LXML and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding the applicant's entitlement to Family Tax Benefit (FTB). The applicant had her FTB cancelled due to failing to lodge tax returns for the 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years. Subsequently, she received lump sum FTB payments in May 2017 and then lodged claims for annual lump sum FTB payments for the 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15 financial years in July 2017. These claims were rejected by the Department and an Authorised Review Officer affirmed that decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a lump sum FTB entitlement for the financial years in question, whether her claims were lodged within the requisite timeframes, and if not, whether any special circumstances prevented her from lodging them within those timeframes. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to consider if the claims were lodged prior to the end of the second lodgement year, which would allow for an extension under the special circumstances provision.

The Tribunal reasoned that under the relevant family assistance law, claims for FTB must be lodged within specific timeframes to be considered effective. For the 2012/13 financial year, this deadline was 30 June 2014; for 2013/14, it was 30 June 2015; and for 2014/15, it was 30 June 2017. While extensions could be granted for special circumstances, these extensions could only extend the lodgement period to the end of the second lodgement year. The applicant's claims for all three financial years were lodged on 17 July 2017, which was after the extended deadlines for each respective year. Consequently, the claims were not considered effective claims for the purposes of the legislation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Authorised Review Officer, finding that the applicant was not entitled to a lump sum payment of FTB for the periods under review because her claims were made after the prescribed timeframes and were therefore not effective claims.