Leaber and Kinaley (Child support)

[2024] AATA 2892

Leaber and Kinaley (Child support) [2024] AATA 2892 (3 July 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/MC026740

APPLICANT:  Ms Leaber

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Kinaley

TRIBUNAL:Deputy President K Synon

DECISION DATE:  3 July 2024

DECISION:

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – ground for departure – income and financial resources in the administrative assessment – reporting previous regular bonuses – property ownership overseas – decision under review affirmed

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. The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.

2. This case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) on 8 June 2021 and has been collectable since that date. Ms [Leaber] (the mother) and Mr Kinaley (the father) are the parents of [Child 1] born [in] November 2009 and [Child 2] born [in] March 2017 (the children).

3. Since the beginning of the case, [Child 1] was recorded as being in the 100% care of the mother and in the 0% care of the father and [Child 2] was recorded as being in the 86% care of the mother and the 14% care of the father.

4. The most recent assessment dated 3 August 2023, for the period 1 June 2024 to 31 October 2024,[1] is based on the mother’s 2022/2023 adjusted taxable income of $94,950 and the father’s 2022/2023 income of $91,025. This assessment has the father paying $11,718 in child support per annum.[2]

   [1] Page 507 of the hearing papers.

   [2] Page 508 of the hearing papers.

5. The mother lodged a departure application on 7 January 2023. On 16 April 2023 a case officer allowed the application finding that a ground to depart from the administrative assessment was established, namely Reason 8B, being that the child support assessment is unfair because of a parent’s income or earning capacity. As a result, for the period 4 January 2023 to 31 May 2024, the father’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $107,779.

6. The father lodged a late objection to that decision on 29 May 2023. The father objected to the finding of Reason 8B in the 16 April 2023 decision and contested the existence of the three criteria that need to be satisfied to establish Reason 8B. The objection was allowed on 25 August 2023, whereby the father’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $107,555 for the period 4 January to 3 February 2023 and to $91,548 from 2 May 2023 to 31 October 2024. In addition, the father’s annual rate of child support was varied to $10,464 during the period 4 February to 1 May 2023.

7. On 11 September 2023, the mother sought further review of the objection decision with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

8. I conducted a directions hearing with both parties on 7 March 2024 and on the same day, issued Directions which required that both parties provide a range of financial documents including recent tax returns, pay slips and bank transaction histories for all Australian and overseas accounts held during the last six months, including for any credit cards and details of any other sources of income since 1 July 2023. In addition, the father was ordered to provide a copy of his current employment contract. Compliance was ordered by close of business on Thursday 28 March 2024. The mother and father fully complied. All documents, after redactions, were exchanged between all the parties on Monday 8 April 2024 with the advice that any submissions about the documents could be made orally at the hearing or in writing.

9. The father responded to the mother’s documents in writing on Friday 12 April 2024,[3] contending that her property holdings need to be increased to approximately $1,680,000 as she had recently purchased an investment property for approximately $750,000 and is receiving rental income from this property. The father noted that the mother had indicated that her principal place of residence was worth $700,000, however, in separation negotiations [in] April 2022 in the Family Court, the property’s value was agreed to be $780,000 by both parties’ solicitors. Further, the father explained that as part of the separation financial asset settlement, the mother had retained a holiday house in [Country 1], purchased for $45,000 in 2012 and now valued at $178,066. The father queried whether the mother has disclosed this in her tax records, and if so, questioned when she sold the property in [Country 1]. Finally, the father wrote that there are two tenants living at the back of the mother’s principal place of residence in a converted garage and they pay the mother cash rent, which should be recorded as a source of income to the mother.

   [3] Page B128 of the papers.

10. These comments were exchanged with the mother on 22 April 2024. In response, she submitted:

    I am writing to clarify our current situation. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia have already concluded our case regarding the financial settlement agreement and child custody. Therefore, there is no need for further action on these matters, and they should not be brought up again to influence child support reviews.

    I have sought guidance from the AAT’s help service, which advised me to include any additional information that does not fit into the financial form in the designated “additional box.” I have noted that I have a long-term lease on a house for my mother’s accommodation, and it is important to acknowledge that the Government of [Country 1] owns all the lands, and we lease them with annual fees.

    Furthermore, I have provided the declaration form from [Mr Kinaley], in which he has already disclaimed any ownership. I am currently working two jobs to meet our financial obligations and support our children. Occasionally, I have someone stay over to help care for them, which may lead to misunderstandings.

    I urge you to respect our privacy and refrain from interfering in our personal lives. [Mr Kinaley] has been actively involved in spending time with the children, and he has access to [Child 1’s] mobile number as well as full access to their school communications. If he had any concerns about the children’s safety, he has had ample opportunity to address them before now.

    My children’s well-being is always my top priority, and I have taken measures to ensure their safety, including installing CCTV cameras around our home. I have attached relevant legal documents for your review.

11. In her Statement of Financial Circumstances, the mother submitted the following in the “additional information” section:

    ·I work for [Employer 1] in the [specified department], under contract with [Authority 1]. The renewal license for this position is required every two years, with the next review expected in 2024. I also work overtime occasionally. Additionally, I work for [Employer 2] as a casual [employee], with availability varying. This work is not stable and is necessary to keep up with inflation and expenses, which affect the ATO assessment incomes for 2023-2024.

    ·I have a long-term lease on a house in [Country 1] for my mother, who has medical conditions and is living there. I support her financially after my father passed away in 2020. I continue to pay fees to the [Country 1] government to maintain the house, which is an asset passed down from the divorce settlement. [Mr Kinaley] is aware of this situation.

    ·[Child 1] has been accepted to [School 1], which will require additional school fees and expenses as she grows into a teenager with more needs.

    ·The house we're living in currently is very old, in poor condition and needs a lot of improvement.

12. I heard the matter on Thursday 9 May 2024. The mother and father appeared by MS Teams video. The Child Support Registrar was not represented at the hearing. In reaching its decision, I considered the sworn evidence of the parents, the papers provided by Child Support (folios 1–621), the mother (folios A1–A70) and the father (B1–B129).

13. Following the hearing, I issued further directions to the mother to provide an updated Statement of Financial Circumstances as it became clear during the hearing that her circumstances had changed substantially. I also directed the mother to provide a copy of the rental agreement in relation to her newly acquired and tenanted property and a copy of the email she referred to during the hearing. The mother complied fully. These were numbered A71–A94 and exchanged with the father. The father also provided a post-hearing submission which was numbered B130–B134 and exchanged with the mother.

ISSUES

1. The issue before me is whether there is a reason to change the administrative assessment of child support and, if so, whether it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to do so.

2. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are outlined in section 98C of the Act, which states that a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:

   (i)that one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection [117](2) exists; and

   (ii)that it would be:

   (A)just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and

   (B)otherwise proper;

   to make a particular determination under this Part …

3. Therefore, the issues which arise in this case are:

   ·      Does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support? And, if so,

   ·      Would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination?

CONSIDERATION

The legislative framework

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Act. The liable parent or a carer may apply to the Child Support Registrar for a determination to depart from the child support administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Act. 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: there is a ground for a departure from the administrative assessment; that it is just and equitable to depart; and that it is otherwise proper. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are those set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act.

2. 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.

Reason 8B: the father’s income or earning capacity makes the child support assessment unfair – relevant law, evidence and findings

1. The mother’s main submission both at the primary and review stages was that the father left his employment in December 2022 and took a long holiday to avoid paying a higher level of child support. The father in turn contended that he left his employment in [Industry 1] because it was a toxic workplace and, after COVID for his own health and well-being he had to leave his job and take a break. In lodging her objection, the mother submitted that if the father can afford to take a career break, then he should be in a stronger financial position to support himself and the children. During the hearing the mother gave evidence that the father lodged his tax returns in November 2022, before her and, after a child support assessment was calculated based on the father’s tax returns, he realised that he had to pay approximately $27,000–$28,000 a year. She asserts that as soon as he knew this, the father resigned from his [Industry 1] job and took a holiday and contended this was substantially motivated by the impact it would have on his child support assessment. The father’s oral evidence reiterated his submission to Child Support that he needed a holiday after he resigned from his toxic workplace and that he now wishes to spend more time with the children. He said he is not a bum father; he did not disappear or go to another country or try to hide in the cash economy. He asserted that the third limb of the relevant test was not met.

2. A parent’s earning capacity can only be taken into account in limited circumstances, as set out in subsection 117(7B) of the Act. This subsection requires me to consider three matters in determining whether the parent’s earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income used in the administrative assessment:

   ·      Whether the parent:

   ois not working despite ample opportunity to do so (subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(i)); and/or

   ohas reduced their weekly hours of work to below full-time work (subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(ii)); and/or

   ohas changed their occupation, industry or working pattern (subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(iii)); and

   ·      If the parent’s decision about his/her work arrangements is not justified by either his/her caring responsibilities (subparagraph 117(7B)(b)(i)) or his/her state of health (subparagraph 117(7B)(b)(ii)); and

   ·      If the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of their decision not to work despite ample opportunity to do so or to stop working, reduce their hours of work or change their occupation, industry or working pattern to affect the administrative assessment of child support (paragraph 117(7B)(c)).

3. During the hearing the mother asserted that the father had sent her an email in which he told her he was taking a break from work. The mother provided this email after the hearing and the father does relevantly write that he will be finishing with his (former) employer from 31 December 2022 and “taking a break” up until 15 April 2023. This stands in contrast to the father’s evidence to Child Support on 8 June 2023 that he “was having conversations as early as the start of February and networking in order to obtain new employment”[4] especially because he told Child Support he returned from overseas on 16 March 2023.[5] Further, as recorded in the objections officer’s (OO) decision, “a few days before leaving his employment he posted on his [social media] page that he was resigning and looking for employment”. In fact, a review of that post[6] demonstrates that he did not say he was looking for employment merely that he would be “taking a brief career break and have some exciting projects to see through on a personal basis.”

   [4] Page 432 of the hearing papers.

   [5] Page 295 of the hearing papers.

   [6] Page 434 of the hearing papers.

4. As the father resumed full-time employment in a related field, and one in which he had previously worked, on 2 May 2023, I find that neither criterion in subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(i) nor (ii) is satisfied. In relation to the three-limbed test set out in subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(iii) to paragraph 117(7B)(c), I am not persuaded, on the evidence before me, that the father ceased employment on 31 December 2022 for the major[7] purpose of affecting the child support administrative assessment. As these are cumulative criteria it is not necessary for me to consider the other elements of subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(iii) to paragraph 117(7B)(c). While a four-month break and/or holiday between professional employment positions may not be unusual and I cannot be satisfied on the evidence before me of the father’s major motivation, I acknowledge that his decision to take four months off work (which he clearly flagged was his intention in his email to the mother on 30 November 2022), certainly had a considerable and unhelpful impact on the mother and child support available to her to raise their children.

   [7] My emphasis.

5. But, notwithstanding these concerns, I therefore determine that there is no ground for departure from the administrative assessment based on the earning capacity of the father; this ground is therefore not established as all of the criteria specified under subsection 117(7B) of the Act have not been met.

Reason 7: the mother’s necessary commitments of self-support

1. During the hearing I asked the mother if she wished to rely on Reason 7 to which she responded that she probably cannot work at her second job now as she has more caring responsibilities for the children and her daughter’s new school routine is difficult to maintain. The mother also said that her daughter’s school-related costs are significant. I note that the OO recorded that while the mother applied under Reason 7, she did not provide any of her expenses and therefore it was not taken into consideration and no findings were made.

2. Sub-subparagraph 117(2)(a)(iii)(A) of the Act provides that a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the capacity of either parent to provide financial support for the child is significantly reduced because of commitments of the parent necessary to enable the parent to support himself or herself.

3. The interpretation of this ground, and, in particular, what commitments are necessary for self-support, was considered in the case of Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93. The Court set out some important principles which the Tribunal must take into consideration when determining whether the ground exists in this case:

   ·The term “commitments of the parent necessary to enable the parent to support” himself means commitments which are reasonably needed for that purpose.

   ·The use of the word “necessary” is not intended to produce an unrealistically low standard of living for the non-custodian parent.

   ·It is a matter of the balancing of the competing values, namely the obligation of the absent parent to continue to support his children with, on the other hand, the need for that parent to continue to maintain himself at a reasonable level.

   ·The obligation of the non-custodian to pay off debts may amount to a commitment necessary for self-support. Whether a particular obligation to pay off a debt should or should not be included within para (a)(iii) depends upon the circumstances of the individual case. It is a matter of judgement and degree in the individual case, bearing in mind in particular that ultimately it is a matter of competing priorities.

4. The mother provided no concrete evidence for this claim. I reviewed her Statement of Financial Circumstances and her expenses but can identify no unusual or uncommon self-support expenses that constitute special circumstances. On this basis, I am not satisfied that the mother’s expenses create circumstances which can be considered special circumstances within the context of sub-subparagraph 117(2)(a)(iii)(A) of the Act and therefore I find that this ground is not established.

Reason 8A: the father’s income, property and financial resources make the child support assessment unfair – relevant law, evidence and findings

1. The mother gave evidence during the hearing that Child Support’s decision is wrong because it has not assessed the parties’ ATO incomes correctly for the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 financial years and it used the father’s income estimates, instead of his actual income in its calculations. She also expressed frustration that the father had lodged multiple estimates of income which changed the child support assessments throughout the year. The mother believes that the father does this to avoid paying child support and that his estimates did not reflect his adjusted taxable income (ATI). She told me that the system is exhausting.

1. The father said that following their separation they both found the child support system new and confusing and, due to the nature of his previous [Industry 1] position, in which he was paid regular bonuses, he felt compelled to constantly update Child Support so that at the end of financial year he did not have a debt. He thought he was doing the right thing. Every time he phoned to report his bonuses, it was complicated as they were constantly reconciling mid-stream. He is no longer in a position where he receives bonuses.

2. I am satisfied that both the mother and father are salaried income earners with the father no longer eligible for bonuses. The father did not dispute the mother’s declared ATI for the income year 2022/2023 of $94,950.[8] The mother asserts that the father deliberately reduced his income during the 2022/2023 period by taking a four-month break from employment between December 2022 and April 2023. This issue has been dealt with above. She feels particularly aggrieved that she has been overpaid child support and claims to have incurred a penalty.[9] She claims this situation arose because of their property settlement and because she lodged her tax return before the father.

   [8] Page 44 of the hearing papers.

   [9] Page A94 of the papers.

3. After considering the totality of evidence before it and particularly the father’s redundancy payment of $10,651 received when he resigned from his previous employment, which, as documented in the OO’s decision, amounts to 36 days’ income (including $7,756 of annual leave), I have determined that despite the salaried positions of both parents, this additional payment ought to be included in the child support assessment. In doing so, I acknowledge that this amount would have been accounted for in the father’s 2022/2023 tax return however believe it is important to be transparent about his child support liability during the period when he was (seemingly) voluntarily between jobs.

4. On 2 May 2023 the father commenced new employment and provided a pay slip[10] which records a gross income for the period 1 May to 31 May 2023[11] of $7,795.70, which annualises to $93,548 which requires the father to contribute considerably more in child support ($9,684 per annum) than he was assessed to pay under the administrative assessment during the same period ($3,264 based on his 2023 income estimate of $13,264).

   [10] Page 433 of the hearing papers.

   [11] 21 work days.

5. His severance pay of $10,651, when compared to his annual income of $107,555, indicates that his severance pay was equivalent to 36 days’ income; that is his annual income remained at $107,555 until 3 February 2023.

6. Given that the father reported an income estimate of $13,264 to Child Support on 4 January 2023, I am satisfied that this income understates his actual income during the periods 4 January to 3 February 2023 and from 2 May to 30 June 2023.

7. As the father’s income and financial resources are not properly reflected in the existing child support assessment, there are special circumstances such that the application of the administrative assessment would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of child support payable and therefore the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act is established. Subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i) is therefore satisfied.

Just and equitable

1. As I am satisfied that a ground exists for departure from the administrative assessment of child support, I must now consider the second limb, which is whether it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a new determination.

2. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable directs attention to what is fair to the parents and their children. Regard must be had to a variety of factors such as the parties’ respective earning capacities, the needs of the children, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula assessment.

3. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the parents of a child have the primary duty to maintain the child, 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. The father and the mother have the primary duty to financially support the children.

4. The mother gave evidence that she supports her mother in [Country 1] and provides her with rent-free accommodation in her house there. While this is culturally appropriate and admirable, this is not a legal duty and her duty to support her children is pre-eminent. I maintain some concerns about the evidence the mother provided about how much rent the [Country 1] house would yield should it be commercially let however am satisfied that this commitment does not currently appear to diminish her capacity to provide for her children especially as she works a second job. Her revised Statement of Financial Circumstances[12] does not otherwise suggest any extravagant spending although her estimated expenditure of almost $10,000 a year on holidays seems high. The mother records her estimated weekly expenditure as $2,595 which annualised is $134,940 against her estimated income of $116,012. I note the mother did not declare any child support payments or government benefits such as family tax benefit (FTB) on her revised Statement of Financial Circumstances although on the first one[13] she declared weekly FTB of $262.22 equating to $13,635. These amounts together total $129,647 which is still short of the mother’s estimated expenditure although none of the father’s child support payments have been included in either of her Statements of Financial Circumstances.

   [12] Pages A72–A83.

   [13] Unsigned and undated although received by the Tribunal on 6 October 2023.

5. The mother owns her residence fully and has a tenanted investment property with a mortgage. As previously mentioned, she owns a home in [Country 1] in which her mother lives and for which she does not realise a market rent. She works two jobs but may need to relinquish her second part-time job soon due to the increasing demands of the children’s educational and extracurricular commitments. The mother highlighted the increasing costs and needs of the children especially her daughter who is in a selective high school. The mother strongly refuted the father’s claim that she has a tenant paying cash who lives at the back of her residential property. I accept the mother’s evidence about this. I find no issues of concern in the mother’s bank statements or expenses as her oral evidence about these was clear especially in relation to some large withdrawals in her [Bank Account 1] which was money she received from the family law property settlement. The mother put this money into a loan account for her second property and withdrew a deposit of $21,000 for her [Town 1] house, from this [bank] account. The mother explained that the [Bank Account 2] was a previous account which contained $214,168 comprising funds she received after the property financial settlement (the same amount was received by the father) and was used towards her [Town 1] investment property which she has purchased to safeguard her children’s future expenses. I accept that the mother has no other undisclosed accounts.

6. The father was likewise able to acquit himself adequately in relation to any issues arising out of his bank statements and expenses including declaring that he has a tenant living on his property who pays fortnightly rent of $500, and deposits and withdrawals in relation to the sale and purchase of a car. The father strongly refuted the mother’s claim that he may be hiding money by sending some to his brother and offered that his brother could provide a statutory declaration attesting to this. As the mother provided no persuasive evidence about this claim, I do not accept this but rather prefer the father’s evidence.

7. When I put to the father my analysis of his bank statements that he has a lot of discretionary spending on [Business 1] and other gambling and gaming, amounting to $14,512 in six months – over $600 a week – he conceded this was a lot of discretionary spending. The father explained that his only vice is recreational gaming and he has a passion for horse racing and sport although does not have a substance abuse or a psychological issue. He does not smoke or drink excessively. He calculated the total debits in his bank account statements related to gambling to be approximately $11,400 over last six months, with approximately $3,400 of credits received as winnings so the net loss is approximately $8,000. The father said he can afford this expense on his income. I noted as a concern that the $20 a week for hobbies and entertainment he recorded on his Statement of Financial Circumstances should have been more accurately recorded as $600 a week. I also asked the father to explain his high holiday cost estimate of $285 a week ($14,830 a year) which he explained was for two overseas holidays and a trip to [Region 1] he took with his son. This appears to be excessive in contrast to his income and child support responsibilities.

8. Neither parent has a partner who shares costs, other caring responsibilities or any health concerns that could affect their earning capacity over the next 12 months. Both said the children are in good health and have no access to any other income or earning capacity.

9. I accept that both parents are finding it hard to make ends meet while maintaining separate homes with increasing interest rates however an examination of the father’s discretionary spending does not suggest that an adjustment to his child support liability for the periods 4 January to 3 February 2023 and 2 May to 30 June 2023 would be so onerous as to put him into mortgage distress.

10. I am satisfied that the mother’s income and financial resources are accurately reflected in the administrative assessment however note her concern about how the divorce settlement resulted in an overpayment and also that the father was paying $872 a month during his period of non-employment.

11. After considering all the evidence before me, I have determined that it is just and equitable that the father’s adjusted taxable income be varied to $107,555 per annum from 4 January to 3 February 2023, in line with the decision of the OO. It is appropriate to vary the father’s annual rate to $10,464 during the period 4 February to 1 May 2023, as he had apparent capacity to contribute to the children’s costs at this level.[14] As to the father’s adjusted taxable income from 2 May 2023 it is appropriate to vary this to $91,548, which makes allowance for work-related and other deductions of $2,000. The father’s annual income will not be reflected in the administrative assessment until at least 31 October 2024, so it is appropriate to vary his adjusted taxable income on this basis until that date. As such the decision is affirmed.

    [14] Page 617 of the hearing papers.

12. The Tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment is unfair given the income and financial resources of the father. After due consideration of all the factors outlined in subsection 117(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment of child support.

Otherwise proper

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure would be otherwise proper 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 and benefits. Parents, rather than the community, have the primary duty to maintain a child. The mother is in receipt of FTB[15] in respect of the children. Departing from the administrative assessment will result in a more appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community.

   [15] As declared in her first SOFC.

2. The determination is otherwise proper.

3. Before concluding I note that the father raised during the hearing and in his submission following the hearing, that he wants to spend more time with his oldest child and feels annoyed that this contact and care is being frustrated by the mother. I sought no evidence on this and formed no view as the relative care of the children was not relevant to my consideration however note that the father has appropriate avenues to raise this with Child Support.

4. Finally, I acknowledge the mother’s frustration and exhaustion about Child Support constantly reviewing the father’s child support liability because of him regularly advising of new income estimates based on his bonuses in his previous position. I trust that with the father now in new employment, which does not attract bonuses, his need to constantly advise of revised income estimates will abate.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.