Holmes and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2003] AATA 888

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 888

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)No W2002/451

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		JILLIAN HOLMES

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M Allen, Member

Date11 September 2003

PlacePerth

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

..............(Sgd. M Allen)............................

Member
CATCHWORDS

Social Security – Family Tax Benefit – calculation of adjusted taxable income – where allowable deductions, including net rental property loss, exceeds assessable income – whether taxable income can be negative amount – whether debt due to Commonwealth – whether debt should be waived – whether special circumstances exist

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s37

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 s58, schedule 1, schedule 3

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 ss71, 95, 96, 101

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ss4-10, 4-15

Re S, DSS and Durkin AAT 6376, 12 November 1990, (1990) 59 SSR 804

S, DSS v Hales (1998) 51 ALD 659

S, DFCS v Chamberlain [2002] FCA 67

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 September 2003 Mr M Allen, Member          

1.      This is an application by Mrs Holmes for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) made on 22 October 2002.  On that day the SSAT affirmed two decisions made by delegates of the Secretary as follows:

(a)on 16 September 2002, to raise and recover a debt of Family Allowance of $936.00 in respect of the period from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2000;

(b)on 27 July 2002, to raise and recover a debt of Family Tax Benefit of $3,377.62 in respect of the period from 1July 2001 to 30 June 2002.

2. At the hearing Mrs Holmes was represented by her husband, Mr Mark Holmes, and was also assisted by her accountant, Mr Lachlan Mills, who participated in the hearing by telephone. The Secretary was represented by Mr Ward, who was assisted by Ms Hackney, both of whom are Centrelink officers. The documents filed by the respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 were received into evidence.  No formal oral evidence was given at the hearing but Mr and Mrs Holmes informed the Tribunal of various aspects of the matter, none of which was in dispute.

3.      The papers relating to the decision made by the Secretary on 16 September 2002 regarding the debt in respect of the period of 1 January to 30 June 2000 are contained on the Tribunal’s file W2002/ 448.  At the hearing Mrs Holmes advised that she did not wish to proceed with the application to review that decision and the application has since been withdrawn.

4.      The papers in relation to the decision made by the Secretary on 27 July 2002 are contained on the Tribunal file W2002/ 451 and these reasons for decision relate only to that matter.

Background

5.      None of the evidence was disputed and from the documentation available to me and the information provided…