Lisbeth and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security)
[2025] ARTA 2031
•15 September 2025
Lisbeth and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2025] ARTA 2031 (15 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Miss Lisbeth
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2025/B194067
Tribunal:General Member L Jaffit
Place:Brisbane
Date:15 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:
·There is a debt of $8,620.40 for family tax benefit paid for the 2022/23 financial year.
·The proportion of the debt attributable to administrative error is to be calculated in accordance with these reasons and waived under section 97 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Family Tax Benefit – overpayment – debt recovery – estimate less than actual adjusted taxable income – administrative error – incorrect estimate used – received payment in good faith – waive recovery of administrative error proportion of debt – decision under review set aside
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 pursuant to subsections 161(1B) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
On 16 September 2024 a Centrelink officer decided to seek repayment from the applicant, Miss Lisbeth, of a debt of $8,620.40 for family tax benefit paid for the 2022/23 financial year. Miss Lisbeth was advised of the decision by letter dated 18 September 2024.
Miss Lisbeth requested a formal review of this decision, and on 27 March 2025 an authorised review officer with Centrelink affirmed the decision to ask her to repay the debt.
On 4 April 2025 Miss Lisbeth applied to the Tribunal for an independent review of Centrelink’s decision.
The Tribunal hearing was held on 21 July 2025. Miss Lisbeth attended via Microsoft Teams videoconference and gave evidence on affirmation.
The Tribunal had before it documents produced by Centrelink under section 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act), numbered as pages 1–334 (the hearing papers).
Following the hearing the Tribunal issued an order to the Secretary under sections 63 and 79 of the ART Act to provide submissions and information. The Secretary’s response to the order has been numbered as pages C1–C44.
Miss Lisbeth was provided with a copy of the response on 4 September 2025 and advised that if she would like to provide a response to this material, this should be done within seven days. Miss Lisbeth has not provided a response.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA Admin Act).
The issues which arise in this case are:
· Did the applicant incur the debt in question in respect of family tax benefit paid for the 2022/23 financial year?
· Is there any reason that the debt should not be recovered by Centrelink?
CONSIDERATION
Did the applicant incur a debt of $8,620.40?
In making their decision the authorised review officer made the following key findings:[1]
• Your Family Tax Benefit for the 2022–23 financial year was paid on combined Adjusted Taxable Income estimates of:
-$60,000 from 1 July 2022
-$105,000 from 26 June 2023.
• Your combined actual Adjusted Taxable Income was $110,373.
• You were paid $9,558.45.
• You should have been paid $938.05.
• You were overpaid $8,620.40.
[1] Page 106 of the hearing papers
In her application to this Tribunal Miss Lisbeth set out her reasons for seeking this review.[2] In brief, she contends that there has been an error in the calculations. Among other things, the debt letter alleged that she was paid $9,558.45 in family tax benefit for the 2022/23 financial year, but her bank statements record she only received a total of $4,040 for that financial year.
[2] Page 1
She elaborated on this in her oral evidence to the Tribunal. Among other things, she noted that this was different than the reasons set out in her application to Centrelink for formal review.[3] She explained that when she first contacted Centrelink about the debt, she was advised that it was due to the non-lodgement of an income tax return by her partner. She now understands that the debt was alleged to have occurred due to being paid on estimates of adjusted taxable income (for her and her partner) that she provided that were less than her actual adjusted taxable income for the 2022/23 financial year.
[3] Page 118
She accepts that her combined adjusted taxable income was $110,373 and that she initially provided an estimate of $60,000 that was subsequently updated to $105,000 from 26 June 2023. She also understands that she would have been overpaid because of this. However, she does not understand how she could have been overpaid $8,620.40 for the reasons stated in her application for review.
The letter and reasons for the decision of the authorised review officer did not address the issues raised by the applicant and the Tribunal was unable to ascertain from the documents provided how the overpayment of $8,620.40 had been calculated.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant was paid a lump sum of $6,404.21 on 23 May 2024 for arrears due from 1 July 2022 to 20 May 2024 and Miss Lisbeth was advised of this by letter dated 21 May 2024.[4] However, the payment covered two financial years, and the letter provided no breakdown.
[4] Page 31
In the circumstances the Tribunal considered it was necessary to seek further information and issued an order to the Secretary under sections 63 and 79 of the ART Act to make written submissions and provide information to address the following issues:
a. The contentions set out in the applicant’s application for review dated 4 April 2025.
b. What is the basis for, and evidence to support, the respondent’s conclusion that the applicant was paid $9,558.45 family tax benefits for the 2022/23?
c. Calculations to support the respondent’s decision that the applicant was overpaid $8,620.40 for the 2022/23 financial year should be provided. The calculations should include the adjusted taxable income used to calculate any amounts paid, and details of any rent assistance paid and payable, for any periods in the 2022/23 financial year?
The Tribunal has now considered the submissions and information provided and accepts the lump sum payment made on 23 May 2024 included a gross amount of $4,380.20 for the 2022/22 financial year[5] and the breakdown of the calculations.[6]
[5] Page C3
[6] Page C5
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was overpaid family tax benefit totalling $8,620.40 and that this constitutes a debt under Division 2 of Part 4 of the FA Admin Act.
The Tribunal notes that the gross amount of $4,380.20 for the 2022/22 financial year included in the lump sum payment made on 23 May 2024 includes $1,467.98 that was withheld to repay a debt.[7] The Tribunal has no information before it about this debt or how it arose, and this debt is not before the Tribunal. If Miss Lisbeth disputes this, or requires an explanation of it, she should contact Centrelink in the first instance.
Is there any reason the debt should not be recovered?
[7] Page C3
The FA Admin Act sets out the circumstances where recovery action for a debt is not taken. Specifically, a debt may be written off (for a stated period or otherwise) or waived. To ‘waive’ recovery of a debt, or part thereof, means that it or part of it will never have to be repaid. Waiver provisions are at sections 96 to 102 of the FA Admin Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that sections 98 to 102 are not applicable.
Waiver – Administrative error
Insofar as it is relevant, section 97 of the FA Admin Act provides:
97 Waiver of debt arising from error
(1) The Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion (the administrative error proportion) of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if subsection (2) or (3) applies to that proportion of the debt.
...
(3) The Secretary must waive the administrative error proportion of a debt if:
(a) the payment or payments were made in respect of the debtor’s eligibility for family assistance for a period or event (the eligibility period or event) that occurs in an income year; and
(b) the debt is raised after the end of:
(i) the debtor’s next income year after the one in which the eligibility period or event occurs; or
(ii) the period of 13 weeks starting on the day on which the payment that gave rise to the debt was made;
whichever ends last; and
(c) the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to the administrative error proportion of the debt.
As noted above, the lump sum payment made on 23 May 2024 included a gross amount of $4,380.20 in respect of the 2022/23 financial year. This amount was calculated on the basis that Miss Lisbeth’s estimated income was $60,000 from 1 July 2022 ($0 for Miss Lisbeth and $60,000 for her partner) and $105,000 from 26 June 2023 ($40,000 for Miss Lisbeth and $65,000 for her partner).[8]
[8] Page C5
The Tribunal notes that Miss Lisbeth had estimated her adjusted taxable income as $105,000 for the 2022/23 financial year prior to the lump sum payment and that this new estimate had been recorded by Centrelink on or before 26 June 2023. The Tribunal also notes Miss Lisbeth’s submission that this amount was not far off her actual adjusted taxable income of $110,373 once it was assessed.
The estimate of $105,000 (i.e. $40,000 for Miss Lisbeth and $65,000 for her partner) provided by Miss Lisbeth was for the 2022/23 financial year, and not just for the period from 26 June 2023.
The Tribunal finds that using the earlier estimate $0 for Miss Lisbeth and $60,000 for her partner for the period from 1 July 2022 to 25 June 2023, instead of this updated estimate, when calculating the lump sum payment made on 23 May 2024 was an administrative error. The proportion of the debt attributable to this failure is solely due to administrative error of the Commonwealth and falls within subsection 97(1) of the FA Admin Act.
The debt was raised on 16 September 2024 and paragraph 97(b) of the Admin Act is satisfied.
In relation to the payment made on 23 May 2024, Miss Lisbeth told the Tribunal it was for two tax years, and she relied on Centrelink to do the calculations. Although she hadn’t applied for this payment, she assumed Centrelink had correctly calculated this and believed she was entitled to it when it was paid.
The Tribunal accepts that Miss Lisbeth received this payment in good faith within the meaning of paragraph 97(3)(c) of the FA Admin Act.
29.Accordingly, recovery of this proportion of the debt must be waived under section 97 of the FA Admin Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:
There is a debt of $8,620.40 for family tax benefit paid for the 2022/23 financial year.
The proportion of the debt attributable to administrative error is to be calculated in accordance with these reasons and waived under section 97 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Monday 21 July 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
0
0
0