Nowell and Nowell (Child support)

Nowell and Nowell (Child support) [2017] AATA 2954 (11 December 2017)

DIVISION: Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER: 2017/SC011558

APPLICANT: Mr Nowell

OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar

Ms Nowell

TRIBUNAL: Member J Cuthbert

DECISION DATE: 11 December 2017

DECISION:

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision to depart from the child support assessment by:

varying Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $110,000 from 1 March 2017 to 30 September 2018; and
varying Mr Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $175,000 from 27 September 2016 until 30 September 2018; and.
increasing the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Nowell by $5,150 from 27 September to 18 December 2016.

CATCHWORDS

Child Support – Departure determination – Income and financial resources of parents – Business income – Costs of child care – 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

HISTORY

This review concerns an application for a change to a child support assessment made by Mr Nowell on 27 September 2016.
Mr Nowell and Ms Nowell are the parents of [Child 1] (born 2008) and [Child 2]. There has been a child support assessment in place, made by the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department), since 2 April 2015. The child support assessment is currently based on Ms Nowell having care percentages of 73% for both children and Mr Nowell having care percentages of 27%.
From 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 Mr Nowell was assessed to pay child support based on his estimated income for 2016/17 income of $80,681 and Ms Nowell’s 2013/14 adjusted taxable income of $56,835.
Mr Nowell was assessed to pay child support for 1 July 2016 based on his 2013/14 adjusted taxable income of $212,957 and Ms Nowell’s 2013/14 adjusted taxable income.
From 2 July 2016 to 1 October 2017 Mr Nowell was assessed to pay child support of $4,522 a year based on a provisional 2015/16 income of $60,000 for him and a provisional 2015/16 income of $58,369 for Ms Nowell.
On 27 September 2016 Mr Nowell applied to the Department for a departure from the assessment on the grounds that Ms Nowell’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity were not properly reflected in the assessment.
Ms Nowell lodged a cross-application raising issues about Mr Nowell’s income, financial resources and property as well as the cost of child care.
On 6 December 2016 a decision was made to depart from the child support assessment from 27 September 2016 to 31 October 2017 by varying:
· Mr Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $221,521; and
· Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $87,000.
and increasing the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Nowell by $4,991 from 27 September 2016 to 31 December 2016.
Mr Nowell lodged an objection to that decision. On 1 April 2017 his objection was disallowed. On 26 April 2017 Mr Nowell lodged an application for a review of the objection decision with the tribunal.
The matter was heard on 7 December 2017. Ms Nowell and Mr Nowell both attended the hearing in person. The Child Support Registrar was not represented at the hearing.
The tribunal had access to the statement and documents provided by the Department (folios 1 to 563 and 564 to 615), documents provided by Mr Nowell (folios A1 to A376) and documents provided by Ms Nowell (B1 to 101).
Following the hearing Mr Nowell provided the tribunal with further documents, copies of which (folios A377 to A383) were sent to Ms Nowell for her comments. The decision was made on 11 December 2017 after receiving comments from Ms Nowell.

CONSIDERATION

The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Assessment Act. This requires the application of a statutory formula which takes into account factors such as the number of children, the level of care provided and the income of each parent.
A liable parent or a carer may apply to the Child Support Registrar for a determination to depart from the child support assessment under Part 6A of the Assessment Act (section 98B). Section 98C provides that the Registrar may make a determination to depart from the formula assessment and establishes a three step process. The Registrar, and the tribunal standing in place of the Registrar, must be satisfied:
(i) that one, or more than one, of the grounds for departure referred to in subsection 117(2) exists; and
(ii) that it would be:
(A)just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent, and the carer entitled to child support; and
(B)otherwise proper;
to make a particular determination under this Part; …
The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. If satisfied that a ground exists and that it would be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the tribunal may make one of the determinations in section 98S of the Assessment Act. That section permits a range of determinations, including varying the annual rate of child support payable or a parent’s adjusted taxable income.

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

Mr Nowell sought a departure from the administrative assessment on the grounds that Ms Nowell income, financial resources, property and earning capacity were greater than reflected in the provisional income used for her in the assessment.
The grounds for departure are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. Subparagraphs 117(2)(c)(ia) and (ib) 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
…
The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the Assessment Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93, the Full Family Court indicated that for there to be special circumstances, the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.

Ms Nowell’s income, property and financial resources

Ms Nowell started part-time work as [Occupation 1] in late 2014. Shortly after her separation from Mr Nowell she increased her hours from three days a week to four. She started full-time work on 1 March 2017. Mr Nowell provided evidence that her salary package, including superannuation, increased from $94,943 to $96,842 from 1 July 2015 and to $99,747 from 1 July 2016.
Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income for 2014/15 of $82,049 has not been used in the child support assessment. In January 2017 her adjusted taxable income for 2015/16 of $87,503 replaced the provisional income previously used in the assessment from 2 July 2016. Her 2013/14 adjusted taxable income of $56,835 continues to be used in the assessment for the child support period 2 April 2015 to 1 July 2016.
Ms Nowell’s 2016/17 adjusted taxable income of $94,775 has been used in the assessment for a new child support period which started on 1 November 2017. Her adjusted taxable income is made up of salary of $96,910 and interest of $18, less deductions totalling $2,153 (the majority of which relate to self-education expenses). Her recent payslips show an annual salary package, including superannuation, of $127,489 and an annual salary of $116,248. Ms Nowell is currently enrolled in [a] degree. The tribunal accepts her evidence that the completion of a second degree is likely to lead to increased salary from her current employer. She told the tribunal that in order to complete her studies she takes unpaid leave for between four and six days a semester, a loss of income of about $3,000 a year.
The tribunal finds that the adjusted taxable income of $56,835 used for Ms Nowell for the period 2 April 2015 to 1 July 2016 was significantly less that her actual income. However, the tribunal is satisfied that Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income for 2015/16 fairly represents her income from 2 July 2016 to 28 February 2017. The tribunal finds that since 1 March 2017 Ms Nowell has greater income than indicated by her 2015/16 or 2016/17 adjusted taxable incomes. Her current income, after allowance for reasonable income tax deductions and some leave without pay, is in the vicinity of $110,000.
The tribunal has no evidence that Ms Nowell has any other financial resources of property which is capable of earning income.

Ms Nowell’s earning capacity

The tribunal also considered Ms Nowell’s earning capacity and the three criteria in subsection 117(7B) of the Assessment Act. The tribunal notes that she was working part time at the time of her separation from Mr Nowell and has since increased her working hours. The tribunal is satisfied that Ms Nowell has not reduced her working hours or altered her work pattern in order to affect the child support assessment. The tribunal finds that the third criterion of subsection 117(7B) of the Assessment Act is not satisfied and as a consequence the tribunal is unable to determine whether Ms Nowell has any unused earning capacity.

Do the existing assessments provide a result which is unjust and inequitable?

Mr Nowell’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity

In order to determine whether Ms Nowell’s income and financial resources result in child support assessments which are an unjust and inequitable determination of the financial support he should provide for [Child 1] and [Child 2], the tribunal considered whether Mr Nowell’s adjusted taxable income is indicative of his income, property, financial resources and earning capacity.
Mr Nowell recently lodged income tax returns for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 years. His adjusted taxable income for 2015/16 is $80,681. It has since been used in the child support assessment for the period 1 July 2015 to 26 September 2016. His 2016/17 adjusted taxable income is $73,894. It has been used in the child support assessment from 1 November 2017, when the departure decision ends.
In his 2015/16 income tax return he claimed work related expenses totalling $5,237: telephone and internet of $4,236, virtual office of $365 and depreciation of $636. In 2016/17 he claimed work related expenses of $7,262: telephone and internet of $4,295 and depreciation of $2,967. The depreciation schedule for 2016/17 indicates capital purchases of $6,240 in 2015/16 and $6,461 in 2016/17.
On 8 July 2015 Mr Nowell became sole director of a newly registered company, [Company 1]. He was the sole shareholder with 5,000 ordinary shares. Initially [Company 1] provided contract services to [Company 2]. However, in August or September 2016 [Company 1] received a payout totalling about $550,000 and the contract with [Company 2] was severed. Since that time [Company 1’s] main business activity is providing equipment and services to [a] trade. Mr Nowell said that, as a consequence, [Company 1’s] expenses changed and the profit margin reduced.
Mr Nowell’s partner, [Ms A], became a director of [Company 1] on 15 January 2017. Mr Nowell provided the tribunal with a “Register of Members” for [Company 1] which states that since 1 September 2015 [Ms A] has owned 1,500 shares in [Company 1]. However, a report from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) dated 19 May 2017 shows that Mr Nowell is the sole shareholder and owns all of the 5,000 issued shares. There is no indication that any new shares have been issued or that any shares have been transferred. The report does indicate that ASIC was advised of the change in directorship on 8 February 2017.
At the hearing Mr Nowell said that he had thought that the company accountant had updated ASIC and that it was not until Ms Nowell raised the issue that he realised it had not been done. He said that a request had been made to ASIC to correct the records. He said that while [Ms A] had paid $1,500 for the shares, this was not done directly. He told the tribunal that $1,500 had been debited to his director’s loan account as he had owed [Ms A] some money. After the hearing he advised that he was unable to locate the general ledger entries showing that transaction. He provided a company record of share capital. However, those manual journal entries are stated to be posted on 30 June 2017 and 1 November 2017.
Mr Nowell provided an ASIC extract for [Company 1] dated 7 December 2017 which shows that [Ms A] owns 1,500 fully paid ordinary shares and that ASIC were notified of the change to the share structure and issue of the shares on 4 September 2017. The tribunal notes that that there is no indication that Mr Nowell advised the Department of the change to the ownership of [Company 1] either during the consideration of his departure application or during the consideration of his objection, despite his assertion that [Ms A] has been a shareholder since 1 September 2015. The financial statements for [Company 1] for 2015/16 and 2016/17 show share capital of $5,000 at 30 June 2016 (folios A251 and A262). The tribunal also notes that [Company 1’s] income tax return for 2015/16 shows payments of $86,132 to associated persons, the amount paid to Mr Nowell as shown in his income tax return. The tribunal finds that, contrary to Mr Nowell’s evidence, until quite recently he was the sole shareholder and owner of [Company 1].
At the hearing he stated that he was in discussions with another person who has also indicated an interest in purchasing a share of the business. However, Mr Nowell said that he could not say what percentage of the business would be sold. He said that capital of between $5,000 and $10,000 may be introduced as the shares “are not worth much”. The tribunal notes that [Company 1’s] balance sheet shows net assets of $38,960 at 30 June 2017.
Mr Nowell told the tribunal that until early 2017 [Ms A] had worked part-time for [Company 1], between 15 and 20 hours a week. He acknowledged that she had also worked as [Occupation 1] for four days a week and at events on some weekends. She was paid 50% of the salary paid to Mr Nowell ($33,000 for 2015/16) and not on an hourly rate. He said that she has since worked full-time, mainly managing the administration of the business, and is paid the same rate of pay as him, $66,000 a year. In the 2016/17 year they both received a bonus of $15,000.
The tribunal finds that the salary paid to [Ms A] is not an arms’ length arrangement. She has not been paid an hourly rate commensurate with any hours worked. The tribunal infers from Mr Nowell’s evidence concerning [Ms A’s] shareholding in [Company 1] that he entered into an arrangement in an attempt to justify splitting income with [Ms A].
[Company 1] utilises contract labour and now has a few other employees. Until September 2017 [Company 1] operated from an office suite close to Mr Nowell’s [home]. The company also utilises warehouse space. Since October 2017 [Company 1] has operated from a shared office at the office suite as well as from a bedroom and a living area of the house he and [Ms A] rent.
In the first year of trading in 2015/16 the company’s financial statements show that [Company 1] had total income of $640,520 and made a loss of $34,355. In the 2016/17 year [Company 1] had a turnover of $972,626 and made a profit of $66,814. Mr Nowell noted that [Company 1’s] income tax returns are prepared on a cash basis while the financial statements are prepared on an accruals basis. The tribunal is satisfied that the financial statements reflect the profitability of the company.
A business activity statement (BAS) for 1 July to 30 October 2017 shows sales of $310,044 indicating an increased turnover. Mr Nowell said that the company’s income fluctuated and that the profit margins have reduced following the loss of the [Company 2] contract. After the hearing he provided a profit and loss statement to 8 December 2017 showing income of $465,346 and expenses of $324,889, a net profit of $140,457. The tribunal is satisfied that this indicates an improvement in profitability for [Company 1], with the possibility of profits in the vicinity of $300,000 for 2017/18.
In 2015/16 Mr Nowell borrowed $63,513 from [Company 1] via his director’s loan account. In 2016/17 he repaid $19,280 and borrowed a further $76,601 (net borrowings of $57,321). He told the tribunal that $20,000 he received from the sale of a [car] he leased was paid to his loan account. However, [Company 1] also paid about $17,000 in a payout to the lease company. Although Mr Nowell said that the cash flow within the company means that no distributions could be made, the tribunal is satisfied that, had [Company 1] not lent the funds to Mr Nowell in 2016/17, it could have distributed the company’s profits to him.
The majority of assets purchased by [Company 1] are of a value which enables them to have been written off in the year of income, including two motorbikes which have since been sold. In addition, at 30 June 2017 [Company 1] owned a [car] (purchased in May 2016) and a 2006 [another car] (purchased in August 2016) as well computer equipment purchased in June 2017. [Company 1] claimed the full rate of depreciation on both vehicles (total depreciation of $10,820 was claimed in 2015/16 and $24,329 in 2016/17), despite Mr Nowell’s acknowledgement that [Ms A] uses the [second car] for private use as well as business use. Mr Nowell told the tribunal that there is only minimal use of the [first car], such as to collect the children on occasion. He also provided evidence of the use of GoGet vehicles on occasions. However, he acknowledged using the [first car] for a trip to Dubbo and two trips to the Hunter Valley for private purposes. The tribunal notes that in 2015/16 [Company 1] claimed motor vehicle expenses of $18,879, and $35,412 in 2016/17. The tribunal finds that Mr Nowell receives significant personal benefit from the provision of a motor vehicle to him.
Mr Nowell told the tribunal that other capital purchases were of such a value that a direct deduction could be claimed. He stated that he anticipates [Company 1] spending perhaps $85,000 to $95,000 in capital purchases in 2017/18. However he said that those assets are likely to be written off in that year. The tribunal finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate to add back the depreciation claimed by [Company 1].
The tribunal noted that bank statements show rent payments totalling $4,000 paid to Mr Nowell by [Company 1] in late 2015. Mr Nowell said that [Company 1] paid him for the use of garage space prior to obtaining warehouse space. He said that currently [Company 1] meets $800 of the rent payable by him and [Ms A] ($3,800 a month) for use of the office space in their home. The tribunal notes that [Company 1] also has considerable costs for telephone and internet, etc. Because of the intermingling of business and private expenses, it is not possible to ascertain the extent to which Mr Nowell benefits personally from the provision of those services.
The tribunal is satisfied that Mr Nowell has income and financial resources far in excess of his adjusted taxable incomes for 2015/16 and 2016/17. Although [Company 1] has altered its focus the tribunal is satisfied that Mr Nowell is in full-time work and does not have unused earning capacity. The tribunal accepts his evidence that his income of $212,957 in 2013/14 was a consequence of receiving back payment from previous employment.

Although Ms Nowell suggested that the figure the Department arrived at for Mr Nowell adjusted taxable income of $221,521 is appropriate, the tribunal notes the basis of that decision was made on the basis of the 2015/16 financial statements for [Company 1] and adding back a small business tax concession of $95,402 in relation to the purchase of capital items. Although it is not possible to calculate Mr Nowell’s income and financial resources with any mathematical precision, the tribunal is satisfied that in 2016/17 Mr Nowell has income and financial resources of at least $175,000 a year, made up of his adjusted taxable income ($73,894) and company profit ($66,814) and adding amounts for depreciation ($24,329), and the private use of motor vehicles and other financial benefits (about $10,000).

Are there special circumstances for which to depart from the assessment?

Taking into account the objects of the Assessment Act (section 4), including that children should share in the standard of living of both their parents, the tribunal finds that, even if Ms Nowell’s income is taken into account, the income and financial resources of Mr Nowell provide special circumstances for which to depart from the assessment. Mr Nowell would be liable to pay far more child support if the assessment was based on his income and financial resources rather than his adjusted taxable income. The tribunal finds that the assessment is unfair to Ms Nowell and to the children for that reason and that a ground is established to depart from the assessment under subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Assessment Act.

Issue Two – Would a departure from the administrative assessment be just and equitable?

As the tribunal is satisfied that there is a ground to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, the next step is to consider whether it is just and equitable to depart from the assessment having regard to the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act.
Section 3 of the Assessment Act states that it is the duty of both parents to financially support their children. In accordance with the objects set out in section 4 of the Assessment Act, [Child 1] and [Child 2] should receive a proper amount of financial support from their parents in accordance with their capacity to contribute.

The children’s needs

[Child 1] is nine years old and [Child 2] is six. They both attend a public school. [Child 2] started school in 2017.
Ms Nowell has some expenses relating to psychological treatment for [Child 1] (an out of pocket cost of about $125 a month). She previously had expenses in relation to occupational therapy for [Child 2] (an out of pocket expense of about $50 a week). She did not provide any further details about the expenses or the need for treatment. The tribunal is unable to determine whether there are costs relating to the children’s special needs which should be taken into account in the child support assessment.
Other than the costs of child care (discussed below), the tribunal finds that the costs related to the care of [Child 1] and [Child 2] are not out of the ordinary range of expenses for children of their ages.

The children’s income, property, financial resources and earning capacity

The tribunal has no evidence that either [Child 1] or [Child 2] has any income, property or financial resources or any unused earning capacity that needs to be taken into account in the child support assessment.

The costs of the children’s attendance at child care

In 2016 Ms Nowell had out of pocket costs of about $38 a week for [Child 1] at before and after school care ($1,506 for 40 weeks a year). [Child 2] attended day care until 18 December 2016. The tribunal is satisfied that the out of pocket costs were $8,799 a year. Although Mr Nowell contends that Ms Nowell should not have had to pay for the days [Child 2] was in his care, the tribunal is satisfied that the costs were necessary to maintain [Child 2’s] place. The total cost of about $10,300 a year allowed Ms Nowell to work and to earn income which is reflected in the child support assessment and reduces Mr Nowell’s liability.
The tribunal finds that the costs for 2016 were more than 10% of Ms Nowell’s gross income and that it would be just and equitable to take them into account in the child support assessment for [Child 1] and [Child 2].
Ms Nowell acknowledges that her out of pocket expenses of $60 a week for before and after school care in 2017 are not significant.

The income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of Ms Nowell

The income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of Ms Nowell have been discussed above.

Ms Nowell’s necessary commitments

Ms Nowell lives with the children in rented accommodation (costing $460 a week). After reviewing the bank statements Ms Nowell provided, the tribunal is satisfied that she is able to meet the reasonable and necessary expenses that she has for herself and the children.

The income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of Mr Nowell

The income, property, financial resources and earning capacity of Mr Nowell have been discussed above.

Mr Nowell’s necessary commitments

Mr Nowell lives with [Ms A] in rented accommodation. Despite his claim that he is unable to meet his reasonable and necessary expenses, including loan payments of about $5,000 a month, the tribunal notes that his bank statements indicate a level of discretionary spending on restaurants and entertainment that cannot be considered to be necessary. On the basis of the findings made, the tribunal is satisfied that Mr Nowell is able to meet his reasonable and necessary expenses.

The parents’ duty to support others

The tribunal finds that Mr Nowell and Ms Nowell do not have a duty to support any other person apart from [Child 1] and [Child 2].

Terms and period of departure

Mr Nowell made his departure application on 27 September 2016. He seeks a departure from the assessment from the time it started, 2 April 2015 (within the maximum 18 month period permitted under subsection 98S(3B) of the Assessment Act). He told the tribunal that he had raised the issue of Ms Nowell’s income with the Department after the initial assessment was made, but was told that her adjusted taxable income would apply when available. He said that as that had not happened almost 18 months later he applied for a departure from the assessment. He said that there were a lot of other things going on including a motor bike accident and surgery in April 2015.
Ms Nowell stated that she did not have an issue with backdating any change to the assessment. She said that she had considered applying for a departure from the assessment but thought that there was enough conflict between her and Mr Nowell at that time.
Despite neither parent being averse to any decision being backdated, the tribunal proposes to depart from the assessment from 27 September 2016, the date of Mr Nowell’sapplication, and not from any earlier date. The tribunal considers that it would not be just and equitable to cause any further arrears or an overpayment for that period as neither parent sought a departure from the assessment at an earlier date.
The tribunal finds that it would be just and equitable to depart from the assessment by varying Mr Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $175,000. The tribunal finds that Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income should also be increased to $110,000 from 1 March 2017 when she started full-time work.
The tribunal also proposes to take into account the costs of child care from 26 September to 18 December 2016 by increasing the annual rate of child support payable by Ms Nowell by 50% of the annual out of pocket costs for that period, $5,150.
Ms Nowell stated that she considered that a departure from the assessment should be made until at least 30 June 2018. Taking into account the history of the matter and to provide some certainty, the tribunal proposes to extend the variation to both parents’ incomes to 30 September 2018 at which time Ms Nowell 2017/18 adjusted taxable income should be available. Mr Nowell should also be in a position to provide financial information concerning [Company 1’s] operations in the 2017/18 year by that time.
The tribunal finds that the proposed variations result in a child support liability (currently about $260 a week) which reflects a reasonable level of support for [Child 1] and [Child 2] given the differences between their parents’ incomes and financial resources.

Hardship

The child support payable on the basis of the decision proposed should assist Ms Nowell to meet the children’s proper needs.
At the time of the hearing Mr Nowell owed child support arrears of more than $18,000. The proposed decision will result in some reduction of the arrears. In light of the findings about his income and financial resources the tribunal considers that the proposed decision will not result in hardship to him.

Issue Three – Is it otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment?

The final step for the tribunal to undertake is to determine whether it is “otherwise proper” to depart from the administrative assessment. Subsection 117(5) of the Assessment Act requires the tribunal take into consideration the following matters:
(a) the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3) and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child themselves who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and
(b) the effect that the making of the order would have on:
(i)any entitlement of the child, or the carer entitled to child support, to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit; or
(ii)the rate of any income tested pension, allowance or benefit payable to the child or the carer entitled to child support.
The child support law recognises that each parent has a primary duty to maintain their children. Ms Nowell is no longer eligible to receive family tax benefit. However, the tribunal is satisfied that it is otherwise proper to depart from the administrative assessment in this matter and to properly reflect both parents’ income and financial resources.

DECISION

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision to depart from the child support assessment by:

varying Ms Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $110,000 from 1 March 2017 to 30 September 2018; and
varying Mr Nowell’s adjusted taxable income to $175,000 from 27 September 2016 until 30 September 2018; and.
increasing the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Nowell’s by $5,150 from 27 September to 18 December 2016.

[2017] AATA 2954

11 December 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Remedies

Statutory Construction