Loomis and Forstater (Child support)

[2021] AATA 5038

Loomis and Forstater (Child support) [2021] AATA 5038 (2 November 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/SC021803

APPLICANT:  Ms Loomis

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Forstater

TRIBUNAL:Member K Dordevic

DECISION DATE:  2 November 2021

DECISION:

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

• the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $282,143 from 15 March to 12 September 2021; and

• the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by:

  o   $25,200 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2021;

  o   $29,988 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2022; and

  o   $30,588 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2023.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – costs of education – manner expected by both parents – cost of maintaining the children are significantly affected – financial resources of the parents – effect of court order on departure application – just and equitable to depart – 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. The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the 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 the Department of Human Services – Child Support (now Services Australia) on 17 August 2018 and has been collectable since that date. Ms Loomis (the mother) and Mr Forstater (the father) are the parents of three children. Relevant to this application, only two children remain subject to the administrative assessment, aged 15 (the youngest child) and 18 years (the middle child) born  [June] 2003. The children are reflected as being in the mother’s 100% care.  The eldest child was born [in] July 2000.

3. The mother lodged a change of assessment application on 13 November 2020. On 1 March 2021 a senior case officer determined that the father’s annual liability was to be increased by $20,427 in the 2021 calendar year in respect of the youngest child’s school fees. The mother sought a review of that decision on 20 March 2021. On 1 June 2021 an objections officer partly allowed the objection and determined that from 15 March 2021 until a terminating event occurs, the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $253,000 and that the annual rate payable by the father is increased by $20,428 in the 2021 calendar year in respect of the youngest child’s school fees.

4. On 22 June 2021 the mother sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal issued directions on 21 September 2021, requiring compliance by 11 October 2021.

5. The tribunal heard the matter on 2 November 2021. The mother and father appeared by MS Teams audio. The father was represented by Mr [A]. The Child Support Registrar was not represented at the hearing. The tribunal has considered the sworn evidence of the parties. The tribunal also considered the documentation provided by Child Support (folios 1 to 500), the mother (folios A1 to A198) and the father (folios B to B20).

ISSUES

1. 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 …

2. 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

A ground for departure

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act provides a ground for departure when, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner that was expected by their parents.

2. The tribunal finds that the youngest child attends [a named school] (the school) and the middle child attends [School 1] ([School 1]) and [Studio 1] for dance tuition. It is not in dispute that the children are being educated in the manner expected by the parents. The tribunal finds accordingly.

3. The tribunal makes the following findings regarding the costs of the children’s education. The middle child receives a full tuition scholarship at [School 1]. Additional charges of $2,240 were payable for music tuition, school levies, performance costs and a school camp. The middle child will complete his Year 12 studies [in] December 2021. His [Studio 1] tuition is $270 per fortnight with additional costs of $630 for summer camp and about $640 in costumes and eisteddfods. The receipts in evidence indicate that from January to October 2021 the mother incurred expenses of $5,550 in relation to the middle child’s attendance at [Studio 1]. The youngest child is currently in Year 10 and is expected to complete his secondary education in 2023. His 2020 and 2021 schooling costs (including tuition, music tuition, information technology fee and [boarding] costs) totalled $53,878 and $42,000 respectively.

4. The mother submits, and the father does not contest, that she contributed $51,771.58 and the father contributed $3,000 to the youngest child’s 2020 school costs and she met all of the middle child’s education costs at [School 1] and [Studio 1]. The tribunal finds that the mother’s 2020 and 2021 adjusted taxable incomes are $24,092 and $23,742 respectively. Thus, the education costs are more than double the mother’s gross income. The tribunal finds that the cost of attending the schools are greater than if the children were to attend a government school and so is an expense that is out of the ordinary. The tribunal concludes that, in the special circumstances of the case, the mother’s costs of maintaining the children are significantly affected because the children are being educated in the manner expected by their parents. Therefore, the ground provided for in subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Act is established.

Just and equitable

1. 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 needs of the child, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula.

2. At the time the departure application under review was lodged, the father was liable to pay an annual rate of child support of $42,824 per annum based on the mother’s 2019 adjusted taxable income of $12,076 and the father’s adjusted taxable income of $210,000, as varied by a senior case officer on 1 May 2019 for the period 29 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. The parties’ 2020 and 2021 adjusted taxable incomes were $209,207 and $281,823 (the father) and $24,092 and $23,742 (the mother) respectively.

3. It is noted that the parents’ property settlement is yet to be finalised. Much of the testimony received by the parents at hearing was concerned with matters that, in the tribunal’s view, are more appropriately dealt with in the contested property proceedings expected to take place in about 24 months’ time.

4. In her Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 5 July 2021 the mother declares that she is employed on a casual basis as a [occupation] earning net income of $449 per fortnight. She continues to live in the former marital home; she estimates that it is valued at $2,300,000 with a mortgage of $467,259 and that she has a 50% interest in the property and is liable for half of the mortgage. She declares savings of $1,269, shares totalling $5,000, a motor vehicle valued at $49,900, a nil interest in her sole trading enterprise, and household contents and other personal property of $20,000. Her superannuation balance is $57,224. Her liabilities include a credit card debt of $30,367, a HELP loan of $19,076, outstanding legal bills of $19,836 and a $21,090 personal loan from her mother. Her personal weekly expenditure is $227, made up of $7 in income tax, health insurance of $79 and $141 in credit card payments. She reports household expenditure of $2,835, of which about $2,276 relates to her care of the children. The mother enjoys good health.

5. In determining whether it is just and equitable to depart from an administrative assessment, consideration must be given to each parent’s earning capacity. The tribunal first considered the mother’s earning capacity. Subsection 117(7B) provides that when considering the earning capacity of a parent a decision maker is required to consider three tests:

   (7B)  In having regard to the earning capacity of a parent of the child, the court may determine that the parent's earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his or her income for the purposes of this Act only if the court is satisfied that:

   (a)  one or more of the following applies:

   (i)  the parent does not work despite ample opportunity to do so;

   (ii)  the parent has reduced the number of hours per week of his or her employment or other work below the normal number of hours per week that constitutes full‑time work for the occupation or industry in which the parent is employed or otherwise engaged;

   (iii)  the parent has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern; and

   (b)  the parent's decision not to work, to reduce the number of hours, or to change his or her occupation, industry or working pattern, is not justified on the basis of:

   (i)the parent's caring responsibilities; or

   (ii)  the parent's state of health; and

   (c)  the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support in relation to the child.

6. The mother’s evidence regarding her earning capacity is summarised as follows. She was awarded a [degree] over 30 years ago. During most of the marriage she did not engage in paid work. She does not dispute that she ideally would be earning a greater income; she is concerned that the 20-year gap in her resume will impact on her ability to secure more stable and well remunerated work. In October 2018 she began working as a [occupation]. She also working as a contractor with [an organisation] until 2021, when the role was reclassified as an unpaid position. In February 2021 she commenced a family dispute resolution course, which she anticipates she will be awarded in November 2021. She was unsuccessful in her recent application for a dispute resolution role.

7. The tribunal finds that the mother engages in paid work. She has not recently changed her occupation, industry or working pattern (apart from the period in which COVID-19 lockdowns were in place for the Sydney metropolitan area). Whilst the mother’s normal number of hours is below that which constitutes full-time work, there is no evidence that she has reduced her number of hours per week. As a matter of fact, her taxable income has nearly doubled since the 2019 financial year and her undisputed evidence is that since the formal separation she has returned to the paid workforce. Therefore, subparagraph 117(7B)(a)(ii) of the Act is not satisfied. The tribunal concludes that, for the purposes of the Act, the mother’s earning capacity is not greater than her adjusted taxable income.

8. In a Statement of Financial Circumstances form dated 12 July 2021 the father advised that he is employed on a full-time basis. He declared weekly income of $5,802, including superannuation ($301,704 per annum). He declares a 50% interest in the former marital home (his share being $1,125,000), and a 22% interest in a family trust/partnership valued at $205,144. He noted that the partnership holds properties [overseas] that have been independently valued at [amount deleted]. The father declares savings of $6,244, a motor vehicle valued at $20,000, an interest in PYF Pty Ltd valued at $190, superannuation of $583,616 and household contents valued at $2,000. As to his liabilities, he reports his 50% share of the mortgage on the former marital home is $233,690 and an outstanding tax liability of $19,763 that he is repaying at $1,981 per month ($457 per week); it is expected this will be repaid by March 2022. He also has an Amex liability of $5,635 and a debt to his mother of €94,459 (about $157,431AUD) which, under the terms of the loan agreement, he is being charged an interest rate of 5%. At hearing he confirmed that he has made no payments (including interest charges) towards this personal loan. The father declares $4,030 in weekly expenses, including superannuation ($834), income tax ($1,770), a life insurance premium ($88), credit card repayments ($32) and health insurance ($73) in additional to his child support liability of $1,230. He declares average weekly expenses of $2,096; none of these costs are associated with his care of the children. At hearing he explained that the children’s activities declared in his financial circumstances of $96 per week ($4,992 per annum) were in respect to the eldest child’s [activity] costs. The tribunal accepts that the anticipated date that the father will repay his ATO debt is March 2022 (some five months later than expected) and this will increase his capacity to meet his other necessary and discretionary expenses. The father enjoys good health.

9. The tribunal finds that the father was employed by [Company 1] until February 2021 and he commenced employment with [Company 2] in March 2021. At hearing he confirmed that he received a sign-up bonus of $40,000, which is reflected in his 2021 adjusted taxable income. His most recent payslips in evidence (at B9 to B11) suggest that he has a base monthly salary of $21,525.50 ($258,306 per annum). The tribunal’s calculations as to the father’s income is in contrast with his declaration. The tribunal finds that his gross weekly income is $4,967, excluding superannuation ($21,525 x 12/52). His net weekly income is $3,197. His weekly rate of child support (as dictated by the objections officer’s decision) is $1,241. Allowing for his personal expenses of credit card repayment, health insurance and life insurance as well as weekly repayment to the ATO, this leaves the father with $1,306 available to meet his household expenditure. The tribunal is of the view that the father’s necessary expenses are considerably less than his actual expenses. For example, his telephone and food expenses are high given his household composition and the tribunal is of the view that the $58 per week in gifts and are available for him to meet the costs of the children. The tribunal will address his expense of $96 per week in activities for the eldest child below. Allowing $200 per week for food and $15 per week for telephone and applying all the other expenses listed by the father, the tribunal concludes that he has a shortfall of about $12 per week remaining after meeting his necessary and personal expenses, including his currently assessed child support liability.

10. Neither party submits that the youngest or middle child have access to income or financial resources. The tribunal finds accordingly. It is noted that the Child Support record indicates that the middle child is no longer subject to the assessment from 5 November 2021, though he will complete his HSC examinations [in] December 2021.

11. The mother seeks that her self-support amount be increased to reflect the costs associated with her care of the eldest child who attends university and the middle child from the completion of his HSC. The Federal Magistrates Court (as it was then known) found in the matter of Carlson & Acuff & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 677 that in circumstances where an adult child was studying at university, living full time with one parent and working part time, there was “little doubt that the parents have an obligation to [the adult child] under section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975” and that the “duty to maintain” the adult child should have been taken into account under subsection 117(4) of the Act. The father did not dispute the mother’s evidence that she continues to provide for the eldest child who lives with her on a full-time basis. The eldest child is also in receipt of youth allowance of $359.20 per fortnight. The mother submits (and the father did not contest) that the eldest child has little capacity to engage in casual or part-time paid work due to his full-time studies and his [activity] training. The father’s evidence is that he contributes $5,000 per annum towards the eldest child’s sporting costs (which the mother disputes). The tribunal prefers the father’s testimony on this point. Whilst the tribunal recognises that both parents have a duty to maintain the eldest child (and soon the middle child), even if the tribunal were to increase the mother’s self-support amount by $500 per week ($250 for each child) this would have no bearing on the administrative assessment; that is, the father’s child support liability would remain the same. In the circumstances of this case the tribunal is not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the administrative assessment on this basis.

12. The question of private schooling has been considered by the Full Court of the Family Court in Mee and Ferguson (1986) FLC 91-716. Relevant to this matter, the principle that emerged is that where a parent has agreed to the child attending a private school, that parent is liable to contribute to the fees so long and to the extent that they have a reasonable financial capacity to continue to do so.

13. What, if any, contribution the father should make towards the children’s education costs has been a matter of contention between the parties since the father vacated the family home in about September 2018. The mother submits that she should be liable to pay only $23,374.08 of the youngest child’s education costs in the 2020 calendar year and she should make no contribution at all to the this child’s education costs in the 2021 to 2023 calendar years.

14. The tribunal has been provided with part of the reasons for judgement by the Family Court on [date] January 2020 and the full reasons of the Full Family Court on [date] November 2020. They are summarised as follows. In an application dated 19 September 2019 the mother sought a departure order requiring that the father pay $5,000 per month in child support or in the alternative that he pays, in addition to the administrative assessment, the full cost of the children’s education and private health insurance. The father’s position was that the circumstances of the case did not warrant a departure and that even if there were grounds to do so, he does not have capacity to contribute more than the administrative assessment. He also submitted that the mother had not fully disclosed her financial position and, in particular, what remains of the funds she withdrew from the parties’ joint accounts. In an ex tempore judgement dated [date] January [2020]determined that the father did not have capacity to contribute to the child’s school fees (that is, over and above his administratively assessed child support liability) unless the former marital home was sold. It was also noted that the mother confirmed that she had transferred a total of $335,000 from the joint accounts into an account controlled by her alone after the father advised that he would no longer contribute towards the children’s school fees. [Judgement] went on to state that the father’s financial statement dated 18 November 2019 indicates that the father is unable to meet his own financial obligations, with there being a shortfall of about $1,000 per week. [Judgement] concluded that even if there were a ground to depart from the administrative assessment, it would be just and equitable to do so. The mother’s application was dismissed.

1. The mother’s subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Full Family Court was dismissed on 9 November 2020. Relevant to this application, one ground of appeal was that the father’s capacity to contribute towards the children’s education costs had improved, as he had negotiated a new repayment schedule with the ATO from $5,000 per month to $1,000 per month for a period of 12 months and $1,640.54 thereafter. The court determined that on this point the evidence regarding the change to the ATO payment arrangements was controversial and the father wished to adduce evidence regarding the reasons behind the change to the repayment arrangement. Having regard to that, and the late filing of the application on this point, it was determined that it was appropriate to dismiss this application.

2. In her submissions to this tribunal the mother requests that the father be assessed to contribute to the youngest child’s school fees from 18 March 2020, this being the date on which the father negotiated his new payment plan with the ATO, reducing his monthly payments to $1,000 per month. Alternatively, she asks that the father contribute from 30 April 2020, when he negotiated a further reduction in his monthly repayments to $500 per month.

3. This tribunal must not make a determination in respect of a day that is more than 18 months earlier than a person has lodged a change of assessment application, unless leave is granted by a court with jurisdiction under the Act. The mother seeks that the tribunal’s decision is backdated some eight months prior to her application.

4. Mr [A] submitted that the tribunal was prohibited from making such an determination, stating that as the father’s capacity to contribute to the school fees was already considered by the Family Court, and thus the tribunal was estopped from considering the father’s capacity to contribute to the school fees at any time up until the father has repaid his tax liability or, in the alternative, until the date of judgement of the Full Family Court.

5. The tribunal is of the view that this would be the case if, on the same facts before the Full Family Court, the mother had simply lodged an application to this tribunal. However, it is clear that there was a change to the father’s circumstances, both in terms of his employment income and his ongoing repayment plan with the ATO. Thus, the tribunal is satisfied that it is not prohibited from departing from the administrative assessment from the date that the father’s circumstances changed, as the judicial determination did not involve this particular fact scenario and therefore the mother is not barred from raising this in these proceedings. Having made that point, the tribunal is not satisfied that there should be a departure from the administrative assessment from March 2020 for the following reasons. As outlined above, the mother confirmed in her deposition to the Family Court that in September 2018 she withdrew $335,000 from joint accounts and has since applied these funds to the children’s education costs, mortgage repayments on the family home and other expenses. The mother has given conflicting evidence regarding when the funds were exhausted; certainly, she has not provided any evidence regarding her expenditure and corroborating bank statements in the Family Court proceedings or to this tribunal. The tribunal understands that the mother now asserts (and the father does not contest) that the joint funds were fully depleted by about July 2020. The mother submits that after applying the proceeds from an inheritance she received in August 2020 to the school fees she had no choice but to lodge her change of assessment application in November 2020. She states that from this time she has met the school fees from a combination of loans from her mother, accessing $20,000 from her superannuation, credit card debt and deferral of the mortgage repayments.

6. In the absence of the mother providing evidence to the contrary, the tribunal finds that the father has in effect contributed to the child’s school fees up until at least October 2020 from the joint funds and by providing an additional $3,000 from October to December 2020. Thus, the tribunal is persuaded that the father has already contributed to the youngest son’s education costs in the 2020 calendar year. In the tribunal’s view it is appropriate that the apportionment of the joint funds (effectively the parents’ respective contributions to the youngest child’s 2020 education costs) be addressed in the parents’ property settlement.

7. Both parties allege that the other has not made a full and frank disclosure of their income, property and financial resources to both this tribunal and the Family Court. That may well be the case, but the tribunal’s objectives do not permit a forensic accounting of the parties’ respective financial positions. The tribunal instead relies on the statements of financial circumstances provided, as well as the payslips and income statements in evidence.

8. It was submitted on the father’s behalf at hearing that he has capacity to meet 50% of the child’s tuition costs from the 2021 calendar year even though this is in part funded through debt. It was also submitted that whilst the father’s ATO debt will be repaid by April 2022, he will direct the $457 per week towards his other outstanding liabilities.

9. It is apparent that the property settlement will not be concluded for some time; Mr [A] submits that it will likely be heard when the youngest child is in Year 12. It is clear that neither party is in a position to contribute half of the costs of the child’s education costs given their income and financial resources and therefore the youngest child’s continuation at the school is contingent on both parents funding the school fees through debt. And yet, both appear committed to the child completing his education at the school. Certainly, this is the least disruptive option for the child and, in a context where his parents are engaged in highly acrimonious proceedings, it is likely that it is in the child’s interest to remain at the school. It is apparent that the parents consider this to be the case. 

10. The tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable to determine that the father contribute to the youngest child’s school costs, over and above his administrative assessed liability. The mother’s 2021 income of $23,742 and the father’s net income of $166,218 would suggest that the mother should be liable to only contribute to 13% (23,742/189,960) of the education costs. However, the tribunal also had regard to the level of financial support the father is already providing the children by his administratively assessed liability, balancing this with the fact that he meets none of the children’s care costs (as reflected in his care percentage of nil). From 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2020 he was liable to an annual rate of $42,824 and from 1 January 2021 an annual rate (excluding his contrition to the school fees as determined by the objections officer) of $43,054, increasing to $44,117 from 15 March 2021 until the middle child is no longer subject to the administrative assessment. From that time his administratively assessed child support liability will decrease by about $14,000 per annum. In such circumstances, the tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate that the father contribute to 60% of the child’s education costs in the 2021 calendar year ($25,200). This aspect of the decision will create arrears of about $4,550. The tribunal is satisfied that this will not cause the father undue hardship.

11. The tribunal next considered the father’s ongoing contribution towards the youngest child’s school costs and finds it appropriate that from 2022 he meet 70% of the total education costs in respect of the youngest child. He will have increased capacity to contribute to the education costs, given that the middle child will no longer be subject to the administrative assessment in addition to the fact that his weekly payment of $457 towards his tax liability will be repaid by April 2022. The tribunal is satisfied that this percentage of contribution has provided the right balance of education costs between the parents, as in addition to the mother meeting the 40% education costs in the 2021 financial year and 30% costs thereafter, she will also be required to meet the full cost of the middle child’s dance and non-tuition school costs in the 2021 calendar year. Whilst the mother’s contribution to the youngest child’s education costs represents about three-quarters of her gross income, in the context of the father’s base child support payments of about $29,156 per annum, the tribunal is satisfied that this is appropriate even though it is apparent that she must meet a significant portion of this expense by accumulating further debt.

12. The 2021 fee schedule in evidence indicates that there is an annual fee increase of about 2%. This would mean that the child’s education costs in the 2022 and 2023 school years would be $42,840 and $43,697 and so the father’s liability in regard to the youngest child’s school fees will be $29,988 and $30,588 per annum respectively. The tribunal finds that it is just and equitable to increase his annual rate accordingly. It is satisfied that he has the means (by way of income, financial resources and debt) to meet this cost. The tribunal is satisfied that amending the administrative assessment on this basis will not result in significant hardship to him.

13. The tribunal notes that the father’s 2021 income has increased by about $72,000 from the previous financial year; his 2021 adjusted table income is $281,143. This is in part explained by the termination payment he received from his employer and (as disclosed at hearing) a sign on bonus of $40,000 he received from his new employer. The tribunal finds it appropriate that the father’s 2021 adjustable income be reflected in the administrative assessment from 15 March 2021 (when he commenced his new employment) until 12 September 2021, when his 2021 adjusted taxable income would, as a matter of course, will be reflected in the administrative assessment. Amending the administrative assessment on this basis will not result in arrears being payable, as there is no difference in his administrative assessment liability whether his income is varied to $253,000 (as determined by the objections officer) or his higher 2021 adjusted table income. Furthermore, amending the assessment on this basis it will allow further fluctuations in the father’s income to be reflected in the administrative assessment.

14. The tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment is unfair given the cost of educating the children in the manner expected by their parents. 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 income-tested benefits. Departing from the administrative assessment will result in a more appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community.

2. The determination is otherwise proper.

DECISION

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

• the father’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $282,143 from 15 March to 12 September 2021; and

• the father’s annual rate of child support is increased by:

  o   $25,200 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2021;

  o   $29,988 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2022; and

  o   $30,588 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2023.