Myrtle and Myrtle (Child support)

[2020] AATA 1036

Myrtle and Myrtle (Child support) [2020] AATA 1036 (4 March 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/SC017491

APPLICANT:  Mr Myrtle

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Mrs Myrtle

TRIBUNAL:Member S Letch

DECISION DATE:  4 March 2020

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – departure from the administrative assessment – no evidence of special circumstances - no reasonable prospect of success - application for review dismissed

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. This matter concerns an application by Mr Myrtle against an objection decision by the Child Support Agency (CSA) dated 5 September 2019 concerning a “change of assessment” decision.

2. Amongst other things, Mr Myrtle urged the CSA to find that Mrs Myrtle had undisclosed financial resources, and that she should be assessed on a capacity to earn a higher level of income. The objections officer observed that upon examination of Mrs Myrtle’s banking records, the only evidence of any deposits related to Centrelink benefits. The objections officer also observed that Mrs Myrtle would need to be earning more than $75,000 per annum for there to be any notable impact on the child support assessment.

3. Mr Myrtle made similar assertions about Mrs Myrtle’s financial resources and capacity in an earlier application to this Tribunal (Tribunal reference 2017/SC012229); that application was dismissed for lack of reasonable prospects on the basis there was no evidence to support a conclusion that Mrs Myrtle was receiving undisclosed income or that Mrs Myrtle could be assessed on earning capacity which could materially affect the assessment.

4. There has been a preliminary proceeding in this matter. Mr Myrtle again asserted Mrs Myrtle should be assessed on her “earning capacity”, and suggests that she is a beneficiary of a family trust and has a self-managed superannuation fund.

5. Mrs Myrtle advised the Tribunal, consistent with the banking records obtained by CSA, that she receives a carer payment from Centrelink for [Child 1]. She is not connected to any family trust or self-managed superannuation fund, consistent with the examination by the CSA which found no evidence of any such a connection, or any other source of undisclosed income. She requested the Tribunal to consider dismissing Mr Myrtle’s present application.

6. The Tribunal must base its decisions on evidence. There is no evidence to support the allegations being made by Mr Myrtle. I do not consider the earnings capacity requirements to be met as there appears to not have been any material change in Mrs Myrtle’s circumstances; she also has been assessed by Centrelink as eligible to receive a carer payment for her caring responsibilities for [Child 1]. Regardless, even if such an assessment could be made, the level of income Mrs Myrtle might be assessed at would not, in the Tribunal’s assessment, exceed a level which could materially impact the child support assessment.

7. In the absence of any evidence suggesting there are special circumstances which would make the child support assessment unfair, the Tribunal considers Mr Myrtle’s application has no reasonable prospects of success.  

8. The Tribunal dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.