Masland and Dewing (Child support) - [2021] AATA 3183

Masland and Dewing (Child support) [2021] AATA 3183 (30 July 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/BC020185
APPLICANT:  Mr Masland
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Dewing

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis
DECISION DATE: 30 July 2021
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period from 2 September 2020 to 31 March 2023 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Masland is varied to $210,628.

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 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

This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Mr Masland and Ms Dewing are the parents of [Child 1] (born July 2010) and [Child 2] (born May 2012). There has been a child support assessment in place since 11 July 2013 and Mr Masland is the liable parent.
The administrative assessments of child support under consideration are as follows:
·     for the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020 Mr Masland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $27,328 based on an adjusted taxable income amount of $264,506 for Mr Masland as set by the Tribunal[1] in a decision dated 29 August 2019 and a 2017–18 adjusted taxable income of $15,092 for Ms Dewing (the annual rate payable includes an amount of $1,996 for school tuition costs for the children);
·     for the period from 1 July 2020 to 1 September 2020 Mr Masland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $27,872 based on an adjusted taxable income amount of $264,506 for Mr Masland as set by the Tribunal[2] in a decision dated 29 August 2019 and a 2019–20 derived income of $20,711 for Ms Dewing (the annual rate payable includes an amount of $1,996 for school tuition costs for the children);
·     for the period from 2 September 2020 to 31 December 2020 Mr Masland was assessed to pay an annual rate of $18,178 based on a 2019–20 declared income of $154,264 for Mr Masland and a 2019–20 derived income of $20,711 for Ms Dewing (the annual rate payable includes an amount of $1,996 for school tuition costs for the children); and
·     for the period from 1 January 2021 to 30 September 2021 Mr Masland is assessed to pay an annual rate of $18,277 based on a 2019–20 declared income of $154,264 for Mr Masland and a 2019–20 derived income of $20,711 for Ms Dewing (the annual rate payable includes an amount of $2,095 for school tuition costs for the children).
[1] Separately constituted
[2] ibid.

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 Masland and Dewing (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Masland and Dewing (Child support) [2021] AATA 3183
Case: [2021] AATA 3183
Decision Date: 30 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Masland and Dewing concerned a child support departure determination application brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute involved the assessment of the income, property, and financial resources of both parents, with a particular focus on benefits derived from a business. The decision under review was ultimately set aside and substituted.

The court was required to determine whether the existing child support assessment did not take into account the full financial circumstances of the parents, specifically in relation to income and financial resources derived from a business. The central legal issue was whether a departure from the standard assessment was justified under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth).

In reaching its decision, the court considered the nature of the benefits derived from the business and how these should be attributed to the parents for the purposes of child support. The court applied the principles governing departure determinations, focusing on whether the assessment was unfair given the actual financial position of the parties. The court found that the existing assessment did not adequately reflect the financial reality of the parents, particularly concerning the business's contributions.

Consequently, the court set aside the previous departure determination and substituted its own, adjusting the child support assessment to reflect the court's findings regarding the parents' income and financial resources.

Orders