Nicholson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2016] AATA 630
•23 August 2016
Nicholson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 630 (23 August 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)
2015/5647
Re
Donna Nicholson
APPLICANT
And
Secretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
Date 23 August 2016 Place Sydney The decision under review is affirmed.
..........................[sgd]..............................................
Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – Family Tax Benefit– late lodgement of taxation return – income tax return lodged late by accountant – whether special circumstances prevented applicant from lodging income tax return – applicant unaware of changes to application period - decision under review affirmed
Legislation
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), s 32C
Cases
Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Cannon; Secretary, Department of Social Services and [2015] AATA 1028
Dann and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 196
Dobson and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 892
Elrington; Secretary, Department of Social Services and [2016] AATA 169
Fedigan and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 211
Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 732
Milroy and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 488
Rahim; Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and [2010] AATA 946
REASONS FOR DECISION
Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member
23 August 2016
Introduction
Mrs Nicholson, the Applicant, has brought an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division (SSCSD) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, affirming the decision not to give her Family Tax Benefit (FTB) top up and supplement payments for the 2012/2013 income year.
Background
The Applicant has a 16 year old and a 14 year old child and for the last 16 years has been receiving FTB. She has had various jobs, most recently at Bunnings at Crossroads. Her husband, Mr Nicholson, earned an income from his business.
The Applicant’s husband runs a tyre workshop, repairing tyres, putting tyres on cars, doing wheel alignments and the like. He currently is, and has for the last 13 years, been in partnership with his business partner, Michael Clark (the business partner). The Applicant’s husband and the business partner employ a number of people. The number given in evidence was seven. They take home the same amount of profit from the business, and there were no issues right up until the 2012/2013 year. I am pleased to note that the issue that brings the Applicant to the Tribunal is a one-off.
The issue is whether the Applicant is entitled to FTB top up and supplement payments in the amount of $4,819.45 for the 2012/2013 income year.
I start by saying whatever has occurred in the past in relation to this has now been fixed. The Applicant received her payment for the 2013/2014 year and it appears, as a result of this particular incident, that systems are now in place to ensure that something like this simply does not happen again. I am satisfied on the evidence, that apart from the 2012/2013 year, the Applicant has been getting FTB, it would appear, going back to the birth of her 16 year old son. The business partner and his wife have been receiving their FTB each year, going back to the birth of their nine year old, who is the eldest of their children.
The Applicant resides in Wilton, New South Wales. The FTB is paid by fortnightly instalments and for the relevant year, the Applicant’s rate was based on the estimate of the family’s combined adjustable taxable income. Apparently that estimate was updated on 26 March 2013. Nothing turns on that, there was a slight overpayment, a matter of a few hundred dollars, which has been paid back and that is not of any relevance to this case.
The Applicant experienced some difficulties during 2012 and 2013, indeed continuing up to the death of her father in January 2016. Her father suffered from cancer. Her mother was unable to drive. Her father underwent a number of operations and contracted golden staph, causing significant stress for the Applicant and her family. She had to attend to her father, transport her mother to various appointments, look after her children and run the family home.
Despite all this, on 28 October 2013, the Applicant lodged her 2012/2013 individual tax return with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). She did that through her accountant. Her tax return is a basic type of return comprising a simple Group Certificate. Despite her personal and family difficulties, she managed to lodge it and thereby satisfy the requirement in relation to herself. The Applicant’s accountant also does the returns for her husband’s business, and the business returns were the responsibility the business partner, one of whose roles in the business was to get all the relevant business documents to their accountant.
Change in statutory time limit for lodgement of income tax returns
The relevant law here is section 32C of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Act). In relation to the 2012/2013 income tax year, the law came into force in 2013 restricting the lodgement period to a 12 months period instead of the old two year period.
This was a result of some general tightening up in the area which was announced by the Federal Government in 2011. The relevant parts of the section are as follows:
(1) This section applies to the first individual for a same-rate benefit period if:
(a) the first individual was a member of a couple throughout the same-rate benefit period; and
(b) the first individual, or other members of the couple is, or was required, to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year…
So, clearly that is the Applicant’s case, and:
(c) the first individual continues to be a member of a couple until the end of the latest following:
(i) the first income year after the relevant income year;
(ii) such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows for the first individual to lodge the return, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year;
None of that is particularly relevant here because the Applicant lodged her return within that first income year. The relevant part is as follows:
(iii) Such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows for the other member of the couple…
(In this case, the Applicant’s husband)
…to lodge the return, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the other member from lodging the return before the end of that first income year.
That is the case here. Subsection 3 states:
(3) If:
(a) both members of a couple were required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant year; and
(b) each member of the couple lodged an income tax return for the relevant income year before the end of:
(i) the first income year after the relevant income year; or
(ii) such further period as the Secretary allows for that member under subparagraph 1(c)(ii) or (iii), as the case requires…
The Department does not have to advise people of changes to the law, but as a matter of policy it does, and it did in this instance. I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, that on 19 March 2014 the Department issued the Applicant with a notice about the change in the statutory time limit to lodge her income tax return and her partner’s, for the 2012/2013 year and for all intents and purposes that income year, because of the new one year period allowed to lodge returns, ended on 30 June 2014.
I am also satisfied that the Department on 28 May 2014 sent the Applicant an SMS message to the Applicant’s mobile phone. In evidence she acknowledged that the Department’s records listed the correct number. That message stated:
Reminder - lodge your and/or your partner’s 2012-13 tax return/s or tell Centrelink if exempt from lodging by 30 June 2014 to receive your full family assistance entitlements. If exempt go to Human Services website and search for ‘TAX TIME’...
The Applicant indicated in her sworn evidence, and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve her, that for whatever reason she did not receive those notifications, or indeed if she did, had no recollection of having received them. Unfortunately, that does not help in these circumstances. In the SSCSD’s reviewable decision of 8 October 2015, Member Leonard stated, at [23]:
When considering the receipt of notices of decisions related to family assistance law, section 224 of the [Social Security] Administration Act says the tribunal must determine that a notice of decision has been received, if it has been sent by pre-paid post, to the address last notified to Centrelink. As the letter dated 19 March 2014 was not a notice of decision this section does not apply; however, sections 28A and 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 are expressed in similar terms and provide that a document is “served” or “given” or “sent” to a person if it is sent by pre-paid post to the address last known to the sender of the document.
The Applicant confirmed the letter was correctly addressed and so the Tribunal finds the letter was given to the Applicant in accordance with sections 28A and 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Even so, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that she was unaware of the change in the time limit from two years to one year.
So, by law, it is taken to have been received even though it was not. It is not uncommon for people, for whatever reason, not to receive documents that have been sent. A lot of the time that is not the case and people receive letters and misplace them or throw them out by accident and therefore can’t recall receiving them in the first place. Perhaps the mail went to the wrong address, this does happen. However, the law is clear on this issue.
In the case of Dobson and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 892, the applicant did not receive a notice forwarded to his address by the Department on 12 February 2014. So, he did not become aware of the change of the law until after 30 June 2014. Had he been aware of the change, he would have lodged his claim before 30 June. He had, after all, lodged his previous year’s tax return well in advance and was quite diligent in that regard. He argued that not receiving the notice was not his fault and his good record in relation to lodgement of his claims were special circumstances. It was held in that case, although the Department did take steps to notify him, and other likely recipients of the change in the law, it did not have an obligation to do so (see generally, Milroy and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 488).
Unfortunately for the Applicant, there is a fair amount of case law saying the Department, whilst it does and, quite properly so, notifies taxpayers of changes in the law, it does not actually have an obligation to do so. The fact that the Applicant did not receive the SMS and the letter does not assist her.
Lodgement of the Applicant’s husband’s income tax return
The Applicant’s husband lodged his 2012/2013 individual tax return through his accountant on 28 August 2014. The Department then, on 15 October 2014, issued the Applicant with a letter (which again, I am satisfied that for whatever reason the Applicant did not receive. The applicant did receive an identical follow up letter ( exhibit A1) dated 24 October 2014.) It stated that she was not entitled to the FTB supplement of $7,228.45. It noted that she had already received $2,832.40. There was $4,819.45 that still had to be paid but that was deducted as a result of the decision, leaving a balance of zero.
We are unable to pay your full Family Tax Benefit entitlement, including the Family Tax Benefit supplement, because your partner did not confirm their income for the 2012-13 financial year by June 30, 2014.
If there were special circumstances that prevented your partner from confirming their income by the 30 June 2014, please call us on 136 150.
On 3 November 2014 the Applicant provided the Department with a letter, also dated 3 November 2014, from her accountant confirming that her husband’s tax return was delayed. It stated:
…[the Applicant’s husband]’s 2013 tax return was delayed due to the loss of records relevant to his business. This delayed the processing of the financial statements for that business and thereby his tax return as it is closely related to the business.
[the Applicant’s husband]’s tax return cannot be completed until the business return has been completed and lodged as he is a principal investor in the business.
Now, it seems there from the evidence that may not have been a fully correct statement. Initially, when questions were being asked in relation to that, it would appear that perhaps the accountant was, as the Applicant’s husband suggested, gilding the lily to an extent so as to not mention the very significant personal problems the business partner and his wife were facing at the time. It is, however, consistent with the business partner’s evidence that at some stage earlier on in 2014 (he felt around February/March) he said he thought he had sent off all the relevant information to the accountant but, on reflection, thought he maybe just sent off Business Activity Statements. In other words, he believed he had sent off the relevant information. It turns out he had not and, therefore, that could equate with the loss of records.
I do not read anything particularly into that. The accountant’s statement is consistent with a loss of records, or at least a misplacement of records at an important time, and that certainly would have delayed any tax return. Had the business partner, in February or March of 2014, sent off the relevant records, one would assume the tax return would have been done in time and we would not be here today. But it is a little bit unfathomable, perhaps, that the accountant did not also go into some other more personal reasons in relation to the difficulties of filing the tax return because of private matters involving the business partner’s family at the time. This clearly was of relevance to the ATO who accepted the business partner’s family’s non-filing of income tax returns on time as special circumstances and not the Applicant and her husband’s representations.
In terms of the Applicant’s contact with the Department, she also indicated that the accountant had lost her husband’s tax records and that caused a delay in the lodgement of this tax return.
On 24 April 2015, an Authorised Review Officer notified the Applicant of a decision to affirm the original decision. An application for review to the SSCSD was lodged on 10 July 2015 and on 8 October 2015 the SSCSD affirmed the decision under review. On 28 October 2015 an application for review of the SSCSD decision was lodged with this Tribunal. The Applicant gave some reasons there, including that she did not think “all information provided was taken into account when making the decision to hold back [her] top-up payment of family assistance”.
The Applicant’s husband’s return was obviously lodged after the end of the first income year after the relevant income year. So, he has lodged it, unfortunately, nearly two months out of date. He certainly lodged it before the end of the second income year after the relevant income year but, unfortunately, because of the change to one income year, it is out of time.
The relevant reconciliation time can only be extended to 28 August 2014, subject to the precondition in section 32C subparagraphs 3(b)(ii) of the Act, if the Secretary is satisfied there are special circumstances that prevented the other member from lodging the return before the end of that first income year. The other member is the Applicant’s husband, so the Applicant needs to show the special circumstances that prevented the lodging of the return before the end of the first income year.
Other matters
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied of the following.
·The Applicant’s husband and business partner have been in partnership for some 13 years.
·The Applicant’s husband is the hands-on man. He is the one who does a lot of the manual work involved in running the business.
·The business partner does too, it is a typical small business operation, but his primary responsibility is to look after the books and to make sure that all the paperwork is done.
·Up until this time, he obviously quite successfully had managed to get to the accountant all the relevant documents for the business to have its income tax done and for him and his partner to have their financial affairs looked at by the accountant, and getting the income tax returns done and especially the Applicant’s husband’s and the business partner’s income tax done on time.
·This would then assist their respective families, namely their spouses, who also received income up until at least around this time in regard to the business partner’s wife, to file the income tax returns so they could get FTB.
The business partner wrote a letter to the SSCSD of 30 September 2015 in support of the Applicant and her husband which stated:
I to those concerned regarding the late lodgement of financials for [the Applicant’s husband] (my business partner) for financial year 2012-2013.
Collating of the data, for both [the Applicant’s husband’s] personal income and our business for the period above is usually prepared for our accountant […] by myself. During the 1st quarter of 2014 my wife was diagnosed with Cancer and whilst caring for my 3 young children I fell behind on my entries to our system.
Treatments went on through 2014 and I did catch up in the middle of the year and sent a letter to Centrelink regarding my reasons. This letter concerned my personal situation but I would have assumed that being our taxes are lodged regarding the same family trust, by the same accountant, that the reasons given would have been understandable for both of us.
I do understand our accountant may have blamed computer equipment for the late lodgement, out of respect for my privacy at the time of her treatment, and really this was the reason as I was heavily committed to family issues at the time…
Please consider my letter for your judgment and feel free to contact me on the above mobile number for any clarification or supporting documentation.
Regards
…
Both the Applicant’s husband and the business partner gave evidence by phone, and were present together in the same room when they gave evidence.
The business partner indicated that to the best of his recollection, any letters he might have sent to Centrelink would have occurred probably after his wife received notification about FTB. We do not know when that occurred. One would assume that it would probably be around October 2014, given that is when the Applicant received hers. Certainly the business partner was quite adamant that he did not contact Centrelink, talk to them or send letters around the June/July period. It was certainly in the second half of 2014 that he had his contact there.
There was also evidence too, it seems, that the business partner’s wife may well have also spoken to Centrelink. We do not know when. We do not know if she made contact with the Department before 30 June 2014 or not. It seems probably not. Certainly I am satisfied that the business partner did not. He indicated in his evidence that it was very much in the second part of the year, and implying that it was probably around October when the Applicant and her husband received their notification and likely about that time when his wife did.
Were there “special circumstances” at the relevant time?
The Respondent is correct in saying that the Applicant’s circumstances are quite different from the business partner’s wife.
The Applicant had some ongoing family issues and was capably attending to all of those, including managing to ensure her own return was submitted, but, despite her capably handling these issues, she was struggling under some very significant pressures.
The business partner’s wife was very ill. She still has not worked and her circumstances would naturally be different because she was not working at the time whereas the Applicant was. The evidence of both the Applicant’s husband and the business partner was that they were partners and they basically halved the profits. Clearly, the financial circumstances between the two families might have been a bit different.
The Respondent also indicated that in the business relationship they had specific responsibilities. The business partner has his responsibilities. The Applicant’s husband allowed him to get on with that part of the job. The Applicant’s husband has his responsibilities. During the hearing, the Applicant’s husband was asked, “Well, [the business partner] is pretty well largely out of action because he is attending to his wife, what did you do?” He indicated he did sufficient to keep the business ticking over in terms of doing the paperwork but nothing more than that because that was not exactly his forte, but he certainly did take whatever steps he felt was necessary just to keep the business going and doing what paperwork was necessary in the absence of his partner.
It clearly did not cross his mind to do anything in relation to what the business partner normally would have done in terms of getting documents to the accountant to enable the tax returns for the business to be completed and lodged.
That may well have been compounded by the fact that the business partner, felt that he had done what he needed to do and sent off relevant papers around February/March 2014. It is unclear as to just how much conversation there was between the partners on that point. It seemed probably very little, if any and that is often the case when one is running a small business.
At any rate, apart from the limited stepping up to the mark in terms of doing the absolutely necessary paperwork for the day-to-day running of the business, clearly the Applicant’s husband did not think to do anything in relation to checking on the tax returns and it seems that perhaps he had good reason not to because the business partner, at that stage, thought he had probably done what he needed to do. Alas, that was not the case.
The Respondent submitted that just not knowing what his partner had done or not done is not sufficient. The Respondent further submitted that the fact that the business partner was unable to fulfil his role in the business was certainly known to the Applicant’s husband, who had delved into some of the paperwork to make sure the business continued to run. The Respondent noted he could have taken steps and, ergo, as a result of that, submitted that this case falls outside what can be considered special circumstances.
In Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 732, Senior Member Toohey stated at [14] and [19]:
14 …In order for the time for making a claim to be extended, the Secretary (and so the Tribunal) must be satisfied, firstly, that circumstances existed that were special and, secondly, that those special circumstances prevented the claimant from making his or her claim within time.
19… In the case of a late claim for FTB, the special circumstances must prevent a person from making a claim on time. That is a more stringent, two-part test.
There are a number of cases which clearly indicate it is a very difficult test. Special circumstances is actually defined as, “unusual, uncommon or exceptional” – see Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1.
It has been said that an overemphasis should not be put on the word “exceptional”. That is a danger and is something to be avoided and all three words must be looked at to determine whether the circumstances are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. In the case of Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25, Besanko J stated at [33]:
The danger is that the test will be overstated if the word ‘exceptional’ is emphasised. It was not the intention of Parliament to confine the exercise of the discretion to an exceptional case. There is less risk of overstatement if the words ‘unusual’ or ‘uncommon’ are emphasised. Those words indicate, correctly in my view, the fact that there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case. It may not be easy to postulate the ordinary or usual case other than in quite general terms and, in doing so, close attention must be given to the particular statutory context.
The various cases cited seem to indicate a high test and a number of fact situations in those cases have led to circumstances not being held to be special.
One case where special circumstances were granted was in Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Rahim [2010] AATA 946. Mr Rahim had mental health issues and, whilst overseas, he did not receive correspondence from Centrelink. Accordingly, he did not complete the form required in time and his FTB was cancelled. He had a psychotic illness. His wife did not speak English. He had been hospitalised in various countries around the world. He clearly was a very sick man and his circumstances were held to be special.
In the Applicant’s case, it is clear that she did what she normally did. She did not receive these letters and warnings that had been sent to her address and mobile phone. Had she received them, we probably would not be here. I found her to be a very prompt, efficient lady who has assisted her husband in terms of running the home and the business and who, despite personal difficulties, has carried on running the family, taking her sick father and her mother to various appointments, getting her own tax in and generally doing everything that one would expect of her. It is a pity that, for whatever reason, she did not receive notification or at the very least cannot recall receiving it. It is also a pity that she was not the one responsible for putting in her husband’s return and not the business. As she said in evidence “I wish I could do that with [the Applicant’s husband]’s but I can’t because the business is involved”.
I found the Applicant to be a witness of truth. I also found the Applicant’s husband and his business partner to be witnesses of truth. Both gentlemen appeared to be doing their best to recall events and answer questions put to them as forthrightly, accurately and truthfully as they could recall.
I am satisfied that the Applicant’s husband was faced with a situation that was something he had not come across before. He and his partner had happily run the business along the lines discussed earlier. Now he had to do the business partner’s job as well as his own.
The question is, can it be said in the circumstances of this case, that there were unusual, uncommon or exceptional circumstances and did those circumstances cause him to have a reasonable excuse for what happened and the return not going in? Are the circumstances affecting him and the business and, through him, of course, affecting the Applicant, special circumstances? That is what I need to consider.
I would add in relation to the evidence concerning the accountant that whilst I am a bit concerned he did not put in writing the circumstances surrounding the business partner’s wife, because perhaps he was trying to respect her privacy, he obviously could not prepare the returns at the correct time because he did not have the relevant documentation. Whether they were lost or otherwise misplaced, either by the accountant or not sent by the business partner, they were certainly not available to the accountant in time to meet the deadline.
Another question that arises in relation to the accountant is whether he had a duty to keep his clients informed of changes in the law and the fact that he did not do that might be of some relevance, but not in these proceedings. The fact that he also could have contacted the Applicant’s husband and the business partner and reminded them of the need to submit the relevant documents, may have been of relevance too. If it was he who had lost the documents, that is also of relevance.
In the case of Secretary, Department of Social Services and Cannon [2015] AATA 1028 Deputy President Constance (and I agree with the submission in this case made by the Respondent) suggested the applicant’s potential remedy in that case was against her accountant rather than the public purse. This may well be so, especially if his (the accountant’s) actions were inadequate in any way. It is open to the Applicant and her husband to investigate this avenue further should they wish.
The law is clear that a taxpayer cannot rely on blaming an accountant for not lodging returns on time or for misplacing documents or for not telling the taxpayer of changes to the law or reminding them to put in the necessary documents and rely on this as unusual, uncommon or exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately these types of issues arise not infrequently.
These are not acts out of the ordinary occurrence (see Secretary, Department of Social Services and Elrington [2016] AATA 169, Dann and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 196, Fedigan and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 211 and Secretary, Department of Social Services and Cannon [2015] AATA 1028). It is also not a defence to a prosecution for late lodgement of tax returns.
A taxpayer is responsible for ensuring that they lodge returns on time, regardless of what their accountant does or does not do. It is for the taxpayer to ensure their accountant is doing what he or she is being paid to do and on time.
Another point I need to look at is the very sensible and logical observation of the Applicant that as the business partner’s wife got her benefit, why shouldn’t she be afforded the same latitude. Why were the business partner and his wife treated differently?
Privacy considerations aside, there is much to commend this point of view. However, the Respondent is correct in their submission that we can’t be confident on the evidence as to what occurred here. We do not know if the business partner and his wife were given special circumstances and if so why.
We don’t know if she made contact with the Department before 30 June 2014 (the business partner didn’t on the evidence but we have no evidence either way of what, if anything, his wife did or did not do in this regard).
The business partner’s wife’s circumstances are different in some regards to the Applicant and her husband’s and unless she had given evidence and told the Tribunal or the SSCSD how and why she got her payment, then it is impossible to advance this point further.
The fact that the business partner was unable to fulfil his role in the business at a critical time was known to the Applicant’s husband. He took steps to keep the business ticking over but could have taken steps to ensure the accountant had all the documentation he needed on time. He could have chased up the accountant even if he was unsure to see what documentation he needed to submit. He could have taken steps to ensure that everything that had to be done, was done, even though it must have been a very busy time for him, and I appreciate that he obviously was affected by the problems facing his wife and family.
Conclusion
When I gave my initial thoughts to the parties after hearing all the evidence, I indicated I would go away and see if there was anything else that was relevant (by way of case law or other material) that may indicate that special circumstances applied in this case. Unfortunately for the Applicant, the law seems to be against her as already discussed, at least as far as the reviewable decision by the SSCSD is concerned. Other remedies may well be available to the family.
Unfortunately, what occurred here, whilst in some aspects going some way toward the definition of special circumstances, does not reach the necessary threshold and the threshold as indicated by the various cases is a high one.
On a positive note, I am confident as a result of what the Applicant said at the hearing, that everything is back on track and something like this is not going to happen again. The reasons that laws like these are so strict is to protect the public purse and there has to be a cut-off and there has to be strict rules in relation to that. That is why there is the special circumstances test which imposes a high standard.
It may well be, given the fact that the Applicant’s and business partner’s families have been going to that accountant for years, that a private arrangement can be reached, especially if the accountant did misplace documents or was neglectful of his duties.
For the reasons above, the decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 66 (sixty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Bill Stefaniak AM RFD, Senior Member ....................[sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated 23 August 2016
Date of hearing 16 May 2016 Applicant In person Solicitors for the Respondent Department of Human Services
9
9
0