Maddox and Sala (Child support) - [2019] AATA 3843

Maddox and Sala (Child support) [2019] AATA 3843 (30 May 2019)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/BC015295
APPLICANT:  Mr Maddox
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Sala

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member A Freeman
DECISION DATE: 30 May 2019
DECISION:

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

· For the period from 12 June 2018 to 31 December 2020, Mr Maddox’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $89,000 per annum.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of both parents – benefits derived from business – 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 removed 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

Mr Maddox and Ms Sala are the parents of two children. According to the most recent assessment provided by the Department of Human Services (the Department), Ms Sala’s care percentage in relation to both children is recorded for the purposes of assessing child support as 100%.[1]
[1] The parties advised the Tribunal that this had changed but this change was not reflected in the material that the Department provided for the purposes of this review.
Ms Sala lodged an application with the Department on 12 June 2018 seeking a departure from the administrative assessment. At the time of the application, Mr Maddox was liable to pay an annual rate of child support of $1,622 for both children. This was based upon an adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $30,908 for Mr Maddox and $14,496 for Ms Sala.
On 30 July 2018, the Department made a decision to depart from the administrative assessment in place and varied Mr Maddox’s ATI to $70,000 for the period from 19 June 2018 to 30 November 2019.
Both parties objected to that decision and on 9 October 2018 an objections officer allowed the objection, set aside the previous decision and made a new decision as follows:
· For the period from 12 June 2018 to 30 June 2021, Mr Maddox’s ATI was set at $91,615 per annum;
· For the period from 12 June 2018 to 30 June 2021, Ms Sala’s ATI was set at $83,200 per annum.
This had the effect of increasing the annual rate payable by Mr Maddox from $10,906 to $14,628 for both children.
Mr Maddox has sought a further review of this decision.
Mr Maddox submits that he should be assessed upon his personal taxable income which is less than the ATI currently used in the assessment.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 30 May 2019. Mr Maddox appeared before the Tribunal in person. Ms Sala appeared by conference telephone and was represented by [Ms A] of [a family law practice] who appeared before the Tribunal in person. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Maddox and Sala (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Maddox and Sala (Child support) [2019] AATA 3843
Case: [2019] AATA 3843
Decision Date: 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Maddox and Sala* concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute involved the assessment of the income, property, and financial resources of both parents for the purpose of calculating child support. The decision under review was set aside and substituted by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to depart from the assessment of child support based on the actual financial circumstances of the parents, particularly considering benefits derived from a business. This required the court to examine the income and financial resources available to each parent and determine if the standard assessment would be unfair.

The court's reasoning focused on the benefits derived from the business, which were considered a financial resource of one of the parents. The court applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* to assess whether these benefits constituted income or a financial resource that should be taken into account for child support purposes. The court found that the standard assessment did not adequately reflect the parent's capacity to pay child support due to these business benefits.

Consequently, the court set aside the original departure determination and substituted its own, adjusting the child support assessment to reflect the full financial position of the parties.

Orders