Motram and Altman (Child support) - [2022] AATA 4986

Motram and Altman (Child support) [2022] AATA 4986 (2 December 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/BC024140
APPLICANT:  Mr Motram
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Altman

TRIBUNAL:Member R King
DECISION DATE: 2 December 2022
DECISION:

The tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – a ground for departure established – decision to depart - decision under review affirmed

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

This review is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Mr Motram is the father and Ms Altman is the mother of [Child 1] (age nine years) and [Child 2] (age three years).
There has been a child support assessment in place, with initial registration by the Child Support Agency (the CSA) on 27 July 2021. Both children are in Ms Altman’s primary care The CSA collects child support from Mr Motram for payment to Ms Altman.
The pre-existing administrative assessment in this case was based on Mr Motram having an adjusted taxable income of $18,500 (2020-21 tax assessment) and Ms Altman having an adjusted taxable income of $13,025 (derived).
On 7 October 2021 Ms Altman applied to the CSA for a departure from the current assessment on the grounds that the existing assessment is unjust and inequitable because of the income, earning capacity, property or financial resources of Mr Motram (the grounds commonly referred to as Reason 8).
On 8 December 2021 the CSA found that reason 8 had been established. For child support purposes, the CSA set Mr Motram’s adjustable taxable income at $49,300 from 27 July 2021 to 26 October 2022. The assessment used Ms Altman’s adjusted taxable income of $13,025
On 14 December 2021, Mr Motram objected to the change of assessment decision on the grounds that his income was substantially lower than determined by the CSA and included a non-taxable stipend that should be disregarded. On 7 March 2022 an objections officer disallowed the objection. The objections officer found that Mr Motram’s student stipend ($28,957 pa) was equivalent to a gross taxable income of approximately $33,500 per annum, that he was in receipt of jobseeker payment of approximately $7,500 per annum and that he was in receipt of consultancy fees in the sum of $8,159 in respect of work undertaken as [an occupation 1]. This yielded a total income equivalent to $48,659 per annum. The objections officer found that this sum provided an accurate estimate of the resources Mr Motram had at his disposal from which to pay child support, which meant that it would be unfair to use his taxable income of $18,500 and Reason 8 was established. The objections officer found that Ms Altman was reliant solely on Centrelink payments in the sum of $13,025, which was insufficient to meet her living expenses. The objections officer was satisfied that a small discrepancy between the amount of child support payable under the decision of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Motram and Altman (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] AATA 4986
Decision Date: 2 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act). The applicant, Motram, sought to depart from the child support assessment made in relation to their child with the respondent, Altman. The review of the initial decision was heard by R King M.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a ground for departure from the child support assessment had been established under section 117 of the Act. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the liable parent's income, property, and financial resources were such that the assessment did not make proper or adequate provision for the child.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the liable parent's financial circumstances. It was found that the liable parent possessed income, property, and financial resources that were not adequately reflected in the child support assessment. This finding established a ground for departure under section 117(1)(a) of the Act. The court affirmed the decision to depart from the assessment, concluding that the initial assessment did not make proper or adequate provision for the child.

Orders