annon was inconsistent and he did not wish to discuss his financial circumstances fully in the presence of Ms Heywood. It is difficult to set an income amount under those circumstances.

6. I have therefore decided to set a rate of child support payable. I will set the rate of child support payable at $370 per week for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2021 and  from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2024 I will set the rate at $400 per week in recognition of the childcare costs.

7. I note that this will generate some arrears for Mr Annon but based on the evidence submitted in his Statement of Financial Circumstances he should be able to meet these costs. I am not persuaded that my decision will cause Mr Annon to be in financial hardship and the increased child support payments should assist Ms Heywood to meet her expenses for [the child].

8. I note Ms Heywood wanted an extended departure determination, but I agree with Mr Annon in that Ms Heywood’s circumstances may be different in a few years. [The child] will be nearly six years old when the current departure determination ends and probably at school. Ms Heywood may have completed her studies and possibly have found employment. I have thus decided not to change the start date (1 October 2020) and end date (31 December 2024) set by the objections officer.

9. I have reached a different conclusion than the objections officer and I therefore set aside their decision.

DECISION

The decision under review is set aside and a decision substituted that:

• For the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2021 the rate of child support payable by Mr Annon is set at $370 per week, and

• For the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2024 the rate of child support payable by Mr Annon is set at $400 per week.