Middleton and Hawker (Child support)

[2018] AATA 4473

Middleton and Hawker (Child support) [2018] AATA 4473 (31 October 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/PC014320

APPLICANT:  Miss Middleton

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mr Hawker

TRIBUNAL:Member S Hoffman

DECISION DATE:  31 October 2018

DECISION:

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

·         Miss Middleton’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $98,000 for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 October 2020.

·         Mr Hawker’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $100,000 for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 October 2020.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of both parents - business income – just and equitable and otherwise proper 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 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

1. This review is about the child support assessment in respect of [Child 1], born March 2015.  The case started on 27 June 2015 with the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department) responsible for collecting child support from then.  

2. On 11 December 2017 the mother lodged an application for a change of assessment with the Department. The father cross-applied. At the time of the applications, the child was in the mother’s 100% care. The administrative assessment in place on that date was that the father’s annual child support liability was $2,472, based on his 2016/17 provisional income of $39,513 and the mother’s 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $75,091.  

3. On 12 February 2018 a senior case officer from the Department decided to vary the father’s adjusted taxable income to $52,308 for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 December 2022. In addition his adjusted taxable income was to increase on 1 July 2018, and each year thereafter, according to the Consumer Price Index Weighted Average for the preceding March quarter.

4. Both parents objected to this decision. On 31 May 2018 an objections officer made a new decision so that for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 December 2019:

   ·     Mr Hawker’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $60,000;

   ·     Miss Middleton’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $98,000; and

   ·     Mr Hawker’s self-support amount used in the child support assessment was increased by $1,500.

5. On 13 June 2018 the mother lodged an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the tribunal).  A directions hearing was held on 22 August 2018 after which directions were issued. The matter was heard on 10 October 2018. Both parties attended via conference telephone and gave sworn evidence.

6. The tribunal had before it documents provided by the Department (numbered 1 to 388); by the mother (numbered A1 to A12); and by the father (numbered B1 to B39).  Copies of these documents were sent to the parties before the hearing. At hearing an issue was raised that had not been raised before. Further directions were issued after the hearing directing the mother to provide additional documents. She did not do so by the due date.  The Tribunal made its decision on 31 October 2018.

7. The parents had advised the Department of a change in care. The tribunal sought copies of assessment notices and related documents which show that the date of effect of this change in care was 3 August 2018. Copies of these documents accompany these Reasons for Decision.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act1989 (the Act).  The Act provides for an administrative assessment of child support to be paid.  Pursuant to section 98C of the Act, a decision to depart from the administrative assessment may be made if the following three requirements are met:

   i.A ground is established; and

   ii.It would be just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent and the carer entitled to child support to make a particular determination; and

   iii.It would be otherwise proper to make a particular determination.

2. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act.

3. If the tribunal is satisfied that the three requirements are met, it may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Act, which include variations to the annual rate of child support payable, or to the adjusted taxable incomes of the parents and/or carer, or to other components of the statutory formula used to calculate child support.

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1 – Does a ground exist to depart from the administrative assessment?

1. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act provides a ground for departure exists where, in the special circumstances of the case, the administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the rate of child support because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent.

What is the father’s income for child support purposes?

1. The father runs his own business, describing himself as [an Occupation 1]. He provides [professional services]. His business income is in the form of commission and fees. Profit earned by [Investment Trust 1] is distributed to [Company 1], both controlled by the father.  

2. The father submitted financial statements for 2016/17 which show that his business income was $41,980 and expenses were $15,775, resulting in a profit of $26,205. Added to this the interest received by [Company 1] of $873 gives a total business income of $27,078.[1]

   [1] The 2017 profit and loss statement shows interest received of $873 plus trust distribution of $26,206 totalling $27,078 which is clearly a rounding difference.

3. The father’s taxable income for 2016/17 was $39,649 after work related deductions of $4,827. He worked as [an Occupation 2] until about March 2017, earning $39,513. He also received a dividend and associated franking credit from [Company 1] totalling $4,827.[2]

   [2] $39,513 + $4,827 + allowances/earnings/tips/director’s fees, etc. of $136 less deductions of $4,827 =$39,649.

4. In his written submission the father stated that the total income between him and the business was $66,727 ($39,649 + $27,078) for 2016/17. The father contended that only his taxable income of $39,649 should be used for child support purposes as the business income was used to grow the business, and the funds were there to be drawn down on as needed to operate the business.

5. The tribunal does not accept this rationale. It is required to arrive at an income figure for child support purposes that adequately reflects a parent’s income, property and financial resources for the period covered by the assessment. Profits made by the father’s business represent a financial resource available to him and as such, should be taken into account when determining an income figure for the purposes of child support. The father has a choice as to how the business funds are used, and by virtue of this, these funds are a resource available to him.

6. The father also contended that it would be double dipping to arrive at an income for him for child support purposes by combining his taxable income and the business profit as he might draw upon the business profit to pay himself a dividend in the future.

7. As to the issue of double-dipping, the tribunal does not consider this to be a valid argument in relation to child support. The purpose of determining a person’s adjusted taxable income for child support purposes is to reflect the financial resources available to them which may, as in this case, include their taxable income and profits generated by a business. The child support assessment is calculated accordingly. If at another point in time the person has financial resources which include resources they had in the past, then clearly these are the resources they currently have, and it is appropriate that they are taken into consideration with regard to child support. It makes no sense that they should be disregarded at a later date.

8. The father was directed to submit business activity statements for 2017/18. He submitted the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) summary activity statements which do not show the same amount of detail as the business activity statements lodged with the ATO by a business. The statements provided by the father show that his total sales for the year were $218,014 excluding GST. He submitted that based on GST payable, expenses were $91,324, leaving $126,690. He noted that these figures did not include expenses which do not attract GST such as payments he made to suppliers who were not GST registered; gift cards and prepaid visa cards given to clients; and reimbursement of client expenses.

9. The father said he did not know how much these items amounted to, and would not know until the financial statements were done in May 2019. He said the change of assessment application was made too early and it would have been better to have lodged it in May 2019.

10. The father said that his accountants produce the business activity statements. In the tribunal’s view, as they have the information to produce these statements, it would have been a simple matter for them to provide details of the expenses that did not attract GST or alternatively generate a draft profit and loss statement and balance sheet.

11. When financial statements for the most recent period are not available but turnover is similar one year to the next, previous financial statements can be used to estimate current business profits. In this case it is apparent that the business turnover has increased significantly from 2016/17 ($41,980) to 2017/18 ($218,014), which means that the 2016/17 financial statements are of limited use in estimating the profit made in 2017/18. The father said that because the business has grown, it was difficult for him to calculate that kind of information. While the tribunal accepts he may not know the exact profit figure, it does not accept that the father does not have some idea of the profit generated by his business in 2017/18, especially given his area of expertise.

12. In any event, the tribunal is required to determine an appropriate income figure for the father for child support purposes. In the absence of more accurate information, it finds that in addition to the expenses that attracted GST during 2017/18, a further 25% were GST-free. That is, the total expenses were $91,324 plus $22,831, totalling $114,155, leaving a profit figure of $103,859.

13. The father said that in the June quarter, he employed a personal assistant to take some of his workload off him, so he can spend more time with his son. It follows that the father’s business paid salary and on-costs to his employee for part of a year, and the tribunal will allow $18,000 for this, reducing the profit figure to $85,859. The father told the Department that commissions he earns can be clawed back. If a loan is refinanced and insurance policies cancelled within two years, he must return 50% of commission earned. Allowing $10,000 for clawed-back commissions, the tribunal finds that the business’s gross profit for 2017/18 was $75,859.

14. The father wrote in his submission that he has also earned about $25,000 in 2017/18, working as [an Occupation 2]. The tribunal concludes that the father’s income for child support purposes for 2017/18 was $100,859, say $100,000. When making this finding, the tribunal had regard to principles noted in a Federal Magistrates Court decision as follows:[3]

    In financial proceedings under the Family Law Act, the authorities make it clear that a Court “should not be unduly cautious about making findings in favour of the other party if it is not satisfied that proper disclosure has been made (see Chang & Su (2002) FLC 93-117)”. Such principles, in my consideration, have similar application to these matters before the SSAT.[4]

    [3] Conway & Child Support  Registrar & Clivery (SSAT Appeal) (No.2) [2008] FMCAfam  985

    [4] The SSAT (Social Security Appeals Tribunal) was the body that conducted reviews of child support decisions before this function was transferred to the SSCS Division of the AAT.

15. The father also raised the point that the Department assessed him on his pre-tax income. This is consistent with how the child support assessments operate.

16. The mother queried how the father had paid the legal fees that arose from family court matters which she estimated to be about $100,000. The father said he paid them from his personal savings, that family and friends helped him and also that at one stage he worked three jobs to pay for his legal fees. The tribunal accepts this explanation on the basis of it being plausible.

17. In summary, the tribunal considers that $100,000 better reflects the father’s income, property and financial resources for the purposes of child support for the period relevant to this review.

What is the mother’s income for child support purposes?

1. The mother works as [an occupation]. Her adjusted taxable income was $23,525 in 2014/15, $22,113 in 2015/16 and $75,091 in 2016/17.[5] The objection decision recorded that she received income from employment of $61,955 for the period 21 December 2016 to 30 June 2017 and also received income support during 2016/17 of $8,531. The mother owns investment properties and in her 2016/17 tax return, she claimed net rental losses of $12,631 plus carried forward losses from prior years of $4,641.

   [5] The mother’s 2016/17 taxable income was $67,010. $67,010 + nett rental losses of $12,631 – carried forward loss of $4,641 + low value pool deduction $91 = $75,091. 

2. The mother provided a 2017/18 payment summary from one employer, which recorded her income from 18 February 2018 to 30 June 2018 to be $32,559. The second document, also titled payment summary, recorded her income from 9 February 2017 to 21 February 2018 (378 days) to be $69,187. It is unclear if that document can be relied upon because of the dates. If $69,187 was earned during 2017/18 and not across two tax years, then the mother’s taxable income for 2017/18 was $101,746. In her Statement of Financial Circumstances (SFC) dated 28 June 2018, the mother wrote that her weekly salary or wage before tax was $1,845, equivalent to an annual salary or wage of $95,940. The objection decision varied her income to $98,000 from 11 December 2017 which appears reasonable given the other evidence available.

3. The mother has three investment properties, two of which are adjoining. She valued them at $200,000 each, or $600,000 in total, and recorded a mortgage over them of $561,495. The father said that the properties were worth more than that. The mother said that they were just estimates of what they were worth. The mother lives in [Town 1] which is about 200 kilometres south west of [City 1]. There are a number of houses for sale in [Town 1], some four-bedroomed, for well under $200,000.[6] In the absence of other information, the tribunal accepts the mother’s valuation. Taken together, the properties are negatively geared. The investment loss, while it can be claimed for tax purposes, is disregarded for child support purposes.

   [6] Real Estate View (2018) View accessed 12 October 2018 at [website deleted].

4. The tribunal considers that $98,000 adequately reflects the mother’s income, property and financial resources for the purposes of child support.

How does the administrative assessment compare with an assessment of child support using the tribunal’s income figures for the father?

1. The administrative assessment that applied on 11 December 2017 when the mother lodged her change of assessment application was that the father was liable to pay child support of $2,472 a year, based on his 2016/17 provisional income of $39,513, the mother’s 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $75,091 and the mother providing 100% care of the child.

2. The tribunal estimates that using an income for the father of $100,000 and an income for the mother of $98,000 results in a child support liability of $10,083 a year payable by the father when the mother has 100% care of the child. The care changed from 3 August 2018 so it was split 76% to the mother and 24% to the father. On these care percentages, the father’s child support liability reduces to about $5,330 a year.  

3. Given the difference between $2,472 and $10,083, the tribunal is satisfied that in the special circumstances of this case, the administrative assessment does result in an unjust and inequitable rate of child support, and that a ground for departure from the administrative assessment has been established pursuant to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act.  

Issue 2 – Is it just and equitable to make a particular departure determination?

1. As the tribunal is satisfied that there is a ground to depart from an administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable as regards the child, the father and the mother to make a particular determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(A) of the Act.  This in turn requires the tribunal to consider a variety of factors, as set out in subsection 117(4) of the Act.[7]

   [7] The tribunal is required to give ‘overt consideration’ to relevant factors listed in subsection 117(4) of the Act: Tyagi & Meares [2008] FMCAfam 886.

2. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that parents have the primary duty to maintain their children, and that this duty has priority over all commitments of the parents other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person the parent has a duty to maintain.  In this case the father and the mother have the primary duty to financially support their child. 

Income, property and financial resources – the father

1. In addition to the information already set out, the father said that his living expenses are low. According to his SFC dated 9 August 2018, his weekly expenses total expenses $630 a week, and include $400 in rent, $100 in petrol and food costing $75 a week. The father said some of his meals are paid for by clients. He recorded other outgoings of $120 in tax, $10 to superannuation, $23 in child support, $100 towards payment of a credit card balance and a personal loan and $30 in health insurance premiums. His total outgoings including household expenses were $913 compared with income of $1,000 a week. The father said he did not spend much and took what he needed from the business.

2. The father did not include any other vehicle costs such as registration or insurance. He said he disposed of a vehicle in August 2017 which was not replaced. He said that he has a vehicle he can use but he would not say who owns the vehicle he drives and left open the possibility that costs other than petrol are paid for by his business but that was uncertain. The father said that the car could be owned by the business or by a relative.

3. The father recorded assets in his SFC including $1,000 in his bank account, $535,000 in a life insurance policy, household contents valued at $50,000 and $40,000 in superannuation.

4. As to liabilities, the father recorded that he owed about $6,800 in income tax. He listed an overdraft facility of $10,600 and said the balance was about $9,400 at the moment and he owes about $10,000 on his credit card. As at 30 June 2018, the father owed $2,851 in child support.

Income, property and financial resources – the mother

1. According to her SFC, the mother’s average income is $2,650 a week. When she filled in that form, she and the child were living with her fiancé, in his house, and she did not pay rent or mortgage. She said they have now split up but she and the child are still living in her ex-partner’s home although that will change at some point. She recorded total household expenditure of $2,122 a week and her total personal expenditure to be $567 a week, amounting to $2,689 a week, just slightly over her average weekly income. However a portion of the household expenses of $2,122 a week were paid by her ex-fiancé but it is not clear from the form how much. Factoring in his weekly income of $2,750 and that he covers some of the expenses, at the time the form was filled in, the mother’s income was sufficient to cover her outgoings.

1. The mother pays $550 in mortgage repayments for her investment properties. She listed $100 for household repairs and said these were paid by her ex-fiancé. Other property expenses, such as rates of $160 a week were split such that the mother paid $100 a week and her ex-fiancé paid $60. Other expenses were not split between them.

2. The mother recorded $300 a week for food which the father said was too high. She said that for just her and the child it was about $250 a week. The tribunal considers this to be excessive for food for an adult and a three year old. It may be overestimated. She recorded $180 a week for childcare, an expense the tribunal will discuss later in these Reasons for Decision.

3. The mother recorded that she has $8,000 in the bank and owns a [car] worth about $8,000. She valued household contents at $25,000 and has $40,000 in a superannuation fund.  She owes about $2,500 on her credit card.

4. The mother said that her ex-fiancé is still happy to help her out if she needs financial assistance. She said that she may change her job in December 2018.

Other issues pertaining to the parents’ incomes, property and financial resources

1. Subsection 117(7B) of the Act prescribes the circumstances in which a parent’s earning capacity may be taken into account; certain criteria have to be met.  These include that the parent has failed to demonstrate that decisions made about their work arrangements were not substantially motivated by the effect they would have on the rate of child support.

2. The father said that he has been involved in [a service delivery] business for five years, and [another] for two years. He has been providing general [professional] advice for about nine months. He was working as [an Occupation 2] until about March 2018. It is apparent that the father’s business is growing and he is working hard to achieve that. There is no suggestion or indication that changes he has made to his work arrangements were motivated by the effect they would have on the rate of child support.

3. According to her SFC dated 28 June 2018, at that time the mother had worked for the same employer for 18 months and was working full time. Her taxable income has increased in recent years. The child of this case was born in March 2015 which would affect the mother’s income in 2015/16 and 2016/17. 

4. The tribunal is satisfied that it is not open to it to make an earning capacity determination in respect of either parent and need not consider the application of subsection 117(7B) of the Act in relation to either parent any further.

5. The tribunal is required to have regard to the commitments of each parent that are necessary to enable the parent to support himself or herself, or any other child or another person that the person has a duty to maintain (paragraph 117(4)(e) of the Act). The tribunal is satisfied that neither parent had the legal duty to maintain another person for the period relevant to this review.  

Costs related to the children

1. In determining the proper needs of the children, it is necessary to have regard to the manner in which they are being, and in which the parents expected them to be, cared for, educated or trained, and any special needs they may have (subsection 117(6) of the Act).

2. There were no special needs identified in this case and the child is too young to attend school.  

3. The household expense section of the SFC form allows for various costs to be allocated between the adults and children in a household. The mother, in filling in this section of the form, did not split up the significant majority of the household costs between her and the child. In light of this, the tribunal concluded that using the “Costs of the Children Table” is reasonable in the circumstances of this case for most of the costs related to the child.[8] 

   [8] Clause 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act. The table is available at the Department of Social Services website, accessed 15 September 2018: >

   High child care costs may be taken into account in the assessment of child support (subsection 117(3A) of the Act). Such costs are high if they are more than 5% of the parent’s adjusted taxable income (subsection 117(2B) of the Act).

4. In her SFC the mother wrote that she spent $180 a week on day care, which is equivalent to $9,360 a year. This is about 9.55% of her adjusted taxable income of $98,000 and therefore appears to meets the definition of being a high cost. The mother asked that these costs were taken into account in the child support assessment. After the hearing she was directed to provide documents to evidence what she spends on child care after any rebate she receives. As she did not provide any such documents by the due date, the tribunal will not consider her child care costs any further.

5. The father wanted his costs to spend time with his son to be taken into account in the child support assessment. After he and the mother separated, she moved to [Town 1] which, as noted above, is about 200 kilometres from [City 1] where the father lives. He regularly drives to [Town 1] to see their son.

6. Subparagraph 117(2)(a)(iv) of the Act provides for costs to enable a parent to spend time with the child to be taken into account in the child support assessment, if those costs are high. To be found to be high, the costs must be more than 5% of the parent’s adjusted taxable income (subsection 117(2B) of the Act).

7. The Act requires that the calculation of the cost of contact is made for a child support period which is a 15 month period.

8. The objections officer found that the father’s income was $60,000 ($75,000 over the 15 months of a child support period). The 5% threshold was therefore $3,750 (5% of $75,000). The objections officer calculated that over the relevant child support period, the father’s contact costs were projected to be $4,550. He was therefore satisfied  that the 5% threshold had been reached.

9. However the tribunal has found the father’s income for child support purposes to be higher at $100,000 ($125,000 over 15 months). The 5% threshold is therefore $6,250.

10. The father told the Department that from October 2016 until about 31 March 2018, he had contact with his son on Saturdays, which meant he drove 400 kilometres there and back. He estimated his fuel costs to be between $40 and $50 those weekends.

11. From April 2018 he was driving to [Town 1] on Saturdays, returning to [City 1] with the child and taking him back to his mother in [Town 1] on Sundays, three weekends from four. There was a period when the mother would drive perhaps 65 kilometres on the Sunday to meet the father for the handover. The tribunal understood that this arrangement was short-lived.

12. At the time of hearing, the father’s evidence was that he was driving 800 kilometres to spend time with the child three weeks out of four. He provided receipts from petrol stations showing what he spent making the journey.

13. Over a 15 month period, there are 65 weekends. On the basis the father made the journey to and from [Town 1] three weekends from four, he made the journey 48.75 times in an eighteen month period. Until about 31 March 2018, he made a 400-kilometre round trip as he was going to [Town 1] and back in just one day on a weekend. From about 1 April 2018, the round trip was 800 kilometres as he went there and back on both Saturday and Sunday.

14. The tribunal estimated the fuel costs of making an 800-kilometre journey. Depending on the vehicle, and assuming a fuel price of 156 cents a litre, the cost varied between $82.60 ([Car 1]) and $130.16 ([Car 2]) a trip.[9]

    [9] The tribunal used the calculator at this site: [web address deleted].

15. In his SFC the father recorded that he spent $100 a week on fuel. Logically not all of this would have been spent on travel to and from [Town 1]. The tribunal considers it more likely that he spent about $90 a week on fuel driving to and from [Town 1]. This amounts to $4,387.50 over 48.75 journeys. Even if he did spend $100 on driving to and from [Town 1] three weeks out of every four, this amounts to $4,875 over a fifteen-month period, and is short of the threshold amount of $6,250 by $1,375.

16. The father also claimed that he hired a car from time to time. He submitted receipts to the Department showing he hired a car for 12 days in July 2017 and nine days in October 2017.

17. The cost of hiring a car for three days from October 2017 was $153. The tribunal accepts that the father, when he hired a car to travel to [Town 1], did so for three days as the pattern of car hire shows the car was picked up late afternoon on a Friday which makes sense as the father had a four-hour round trip to make on the Saturday; he could make an early start. Even allowing for hiring a car on, say, four occasions, the cost does not meet the threshold.

18. The father made the point that because of the distances he travels, the vehicle’s maintenance costs are higher than average. Although he said it was his responsibility to pay for the car’s registration and maintenance costs, there was no evidence that he does pay for them. He did not record these costs in his SFC. As noted above, the father would not say who owned the car or clarify if costs were paid by him personally or through his business.  

19. On the evidence before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the costs incurred by the father to spend time with his son meet the criterion to be found to be high.

Hardship

1. The tribunal is required to consider any hardship its determination might cause and is guided by Gyselman and Gyselman[10] in this respect:

   This requires the Court to balance the ‘hardship’ which the parents or the children may suffer as a result of either making or refusing to make the order. It is a recognition of the circumstance that in this area there is likely to be hardship both ways and the Court is required to take into account the balance of that hardship and give it the weight which is appropriate to the circumstances of the individual case.

   [10] [1991] FamCA 93.

2. The tribunal considers that neither parent will face hardship. In addition to his income, the father can access the profit generated by his business. In addition to her income, the mother has a small amount of savings. Her situation is likely to change as she said she would be changing jobs later in the year and may be moving out from where she currently lives.

Any other relevant matters

1. The tribunal may take into account any other matters it considers relevant in making a particular departure determination (subsection 117(9) of the Act).

2. The Department decided to vary the father’s adjusted taxable income from 11 December 2017 which was the date the mother lodged her change of assessment application. As this is a reasonable approach, the tribunal is satisfied that departing from the administrative assessment from 11 December 2017, consistent with the departmental decisions, is appropriate in this case.

3. The tribunal’s determination ends on 31 October 2020 to give the parties some certainty into the future. The father’s child support liability will change if the percentages of care as recorded by the Department change.

4. It is open to either parent to lodge a further change of assessment application if their circumstances change in the future.

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

1. The requirement to consider whether a departure determination would be otherwise proper is concerned with what is fair to the community; it is preferable for a child or children to be primarily supported by their parents rather than by government assistance.  Paragraph 117(5)(b) of the Act means that the tribunal must consider whether the level of a benefit, in particular family tax benefit, received by the party caring for a child or children, may be affected by the level of child support.

2. According to her SFC, the mother was not in receipt of family tax benefit at the time of the hearing although the tribunal understood from her evidence that she might be in the future. The tribunal is satisfied that its determination will result in an appropriate apportionment of financial responsibility between the parents and the community, and would be otherwise proper.

DECISION

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

·         Miss Middleton’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $98,000 for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 October 2020.

·         Mr Hawker’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $100,000 for the period 11 December 2017 to 31 October 2020.