Hofer and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2024] AATA 450
•15 March 2024
Hofer and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 450 (15 March 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/2214, 2021/2215
Re:Andrew Hofer
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date:15 March 2024
Place:Sydney
The decision of the AAT1 dated 21 March 2021 is set aside and substituted with a decision that Mr Hofer:
(a)has a recoverable NSA debt owed to the Commonwealth in the amount of $7,718.28 for the period 9 February 2008 to 24 June 2009;
(b)has a recoverable DSP debt owed to the Commonwealth in the amount of $140,344.30 for the period 25 June 2009 to 26 January 2017; and
(c)does not have a DSP debt in the amount of $222.18 for the period 10 March 2017 to 23 March 2017.
............[Sgd]............................................................
Mr S Evans, Member
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY — Newstart allowance – Disability support pension - Overpayments and debt recovery — income and assets not declared — Funds from subleasing property – Failure to provide adequate or persuasive explanation for deposits - Whether debt recoverable – Whether debt should be waived — Decision set aside and substituted.
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases
Barnouti and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 1063
Burling and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 1020
Eminoglu and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 2217
Read v Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 15 ALD 261
Taleb and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 3451
Taoube and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 591
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S Evans, Member
15 March 2024
INTRODUCTION 15 MARCH 2024
The applicant, Andrew Hofer, received New Start Allowance (NSA) and Disability Support Pension (DSP) at various times since 1996.[1] The Secretary of the Department of Social Services (the Secretary) contends that Mr Hofer received income which he failed to disclose while receiving these benefits, resulting in overpayment, and that he now owes a debt to the Commonwealth. [2] On 10 March 2021 the Social Services and Child Support Division (AAT1) of the Tribunal affirmed a decision requiring him to repay $148,314.69 to the Commonwealth for overpayment of NSA and DSP.[3] Mr Hofer seeks review of that decision at the Tribunal.
[1] T31/883
[2] T2/10
[3] T2/9
BACKGROUND
Mr Hofer received $7,748.21 of NSA between 11 January 2008 and 25 June 2009.[4] On 19 August 2008 Services Australia (the Agency) received a tip off that Mr Hofer had possible undeclared earnings from employment and ‘boarders’.[5] The Agency initiated a review but found that there was insufficient evidence to take the matter further.[6]
[4] T31/883
[5] T32/1484
[6] T30/685-6
On 29 July 2009 Mr Hofer was granted DSP with effect from 25 June 2009.[7] He received $140,344.30 in DSP from 25 June 2009 until 26 January 2017.[8] Between 10 March 2017 and 23 March 2017, Mr Hofer received $222.18 in NSA.[9]
[7] T30/882
[8] T32/891
[9] T32/892
The Agency received further tip-offs regarding Mr Hofer in July 2014,[10] February 2015,[11] August 2015[12] and March 2016[13] which prompted the Agency to issue requests for information to Westpac Banking Corporation (WBC) and Australia New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) pursuant to section 196 of the Social Security (Administration) Act1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act). On 27 May 2016 and 10 June 2016 information was provided in return which revealed Mr Hofer held undisclosed bank accounts in his name.[14]
[10] T32/1479-80
[11] T32/1481-2
[12] T32/1478
[13] T32/1476
[14] See ST2 and ST3
Debts raised for overpayment
On 1 February 2017 a DSP debt of $114,471 was raised for the period 9 February 2008 to 26 January 2017.[15] This was on the basis that rental income and undisclosed deposits into Mr Hofer’s WBC and ANZ bank accounts had not been taken into account when calculating his rate of payment. The debt was amended to $140,210 (the DSP debt) on 9 February 2017 due to an error in calculating the debt.[16]
[15] T9/124
[16] T30/787
On 13 February 2017 a NSA debt of $7,748 was raised for the period 9 February 2008 to 24 June 2009 (the NSA debt) on the basis of Mr Hofer having received undisclosed deposits in his ANZ bank account that had not been taken into account when calculating the rate of payment.[17]
[17] T11/128
The Agency issued requests for information on 4 May 2017 to the two banks and Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd.[18] A separate request was made to Advantage Financial Services in June 2017 and information was provided in return which revealed Mr Hofer had obtained a loan for a property at 6 Kay Street (the 6 Kay Street property) in the amount of $222,400 on 18 August 2006 which was paid down on 28 November 2016.[19]
[18] T14/193 - T15/212
[19] T17/224-227
On 1 August 2017 a DSP debt of $352 was raised for the period 10 March 2017 to 6 April 2017 as Mr Hofer’s declared earrings from employment at Sydney Night Patrol and Archer Solutions had not been taken into account when calculating his rate of payment.[20]
[20] T18/239
On 12 September 2017 the Agency issued a request for information to LJ Hooker regarding the sale of the 6 Kay Street property.[21]
[21] T19/242
On 20 October 2017 the Agency issued a request for information to WBC, Credit Union Australia Ltd and ANZ. On 31 October 2017, 13 and 15 November 2017 information was provided in return which revealed Mr Hofer’s WBC account ending in 6192 had a balance of $389,074 as of 27 October 2017 with no regular deposits.[22]
[22] T20-22/243-253
On 18 April 2018 Mr Hofer requested an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) review of the decisions made 9 February 2017 and 13 February 2017 to raise the first DSP debt and the NSA debt,.[23] On 8 May 2018 the ARO found that Mr Hofer was in receipt of significant undisclosed income and deposits into an undisclosed bank account during the debt periods and that rental income from a property situated at Milner Road (the Milner Road property) had not been correctly taken into account.[24] The ARO determined that the debts had been correctly calculated and Mr Hofer was liable to repay the debts.
[23] T30/834
[24] T24/256
On 16 August 2019 interest charges started accruing on each of the debts because Mr Hofer had not entered into a payment arrangement. On 11 October 2019 and 29 October 2019 the Agency issued a request for information to WBC. On 5 November 2019 information was provided in return which revealed that Mr Hofer received a regular monthly deposit of $1,800 into his undisclosed bank account.[25]
[25] T25/260-1
On 19 May 2020 Mr Hofer lodged an application for review with the AAT1 in relation to the ARO decision.[26] On 1 June 2020 the ARO varied the Agency’s decision of 1 August 2017 to raise the second DSP debt due to errors in the debt calculation. The ARO found that the correct amount was $222.18 for the period 10 March 2017 to 23 March 2017 based on Mr Hofer’s profit and loss statement for 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017, and his declared earnings from employment. The ARO noted that the debt arose because Mr Hofer declared his earnings more than 14 days after he commenced work and he had already been paid DSP for the fortnight. On 6 April 2023 the Agency determined that Mr Hofer did not have the second DSP debt of $222.18[27]
[26] T26/277
[27] T27/282
On 21 November 2020 Mr Hofer lodged an amended application for review with the AAT1 in relation to the ARO’s decisions of 8 May 2018 and 1 June 2020.[28] On 10 March 2021 the AAT1 affirmed the decisions and on 13 April 2021 Mr Hofer lodged an application for review of the AAT1 decision with the General Division of the Tribunal.[29]
[28] T26/297-300
[29] T1/1
On 11 April 2023 the Agency provisionally recalculated the NSA debt to $7,718.28 for the period 9 February 2008 to 24 June 2009.
Mr Hofer has paid some of the debts and as of 28 April 2023 the outstanding debt balances were:
·$75,523.50 for the DSP debt including an interest charge of $5825.73; and
·$8,385.81 for the NSA debt including $637.60 in interest charges. The outstanding amount does not take into account the provisional recalculation of 11 April 2023.
Hearing and evidence
At the conclusion of the hearing, both parties expressed a preference to make closing submissions after having time to consider the evidence. It was agreed that closing submissions would be heard on 23 June 2023. On 9 June 2023, the parties by consent requested the hearing for this matter be adjourned pending advice from the Solicitor-General which may have been relevant to this matter.
Owing to availability of parties and Mr Hofer’s medical condition, the earliest available date for relisting was 14 September 2023. On 13 September 2023 Mr Hofer advised he was ill, and the resumed hearing for this matter was adjourned. A Directions hearing was held on 27 September. Directions were made on 27 September and 12 October 2023 for the parties to file any closing submissions in writing by 2 November 2023. The Secretary filed on 2 November 2023. On 12 December 2023, 19 December 2023, 3 January 2024 and 1 February 2024 Mr Hofer filed additional material, which the Secretary opposed the Tribunal considering. The material included additional revised schedules prepared by Ms Alasadi and a statement purporting to be from Aseel Alasadi. Taking into account Mr Hofer’s health conditions, I consider he had ample time and reasonable opportunity to provide further evidence within the timeframe set by the Tribunal, but failed to do so. The additional material has not been accepted into evidence.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:
(i)whether Mr Hofer was overpaid DSP and NSA during the relevant periods; and if so
(ii)whether the overpayments are legally recoverable debts.
LEGISLATION
The relevant law is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) and the Administration Act.
Section 117 of the Act provides that a person’s rate of DSP is worked out using Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064. The Rate Calculator incorporates an income test in Module E. Module E details the effect that the ordinary income of a person has on their maximum rate of payment.
Eligibility for NSA (now called JobSeeker Payment) is determined with reference to an income test contained in Benefit Rate Calculator B at the end of section 1068 of the Act. The Benefit Rate Calculator B at section 1068-A1 states that a person’s ordinary income on a fortnightly basis must be worked out in order to determine the effect income has on the maximum rate of payment.
CONSIDERATION
Was Mr Hofer overpaid DSP and NSA during the debt periods?
Unexplained deposits during the debt periods
The Secretary has identified $1,229,901.07 of unexplained deposits into Mr Hofer’s bank accounts from 2008 to 2016. The amounts deposited into Mr Hofer’s bank accounts each year are summarised in the Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions:
Account Total amount deposited ANZ account ending in 1724 $26,410.00[30] 2008 total unexplained deposits: $26,410.00 ANZ account ending 1724 $94,168.95[31] 2009 total unexplained deposits: $94,168.95 ANZ account ending 1724 $78,192.50[32] WBC account ending 4576 $58,953.00[33] WBC account ending 3704 $147,183.83[34] 2010 total unexplained deposits: $284,329.33 ANZ account ending 1724 $5,030.00[35] WBC account ending 4576 $4,300.00[36] WBC account ending 3704 $219,826.34[37] 2011 total unexplained deposits: $229,156.34 WBC account ending in 3704 $216,828.64[38] 2012 total unexplained deposits: $216,828.64 ANZ account ending in 1724 $50,063.00[39] WBC account ending in 3704 $99,981.66[40] 2013 total unexplained deposits: $150,044.66 ANZ account ending 1724 $135,323.65[41] 2014 total unexplained deposits: $135,323.65 ANZ account ending 1724 $72,840.00[42] 2015 total unexplained deposits: $72,840.00 ANZ account ending 1724 $20,800.00[43] 2016 total unexplained deposits: $20,800.00 Total unexplained bank deposits: $1,229,901.07 [30] ST1/1969
[31] ST1/1969-71
[32] ST1/1971-1973
[33] ST1/2010-2011
[34] ST1/1989-1991
[35] ST1/1974
[36] ST1/2011
[37] ST1/1991-1997
[38] ST1/1997-2004
[39] ST1/1975
[40] ST1/2004-2008
[41] ST1/1975-1979
[42] ST1/1979-1984
[43] ST1/1983-4
Mr Hofer’s explanation for the deposits
Mr Hofer has calculated he deposited $1,170,378.10 into his bank accounts during the debt periods.[44] Mr Hofer provided a statement on 17 February 2023 in which he accounts for the unexplained deposits into his bank accounts. He states he leased properties until ‘about September 2014’ and received payments totalling $278,000 from sub-tenants of those properties.[45]
[44] Transcript, 2-3
[45] ASFIC, [15]
He claims to have paid $278,200 in rent to lessors and $224,678.98 for expenses ‘… associated with the subleasing of the properties and the needs of the sub-tenants’. In his statement of February 2023, Mr Hofer says he lent $520,000 ‘to a cousin’ that was repaid to him in instalments deposited into one or more bank accounts.
In the February 2023 statement, Mr Hofer lists 5 properties which he owned or leased during the debt periods:
·The Waine Street property
·The 1 Kay Street property
·The 6 Kay Street property
·The 6A Kay Street property
·The Milner Road property
Mr Hofer confirms having leased the Waine Street, 6A Kay Street and 1A Kay Street properties until September 2014. In a separate written submission Mr Hofer confirmed subletting these 3 properties generated rental income of $278,200[46] and denied managing the properties at 6 Kay Street and Milner Road. He gave oral evidence that the Milner Road property was owned by his father and the 6 Kay Street property was his private residence.
[46] ASFIC, [15]
Mr Hofer also gave evidence he had receipts to support expenses totalling $224,678 relating to the subleasing of the properties.[47] Mr Hofer did not personally calculate or check the expenses because he was ‘very sick’. Instead, he relied on his sister, Aseel Alasadi, to do so.[48]
[47] ASFIC, [16]
[48] Transcript of proceedings dated 1 June 2023 (Transcript), 7-8
Aseel Alasadi’s evidence
Ms Alasadi prepared an undated statement which was lodged with the Tribunal on 17 February 2023 and gave evidence at the hearing.
In her statement Ms Alasadi writes she was not involved in Mr Hofer’s ‘letting practices,’ which she understands ‘ended about September 2014’. However, she confirmed having examined the T-documents, leases, bank statements and receipts for expenses relating to ‘to the leases and the needs of the sub-tenants’.
Ms Alasadi has prepared 5 ‘schedules’ which are in evidence:
·Schedule I refers to bank deposits for account number [redacted] 8172 from 9 February 2008 to16 May 2016 in the sum of $364.829.10.
·Schedule 2 refers to bank deposited for account number [redacted] 3704 from 28 June 2010 to 4 July 2014 in the sum of $589,706.00
·Schedule 3 refers to bank deposits for account number [redacted] 4576 from 28 June 2010 to 27 June 2012 in the sum $63,253.00.
·Schedule 4 payments to suppliers in connection with the rental properties the sum of $224,678.98
·Schedule 5 records rent paid for the 6A Kay Street property between 22 July 2009 and 7 May 2014 amounting to $132,590.
Ms Alasadi told me she had been Mr Hofer’s bookkeeper since 2008.[49] Mr Hofer provided her with receipts for expenses paid in relation to the leased properties and sub-tenants, which she entered into a spreadsheet.[50] She also kept track of the rent Mr Hofer was paying to lease the properties.
[49] Transcript, 47
[50] Transcript, 49
In relation to Mr Hofer’s books, Ms Alasadi ‘had everything organised’ when she travelled to Turkey in 2019, where she was ‘stranded’ for 9 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[51] While in Turkey, Ms Alasadi was required to frequently change hotels.[52] During one move, she lost the laptop on which she kept the ‘perfect records of everything’ for Mr Hofer.[53] It was her evidence that she lost all records relating to the rent paid to lease the properties and the expenses incurred in relation to subletting the leased properties. Using source documents and draft versions of the spreadsheets saved onto a USB, Ms Alasadi claims to have been able to piece together some of Mr Hofer’s records which she has presented to the Tribunal.
[51] Transcript, 46
[52] Transcript, 49
[53] Transcript, 46
Were the deposits income?
The term income is defined in section 8(1) of the Act as follows:
income, in relation to a person, means:
(a) an income amount earned, derived or received by the person for the person’s own use or benefit; or
(b) a periodical payment by way of gift or allowance; or
(c) a periodical benefit by way of gift or allowance;
but does not include an amount that is excluded under subsection (4), (5) or (8)…
An income amount is defined in subsection 8(1) to mean:
(a)valuable consideration; or
(b)personal earnings; or
(c)moneys; or
(d)profits;
(whether of a capital nature or not).
Ordinary income means income that is not maintenance income or an exempt lump sum.
Before a sum of money is caught by the income test, it is necessary to characterise that sum of money against one of three categories (a)-(c) in the section 8(1) definition of ‘income’. Conversely, any sum that does not fall within one of the three categories is not ‘income’ for the purposes of the Act.
Income does not include an amount that is excluded under subsections 8(4), (5) or (8) of the Act. Subsections (8)(4) and (5) are concerned with amounts paid under a home equity conversion agreement. Subsection (8)(8) sets out various amounts which are not considered to be income for the purposes of the Act.
The term ‘earned, derived or received’ has meaning given by subsection (2). Whether an income amount is found to have been ‘earned, derived or received’ by a person requires consideration of whether it was earned, derived or received for the person’s ‘own use or benefit’.
Regarding rent paid to lease the properties, Mr Hofer identified a number of transactions to ‘Mei Jun ‘in his bank statements which he claims to be the transfer of rent to the landlord of the 6A Kay Street property.[54] Outside of these transaction records no evidence was provided as to the relationship between Mr Hofer and ‘Mei Jun’, and whether those payments constitute rent. Absent supporting documents, Schedule 5, which purports to show rent paid in relation to the 6A Kay Street property, is not afforded any weight.
[54] Transcript, 31-32
At the hearing Mr Hofer was unable to point to any evidence of transfer of rent to the landlord of the 1 Kay Street property or the Waine Street property.
Mr Hofer has not provided any receipts or documentary evidence of having paid the expenses detailed in schedule 4. I note that while Mr Hofer ceased sub-letting the properties in September 2014, Schedule 4 includes expenses from 2017. Further, a significant number of the expenses Mr Hofer relies on to offset income he claims to have received from the leased properties appear to be unrelated to the needs of tenants. At the hearing Mr Hofer conceded some of the expenses listed in Schedule 4 were for his own home. He also conceded that some expenses were for his own personal consumption. He explained that a claim for ‘Oporto’ ‘jumped in by mistake’.[55]
[55] Transcript, 19-20
Mr Hofer’s account of the $520,000 loan to his brother has been inconsistent. In a written submission made before the hearing he stated that he had lent $520,000 to a cousin. At the hearing his initial evidence was that he withdrew $220,000 from his mortgage account on 20 October 2010 to lend to his family.[56] During cross examination, he gave evidence that the loan was in fact to his brother, and he had written cousin ‘cousin’ in his statement by mistake. He gave evidence of having made the loan to his brother in either 2010, 2011 or 2012 and that there was no loan agreement between them.[57]
[56] Transcript, 26
[57] Transcript, 9-10
In her written statement Ms Alasadi asserted Mr Hoffer’s bank statements record repayments of the loan from Mr Hofer’s brother which amount to $520,000. When questioned at the hearing, she was unable to explain how she made that calculation or identify the repayments.
Given the inconsistencies in Mr Hofer’s account of the loan and the absence of credible documentary evidence relating to the alleged loan or its repayment, I am not satisfied that the deposits were repayments of a loan as contended by Mr Hofer.
In so much as they are supported, the explanations for the deposits largely rely on the evidence of Mr Hofer or Ms Alasadi. I do not find Mr Hofer to be a satisfactory or credible witness. He provided implausible explanations for the inconsistencies in his evidence relating to the loan he claims to have made to his brother. His evidence that he did not know if he benefitted financially from subletting the properties is implausible. In giving evidence he was at times argumentative or vague and unhelpful. He twice interrupted Ms Alasadi when she was giving evidence.
Ms Alasadi’s schedules are not supported by invoices, receipts or original records. I found her oral evidence to be unconvincing, particularly when asked to justify the schedules she prepared. Her evidence regarding the loss and later the partial recovery of Mr Hofer’s records is not credible. The most favourable conclusion to be drawn is that the schedules were compiled with insufficient rigour to be relied upon.
The definition of income in subsection 8(1) of the Act is ‘couched in the widest terms’, and covers receipts of both a capital and income nature.[58] Numerous Tribunal decisions have established the proper and adequate corroborating evidence is required before an explanation for unexplained deposits will be accepted.[59]
[58] Read v Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 15 ALD 261, 268
[59] See, for example Burling and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 1020; Eminoglu and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 2217; Barnouti and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 1063; Taleb and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 3451; Taoube and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 591.
I find that Mr Hofer has not provided proper or adequate evidence to support his explanation for the deposits which remain unexplained. It follows that they are counted as income to be factored into the calculation of his DSP and NSA entitlements.
Does Mr Hoffer owe a recoverable debt?
A debt in relation to a social security payment arises by operation of subsection 1223(1) of the Act.
Subsection 1223(1) of the Act provides:
(1)Subject to this section, if:
(a)a social security payment is made; and
(b)a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit;
the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person and the debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.
Subsection 1223(1AB) of the Act provides a list of circumstances in which a person is taken not to be entitled to obtain the benefit of a payment.
(1AB)Without limiting by implication the circumstances to which paragraph (1)(b) applies apart from this subsection, a person who obtained the benefit of a social security payment is taken not to have been entitled to obtain the benefit if the payment should not have been made for any one or more of the following reasons:
(a)the payment was made to the person by mistake as a result of a computer error or an administrative error;
(b)the person for whose benefit the payment was intended to be made was not qualified to receive the payment;
(c)the payment was not payable;
(d)the payment was made as a result of a contravention of the social security law, a false statement or a misrepresentation;
(e)the payment was made in purported compliance with a direction or authority given by the person who was entitled to obtain the benefit of the payment but the direction or authority had been revoked or withdrawn before the payment was made;
(f)the payment was intended to be made for the benefit of someone else who died before the payment was made.
The Secretary submits, and I agree, that Mr Hofer failed to correctly declare his income to the Agency as required by subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act. Consequently, his rate of NSA and DSP was calculated on an incorrect basis during the debt periods and he received payments of both benefits in excess of his entitlement.[60] Therefore pursuant to subsection 1223(1) of the Act, a debt is owed to the Commonwealth arising from the excess in NSA and DSP payments.
[60] RSFIC, [4.36]
The calculations for the debts raised against Mr Hofer are complex and take into account information obtained from various sources spanning the entire debt period. Mr Hofer concedes having received undeclared deposits during the debt period, albeit less than what was calculated by the Secretary. Mr Hofer also expressed concern that the calculation of the debts does not take into account he was entitled to earn $168,780 during the debt periods without it affecting his pension entitlement.
Mr Hofer has not identified any specific errors in the calculations presented by the Agency. I note that the income amounts do not include cash transactions that Mr Hofer confirmed receiving in relation to the collection of rent for the 1 Kay Street property[61] which likely ran in his favour.
[61] T2/12
Having regard to the calculations set out in the evidence, I am satisfied Mr Hoffer was overpaid DSP in the sum of $140,344.30 and NSA in the sum of $7,718.28 as calculated by the Secretary.[62]
[62] ST1 1969-2011
Section 1236 sets out circumstances in which all or part of an applicant’s social security debts may be written off. Mr Hofer has indicated he does not seek a waiver or write off. For completeness, I do not consider that Mr Hofer received the pension payments in good faith. He has not offered a credible explanation for consistently failing to inform the Agency of any changes to his income and assets as required by section 66A and 68(2) of the Administration Act. There is no indication that the debts arose solely due administrative error and cannot be waived on this premise. In addition to the income he received, Mr Hofer has substantial assets including the 6 Kay Street property in which he lives and joint ownership of the Milner Road property. I do not consider there is evidence he is experiencing financial hardship. Accordingly, the discretion under section 1236 is not enlivened.
CONCLUSION
Mr Hofer received undeclared income during the relevant periods which was not taken into account when calculating his rate of DSP and NSA which resulted in overpayment. He consequently owes a debt to the Commonwealth and that debt has been correctly recalculated. There are no grounds for all or part of the debts to be waived or written off.
DECISION
The decision of the AAT1 dated 21 March 2021 is set aside and substituted with a decision that Mr Hofer:
(a)has a recoverable NSA debt owed to the Commonwealth in the amount of $7,718.28 for the period 9 February 2008 to 24 June 2009;
(b)has a recoverable DSP debt owed to the Commonwealth in the amount of $140,344.30 for the period 25 June 2009 to 26 January 2017; and
(c)does not have a DSP debt in the amount of $222.18 for the period 10 March 2017 to 23 March 2017.
I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty -nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member
...............................[Sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated: 15 March 2024
Date(s) of hearing:
1 June 2023
Date final submissions received:
1 February 2024
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr J Loxton
Solicitors for the Respondent:
Mr B Hearnden, Hun & Hunt Solicitors
0
6
0