Massengill and Massengill (Child support)

[2024] AATA 378

Massengill and Massengill (Child support) [2024] AATA 378 (4 January 2024)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/BC026644

APPLICANT:  Mrs Massengill

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Massengill

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  4 January 2024

DECISION:

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

(a)    for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023, Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $115,422

(b)    for the period 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $65,812

(c)    for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $56,000

(d)    for the period 1 July 2023 to 14 November 2023, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $62,153

(e)    for the period 15 November 2023 to 30 June 2024, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $85,000

(f)     for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025, Mr Massengill is liable to pay child support to Mrs Massengill in the amount of $10,600 per annum.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – just and equitable to depart on hasis of liable parent’s income, property and financial resources – where liable parent is a fly-in fly-out, or ‘FIFO’ worker – departure ground on basis of liable parent’s earning capacity ground not established  - 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. Mrs Massengill and Mr Massengill are the parents of [Child 1], born 2016, and [Child 2], born 2019. Mrs Massengill seeks review of a decision by an objections officer of Child Support dated 17 August 2023 which “allowed in part” Mr Massengill’s objection to a “change of assessment” (or departure) decision dated 20 March 2023.

2. By way of background, it is convenient to set out some extracts from the objections officer decision dated 17 August 2023:

   …

   The assessment

   For the period 1 September 2023 to 30 April 2024 the annual rate is $0 based on the 2021-2022 Adjusted Taxable Incomes (ATI) of $0 (provisional) for Mr Massengill and $22 373 for Ms Massengill.

   For the period 1 February 2023 to 31 August 2023 Mr Massengill is assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $15 966 based on the 2021-2022 ATIs of $119 500 for Mr Massengill and $22 373 for Ms Massengill.

   For the period 1 September 2022 to 31 January 2023 Mr Massengill is assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $15 362 based on the 2020-2021 ATIs of $119 500 for Mr Massengill and $35 269 for Ms Massengill.

   For the period 1 April 2022 to 31 August 2022 Mr Massengill is assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $12 254 based on the 2020-2021 ATIs of $99 200 for Mr Massengill and $35 269 for Ms Massengill.

   For the period 5 November 2021 to 31 March 2022 Mr Massengill is assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $12 446 based on the 2020-2021 ATIs of $99 200 for Mr Massengill and $35 269 for Ms Massengill.

   For the period 3 September 2021 to 4 November 2021 Mr Massengill is assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $12 678 based on the 2020-2021 ATIs of $99 200 for Mr Massengill and $32 379 for Ms Massengill.

   The above assessments are subject to the following Objection Decision made on 1 March 2022:

   For the period 3 September 2021 to 31 August 2022 Mr Massengill’s Adjusted Taxable Income is set at $99 200.

   For the period 1 September 2022 to 31 August 2023 Mr Massengill’s Adjusted Taxable Income is set at $119 500.

   The case was registered on 5 August 2020 and payments are collected by the agency. Mr Massengill owes $19 140.87 in outstanding child support.

   …

   DECISION UNDER REVIEW

   On 8 November 2022 Ms Massengill applied for change to the assessment on the basis of Reason 8A and B.

   Mr Massengill disagreed with the proposed change and cross-applied on the basis of Reason 8A and B.

   On 20 March 2023 Decision Maker [A] found Reason 8A established and changed the assessment as follows:

   From 7 November 2022 the Objection decision dated 1 March 2022 in relation to Mr Massengill’s
   income will cease to have effect.

   - From 8 November 2022 to 31 October 2024 the adjusted taxable income for Mr Massengill will be set at $150 000.

   - From 8 November 2022 to 31 October 2024 the adjusted taxable income for Ms Massengill will be set at $70 000.

   …

   In her application Ms Massengill submits Mr Massengill’s income is considerably more than assessed. He has purchased a new boat, built in [Country]. A [Make/model] and he paid $205 000. He also purchased a new 4x4 truck to tow the boat. He has had a shed built on the property at [Address 1] to store his new boat and truck. He collects cash rent from tenants residing at [Road]. She states the $5500 transaction on 23/7/2021 to [Charity] was [Item] purchased at auction.

   Ms Massengill submits Mr Massengill’s business financials and bank statements need reviewing again. He clearly has over $500 000 to spend on his toys. She submits that he took their child support case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) but on the day he was required to produce evidence he withdrew his appeal. Mr Massengill is a highly skilled [Occupation] in a high demand industry, but claims he has no work. She states he works for [Employer].

   Ms Massengill submits that Mr Massengill’s disposable income totals $550 500 ($205 000 boat + $190 000 truck + $150 000 shed + $5500 [Item]).

   …

   In response to Mr Massengill’s objection Ms Massengill states Mr Massengill is about to purchase [Address 2] and he would have to supply financial information to his mortgage broker. He has $1 million in cash as a significant deposit which should be counted as income.

   Ms Massengill submits Mr Massengill currently has staff working machines on the property he is developing to build his next home. His lifestyle reflects someone who is not struggling financially. He has holidays to [Island] and an island holiday two weeks later. He spent upwards of $350 000 on a boat a truck to tow it. His house was passed in at auction on 10 May and later sold for $1.215 million. She believes he is contracting to [Employer]. His mortgage is estimated to be less than $200 000 leaving him with about $1 million in cash.

   …

   The most recent BAS for Mr Massengill’s trust shows that for the 2022-2023 financial year sales were $437 811 as follows:

   1st Quarter $284 745
   2nd Quarter $ 32 467
   3rd Quarter $56 990
   4th Quarter $63 609

   After GST this leaves a business income of $398 010.

   ATO small business benchmarks indicate that for an [Occupation] business with a turnover in the range of that of Mr Massengill’s the average expenses are 71%. This gives a profit margin of 29%. On this basis I calculate that Mr Massengill should be receiving a return of $115 422.

   I consider this to be a fair reflection of Mr Massengill’s income and financial resources for the 2022-2023 financial year. However since the second quarter of the 2022-2023 financial year there has been a downturn in Mr Massengill’s income. He has provided copies of invoices for the work he is currently doing, which I note is week on, week off. Excluding the reimbursement of his expenses, the average fortnightly amount invoiced is $2531 which annualises to $65 812. Given Mr Massengill is currently working in this new role and I have no evidence he has income from other sources, I consider that his current income is $65 812.

   If I use and income of $65 812 in the child support assessment the annual rate payable by Mr Massengill reduces from $15 966 to $6896 which is a significant difference.

   The income currently used in the assessment for Mr Massengill is $119 500. Based on the above information, I am satisfied special circumstances exist. I also find Mr Massengill’s income is significantly lower and I am satisfied the child support assessment is unfair because he has a lower capacity than the child support assessment currently indicates.

   …

   Mr Massengill has explained that he is now working in a different role due to the lack of work on other contracts. I accept that Mr Massengill’s decision about his work arrangements is due to the availability of work. Therefore I am satisfied that he has demonstrated that this decision was not substantially motivated by effect this would have on the child support assessment. The third criteria is not met.

   As not all the above criteria are met I am unable to find that Mr Massengill has an unexercised earning capacity.

   Reason 8B is not established.

   …

   Ms Massengill was self-employed during the 2022-2023 financial year. Based on the above information I have calculated that her income from her [business] was $33 630. In addition she received an income of $22 373 in government allowances. I calculate her 2022-2023 income to be $56 003. I will round this down to $56 000.

   Ms Massengill has new employment since around the beginning of the 2023-2024 financial year and her income is $62 153. I note that this is supported by ATO information.

   If I replace the income used in the current assessment for Ms Massengill of $22 373 with an income of of $62 153 the annual rate payable by Mr Massengill reduces from $15 966 to $13 414 which is a significant difference.

   The income currently used in the assessment for Ms Massengill is $22 373. Based on the above information, I am satisfied special circumstances exist. I also find Ms Massengill’s income is significantly higher and I am satisfied the child support assessment is unfair because she has a greater capacity than the child support assessment currently indicates.

   Reason 8A is established.

   …

   I intend to change the assessment from 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023 and use the incomes of $115 422 for Mr Massengill and $56 000 for Ms Massengill. The annual rate payable by Mr Massengill will reduce as follows:

   1 September 2022 to 7 November 2022 $15 362 to $13 260
   8 November 2022 to 31 January 2023 $16 872 to $13 260
   1 February 2023 to 30 June 2023 $17 264 to $13 222

   I also note that prior to 1 September 2022 the annual rate payable was $12 254 which is not so different to the rate from 1 September that I consider it necessary to retrospectively adjust the assessment further.

   Both parents incomes have changed for the 2023-2024 financial year therefore I intend to set them from 1 July 2023 at $65 812 for Mr Massengill and $62 153 for Ms Massengill as per my calculations above. I will set these incomes until 31 October 2024, by which time the 2023-2024 incomes should be available. The annual rate payable by Mr Massengill will reduce as follows.

   1 July 2023 to 31 October 2024 $17 264 to $4730.

   There will be a credit applied to Mr Massengill’s account for the past period from 1 September 2022 to 31 July 2023 of $3955.67 approximately.

   …

3. Mrs Massengill and Mr Massengill participated in the Tribunal’s hearing by conference telephone. In making its decision, the Tribunal took into account the sworn evidence of both parties, the Child Support materials, and additional materials submitted by both parties.

CONSIDERATION

The legislative framework

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). A formula is used. It takes into account variables including each parent’s adjusted taxable income for the last relevant year of income, the number of children and the level of care provided by each parent.

2. Part 6A of the Act allows for a departure from an administrative assessment (a process commonly known as a “change of assessment”). Under subsection 98C(1), the Registrar may make such a departure determination if three matters are established:

   ·     one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 98C(2) exists (subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(i));

   ·     a departure is just and equitable as regards the children and each parent (sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A)); and

   ·     it is otherwise proper to make a departure decision (sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B)). 

3. Subsection 98C(2) provides that the grounds for departure are the same as the grounds set out in subsection 117(2).

4. If satisfied that a ground or grounds exist and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act. It permits a range of determinations, including varying the rate of child support payable, the adjusted taxable income or the cost percentage for a child.

Issue 1 – Is there a ground to depart?

1. Subparagraphs 117(2)(c)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, commonly referred to by Child Support as reasons 8A and 8B, provide as grounds for departure:

   (c)that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child:

   …

   (ia)because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent; or

   (ib)because of the earning capacity of either parent; …

2. The matters which must be taken into account when assessing a person’s earning capacity are contained in subsection 117(7B) of the Act, which provides the following:

   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.

10.The starting proposition is that the child support formula should apply. Only in special circumstances should a departure be made. The words “in the special circumstances of the case” are not defined in the legislation. While it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the legislature is that the Tribunal will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases. In Gyselman and Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279, it was held that “special circumstances” were “facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases”. The Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of the particular grounds in subsection 117(2) must be guided by that qualification.

The hearing

11.Mrs Massengill told the Tribunal that she thinks Mr Massengill’s reduced income has been based on “disingenuous statements”. She considers that he has the capacity to work the same number of hours she does. She said that the hourly rate for an [Occupation] of Mr Massengill’s experience is at least $80 per hour. Mrs Massengill said she is a “PAYG” earner and cannot reduce her income. She said that she seeks a departure going well into the future as she has found dealing with Child Support on a regular basis “exhausting”.

12.Mr Massengill told the Tribunal that his income has changed substantially over the years. He is no longer operating his business in the same way; he now works “week on, week off”. He confirmed that this work was being done “through the business”, which he intends to “wind up”. He has been “flying in and flying out” to [Town] since the beginning of 2023. He does not see his arrangements as trying to avoid child support in any way.  His business did employ a number of people with a “high turnover” but “low margin”. He said that it “ruined him” when that job had finished. He said Child Support has obtained all his business and personal banking records and that there is “nothing to lie about”. He said he has had no capacity to work for the last few months because of the various legal proceedings between himself and Mrs Massengill; rather than spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees (which he said he does not have), he is doing all the work himself. Mr Massengill said that although he is not presently deriving an income, he accepts the assessment of $65,000 as a fair assessment of his annual income.

13.Mr Massengill told the Tribunal that he considers Mrs Massengill should have been set on an income of more than $100,000; he said her mother is an accountant and would have assisted Mrs Massengill to minimise her income (Mrs Massengill denied this, and said her mother was not involved in her business and that Mrs Massengill had her own accountant). Mr Massengill also said that Mrs Massengill receives a considerable sum by way of government payments.

14.Mrs Massengill told the Tribunal that she operated the [business] until the end of May 2023; she had operated it for about 18 months. She said it operated at a loss; when she sold the assets, there were still debts outstanding. While the company and trust remain, they are inactive. Mrs Massengill intends to wind them up but that is not a priority at the present time. Mrs Massengill confirmed she started “PAYG” work around mid-June 2023 earning around $62,000; around mid-November 2023, she started a new job with a base salary plus commissions. It is “early days” so it is difficult to forecast commissions, which she hoped will be around $2,500 per month (gross) on top of her “base income” of $49,000. She receives a partial parenting payment and family tax benefit from Centrelink. On her best estimate, she estimates her annualised income will be around $85,000. Mrs Massengill questioned how Mr Massengill was able to secure a $700,000 mortgage; she says he also purchased a boat and truck.

15.Mr Massengill told the Tribunal said that he was able to secure the $700,000 mortgage by reference to his higher 2021/22 income. He said he has not lodged his 2021/22 income tax return as he understands he will be liable to a very large bill because of the way he structured his affairs to pay a financial agreement to Mrs Massengill. Mr Massengill confirmed there is a second dwelling on his property which he is renovating; he said he has not started the renovation yet due to the current court cases. Mr Massengill said that even though he now has a higher mortgage ($700,000 compared to some $290,000 on his previous property), he will be able to “much better service the debt” when the second home is renovated and starts to derive a significant rental income ($700 to $1,000 per week). He will then be in a comfortable financial position to receive rental income and work “week about” so he can be home to care for the children in the weeks he has care. He said he would prefer to provide the care himself rather than pay for care or babysitters. Mr Massengill said that once the second house is tenanted, his total income (work, plus rent) might be as high as $100,000 to $120,000. Mr Massengill said his mother is currently financially supporting him; he will be required to pay her back when he starts to receive rental income.

16.Mrs Massengill told the Tribunal that she is working full-time and looking after the children – she sees no reason Mr Massengill cannot do the same.

17.Mrs Massengill told the Tribunal that her mother recently sold her home and is living with her until her new home is built. In addition to rent and other usual expenses, she is paying $100 per fortnight for arrears of school fees. The children will be attending a State school from 2024. Mrs Massengill said that in 2024, she is anticipating dancing fees for the children to be around $990 per child per term, which may be unaffordable without assistance from Mr Massengill.

18.Mr Massengill did not identify any particularly notable expenses. Mr Massengill denies owning a boat or truck; he said the boat belongs to his father, and the truck to an acquaintance of his father’s. The only reason Mrs Massengill saw him driving the truck is because he has a truck licence and was asked to transport the truck and boat.

19.In terms of an assessment going forward, Mrs Massengill seeks a longer period as she is “exhausted”. Mr Massengill said there are many “unknowns”, and he would prefer an assessment only run until 30 June 2024.

Consideration

20.The child support assessment from 1 September 2023 is based upon a “nil” income for Mr Massengill. Mr Massengill’s own evidence is that he accepts a figure of some $65,000 per annum is a fair representation of his financial capacity. The child support assessment is rendered unfair; in the special circumstances of the case, there is a ground to depart from the child support formula.

Issue 2 – Is it just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment?

21.The next relevant consideration for the Tribunal is whether a departure from the administrative assessment is just and equitable. This enquiry 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 children, the parents’ commitments and any hardship that would be caused by departing or not departing from the formula.

22.The Tribunal observes that section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requires the Tribunal to be fair, just, economical, informal and quick.

Mrs Massengill’s income

23.I accept Mrs Massengill’s evidence that she ceased deriving any income from her [business] when it was effectively “wound up” in late May 2023. I am satisfied that she was earning some $62,153 per annum when she commenced work as an employee and that she derived that income until around mid-October 2023. She commenced a new position from mid-November 2023 which involves a “base salary” plus commissions. Mrs Massengill’s best estimate is that she will earn around $85,000 per annum (at least for the 2023/24 financial year).

24.I consider that Child Support has arrived at a fair assessment of Mrs Massengill’s income prior to mid-November 2023 when she started a new position. From 15 November 2023, I consider the figure applied for Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income should be adjusted to $85,000 per annum.

Mr Massengill’s income

25.Mr Massengill essentially accepts the assessments made by Child Support in relation to his income. I accept Mr Massengill’s evidence about the disbursement of his funds from the proceed of the sale of his former property, and the financial arrangements around the new property. He hopes to be able to soon derive a rental income in the range of $700 to $1,000 per week from the second dwelling on his property. When that occurs, he suggested his annual income would be more like $100,000 to $120,000. I accept that at present, he is receiving some support from his mother to service his expenses, including his mortgage. I accept that the income he is deriving (presently through the business) from “week about” work is in the range of $65,812 per annum, a figure which Mr Massengill accepts notwithstanding that he is presently choosing not to work to deal with what he says are his legal-related affairs. There is no evidence that Mr Massengill owns the boat or truck Mrs Massengill says Mr Massengill told her that he owns; there is no evidence of any financial reserves from which Mr Massengill could afford to acquire those assets.

1. The question of Mr Massengill’s earning capacity is not so straightforward. I consider that Mr Massengill has made a deliberate decision to structure the work he does for the business in such a way that he is available to care for the children on the weeks he has them. Mrs Massengill makes the very valid point that she works full-time and makes arrangements around her work commitments to care for the children. The manner in which Mr Massengill has chosen to operate requires him to “fly in and fly out” and he works away from home. In that arrangement, it would be very difficult for him to arrange for care of the children (outside of weekend care) if he was working away on a full-time basis.

27.In order for an earnings capacity assessment to apply, the evidence would need to establish a conclusion that Mr Massengill had failed to demonstrate that the decision about his work arrangements was not substantially motivated by the effect upon the child support assessment. Following the conclusion of the business’s major contract, I accept that part of Mr Massengill’s motivation in adopting a “week about, fly-in, fly-out” arrangement was to be available to care for the children when in his care. It is not clear the extent, if any, to which he may have explored work closer to home which might facilitate full-time work and some before and/or after school care, for example. I accept that his hope is to derive a significant rental income which, in combination with his work schedule, would, in his estimation, secure him an annual income ranging from $100,000 to $120,000, a figure not dissimilar to his adjusted taxable incomes in previous years.

28.Accordingly, I consider that in making his current arrangements, Mr Massengill has demonstrated that it was not his “major purpose” to affect the child support assessment. I do not consider that an “earnings capacity” assessment can apply, with his financial capacity to be assessed upon a fair reflection of his actual income.  

29.However, Mr Massengill’s own evidence is that his financial position will significantly improve when he is able to receive rental income. He indicated he had hoped to be undertaking renovations at present; however, he says he is not able to do so as a result of the time he has chosen to devote to dealing with legal matters.

30.I consider it fair and reasonable to make an assumption that Mr Massengill should begin receiving rental income by no later than 1 July 2024. On my rough calculations, were Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income set at a figure of $110,000, and Mrs Massengill’s at $85,000, Mr Massengill would be liable to some $10,600 per annum in child support (at a figure of $65,812, Mr Massengill is liable to pay around $3,400 per annum).

1. I consider Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income should be varied to $115,422 from 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023, and to $65,812 from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. From 1 July 2024, rather than vary the adjusted taxable incomes of the parents, I consider the better approach to be to set an annual rate of child support. With the interests of the children as the highest priority, I consider it would be just and equitable for Mr Massengill to be assessed as liable to pay $10,600 per annum in child support to Mrs Massengill.

32.Neither party identified any particularly notable expenses in respect of themselves or the children which would warrant any further adjustment.

33.There is a benefit in giving certainty to the parents into the future, notwithstanding the possibility that material changes may occur. I accept there is a benefit in reducing the transactional exhaustion being experienced by both parties. In balancing those matters, I consider the departure period should extend until the end of 2025.

34.I am satisfied that, with appropriate financial management, Mr Massengill will be able to meet his child support liability.

35.The Tribunal considers it just and equitable to make a departure in the terms set out above.

Issue 3 – Is it otherwise proper to make a departure determination?

36.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.

37.The rate of child support should reflect the obligation of both parents to take financial responsibility for the children and, where increased, may decrease any income-tested benefits payable. A departure is therefore proper.

38.As the Tribunal has reached a different conclusion to the objections officer, the decision under review will be set aside.

DECISION

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

(a)    for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023, Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $115,422

(b)    for the period 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, Mr Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $65,812

(c)    for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2023, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $56,000

(d)    for the period 1 July 2023 to 14 November 2023, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $62,153

(e)    for the period 15 November 2023 to 30 June 2024, Mrs Massengill’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $85,000

(f)     for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2025, Mr Massengill is liable to pay child support to Mrs Massengill in the amount of $10,600 per annum.