O'Meara and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2008] AATA 1083
•4 December 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1083
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/1060
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re FRANK O'MEARA Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member Date4 December 2008
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. (Sgd) John Handley
Senior Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – applicant is a member of a couple with his wife – SSAT decided she is an attributable stakeholder in a Trust of which she is a beneficiary, class guardian and class appointor, her associates are the other beneficiaries being her siblings and she is a director of the company which is the trustee – finding by Centrelink and SSAT of 20 percent attribution – decision not challenged by wife and overpayment refunded – applicant challenged on basis that the attribution of his wife should be assessed at 0 percent – evidence heard from wife and her brother the other director of the trustee company – attribution principles considered – decision affirmed
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 1207C, s 1207P, 1207V and 1207V(2)(d)ii), 1207X(1)(b) and 1207X(1)(c), 1207X(2), s 1223, s 1237A and s 1237AAD
Elliot v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA1293
Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Chamberlain [2002] FCA 67
Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2000
Legislative Instrument F 2007 B00425
REASONS FOR DECISION
4 December 2008 Mr John Handley, Senior Member 1. The applicant applies to review a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 26 February 2008 which then affirmed a decision previously made by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) of the respondent.
2. The SSAT decided that income and assets of a Trust should be attributed to the applicant's wife. The applicant and his wife did not declare her interest in the Trust. Centrelink decided an overpayment of benefits had been made between the period 8 March 2002 and 20 July 2007.
3. The overpayment with respect to the applicant's wife was $53,688.65 which has been repaid.
4. The overpayment with respect to the applicant was the sum of $52,220.49 which has not been repaid.
5. The background to this application is as follows.
6. The applicant is married to Greta O'Meara and they are both members of a couple. They both live in a home owned by them and during the period referred to above and they both received Commonwealth benefits. Mrs O'Meara received Partner Allowance (PA) and Age Pension (AP) and Mr O'Meara, the applicant, received Disability Support Pension (DSP) and AP.
7. On 8 November 1982, the Power Class Trust (the Trust) was established. The Trustee was Fifth Fumid Pty Ltd which had previously been incorporated but changed its name on 12 November 1982 to Power Robb Estates Pty Ltd (the Trustee Company). Mrs O'Meara and Terrence Power, her brother, have been Directors of the Trustee Company since the commencement of the operation of the Trust. They are also beneficiaries of the Trust together with three other siblings. At 8 March 2002 the assets of the Trust were $1,371,242. Mrs O'Meara declared to Centrelink that the gross value of the assets of the Trust at 21 July 2007 were $3,483,767 but which should be reduced by regard to sundry creditors of $80,754 and five beneficiary loan accounts having a total of $389,478. The beneficiary loan account attributable to Mrs O'Meara was $81,602.
8. The applicant and his wife did not declare their interest in the Trust to Centrelink during the relevant years. By reason of the applicant being a member of a couple with Mrs O'Meara, he was obliged to make a similar declaration and is also subject to the attribution of assets and income, to her, from the Trust.
9. The case on behalf of the respondent was to attribute 100 percent of assets and income from the Trust to Mrs O'Meara. The case advanced by the applicant was the failure on the part of the respondent and the SSAT to consider the level of control exhibited by the Donee of the Trust funds and the absence of control of those funds by his wife. In those circumstances there should not have been any attribution to her (and therefore to him) of income and assets from the Trust. For the purposes of this argument the applicant asserted that the Donee was the mother of his wife (his mother-in-law). The case advanced by the applicant is obtained from his Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 26 September 2008, by a letter that he wrote to the Registrar on 7 October 2008, a submission he made on the first day of hearing and by the closing submissions of his representative at the hearing.
the hearing
10. On the first day of hearing the applicant was unrepresented and had been unrepresented throughout the pre hearing process. He said that he did not intend to give evidence but preferred to give submissions. Those submissions were as outlined above namely, that the level of control exhibited by his mother-in-law and the failure to take account of the absence of control by his wife should have resulted in a finding that none of the assets and income of the Trust should be attributable to his wife. Mr Hamilton on behalf of the respondent took objection to those submissions and put the applicant on notice that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the propositions being advanced. He said those submissions, if put, would be hearsay and he would contend that no weight should attach to them.
11. Mrs O'Meara attended the hearing. It had been recommended to the applicant prior to the first day of hearing that he seek to have his wife give evidence in these proceedings. Additionally he was advised that he should recommend to her that she be joined as a party to these proceedings because her interests may be affected by the outcome. Mrs O'Meara did not at any time apply to be a party to these proceedings. She did attend the hearing but Mr O'Meara elected not to call her. Mr Power also attended the hearing and he was not called.
12. After much discussion with the applicant and by reason of failed attempts to have him understand the significance and relevance of evidence to his application, and by his continued refusal to call Mrs O'Meara to give evidence, I decided to adjourn the proceedings on the basis that in the interim the Registrar should issue summonses to appear and produce documents directed to Mrs O'Meara and Mr Power.
13. On the second day of hearing the applicant attended and was then legally represented by Mr Tringas. Mrs O'Meara and Mr Power also appeared and produced documents with respect to the Trust. The representative of the applicant said that his client would not give evidence. The representative said that he intended only to obtain evidence from Mrs O'Meara and Mr Power. At the conclusion of the evidence of those persons, Mr Tringas said that he then intend to call the applicant. Having heard the protest from Mr Hamilton, the representative said that the intention was only to have evidence from his client concerning the evidence of Mr Power with respect to letters written by Mr Greenberg, the Accountant for the Trust which were found within the T document. When the objection was heard, Mr Tringas did not pursue his application. I do not intend to take account at all of the letters written by Mr Greenberg. During the period of time when the applicant was unrepresented he indicated at a directions hearing that he intended to call Mr Greenberg to establish the extent of control of the Trust by his mother-in-law. He was also then advised that that evidence of itself would likely be subject to a hearsay objection. Mr O'Meara then persisted in indicating his intention to call Mr Greenberg. When he indicated that Mr Greenberg would only appear by summons I arranged for a summons to be issued and returnable on the first day of hearing. The applicant was advised that he could collect the summons and arrange for it to be served. The applicant later indicated that he did not intend to call him. In the absence of Mr Greenberg from both days of hearing I attach no weight to the contents of his letters.
greta mary o'meara
14. Mrs O'Meara is the applicant's wife.
15. In evidence she said that she was familiar with the Trust and said that her involvement was confined to participating once per annum at a meeting convened by her brother. She said that he (Mr Power) runs it. She said the only occasion where the Trust was discussed was with her brothers and sisters at the annual meeting.
16. Mrs O'Meara said that she had not received any distribution from the Trust nor had she ever had any financial dealings with it. She said that she had no knowledge of a loan of $65,000 paid by the Trust being boarding school fees of one of the children of her sister (refer paragraph 25 of SSAT Reasons).
17. In cross‑examination Mrs O'Meara said that she knew that she was a Class Guardian, a Class Appointor and a general beneficiary of the Trust. She said she also knew that she was a Director of the Trustee Company. She said the Trust was established after the date of her marriage to the applicant but she has not ever discussed the operation of it with him. She said he would know of it because Mr Power frequently came to her home to have her sign documents, but he would not know details concerning its operation.
18. Mrs O'Meara said she was not aware that the Trust had a loan account in her name of approximately $85,000. She was aware that the Trust funds were used to pay her debt to Centrelink (refer paragraph 3) and which she assumes to be a benefit.
19. Mrs O'Meara said that she understood that the Trust had been established for the benefit of the grandchildren. She also said that her mother had not ever attended annual general meetings of the Trust.
terrence robb power
20. Mr Power, is an accountant, he is the brother of Mrs O'Meara and he is a Director with her of the Trust Company. He said the Trust was established in 1982 following the death of his grandmother. He said she inherited a number of shares from the estate of her husband which had considerable value. In her lifetime she indicated to him that she wanted monies and other assets from her estate to be paid into a Trust for the benefit of her grandchildren and their children. He said that none of the funds used to establish the Trust were provided by his mother. That is, the whole of the funds available to establish the Trust came from the estate of his grandmother. The Trust was established to honour the wishes of his grandmother. He said that his mother, Mrs Robb, is now 93 years of age and has not ever had a role in the Trust nor has she ever held a position in the Trust. She has not ever been a beneficiary. The Trust did loan monies to her, $296,057, to assist in the purchase of a unit in a retirement village and is recorded in the records of the Trust as a loan. (That sum appears at page 110 of the supplementary T documents in a declaration made to Centrelink). Mr Power said that sum was paid by the Trust after consultation with the other four beneficiaries.
21. Mr Power said that he is responsible for the management of the Trust and he completes all books of account, notices and minutes and arranges meetings. He said monies earned by trust investments were initially reinvested but in recent years, loan accounts have been established for the benefit of all five beneficiaries. He said that small amounts of approximately $5000.00 have been paid to some of the beneficiaries in recent years and a payment of approximately $60,000 to one of his sisters, another beneficiary, to help her meet the cost of school fees for her child. He disputed the proposition put to him by the representative of the applicant that his mother received a benefit from the Trust by reason of the monies advanced to her. He said the monies advanced represent a loan and were paid because of a wish expressed by all of the beneficiaries that their mother have a home.
22. In cross‑examination Mr Power agreed that he and the other four children were all Class Guardians, Class Appointors and beneficiaries of the Trust. He said the Trust provides for a vote to be taken should an issue emerge. He also agreed that the Trust permitted a distribution from the income and the capital of the Trust to any of the beneficiaries or their children. He reaffirmed that his mother could not determine that any of the assets or income be distributed because she has no involvement in the Trust. He said that only he and his siblings could determine the operation of the Trust and its distributions, if any.
23. Mr Power agreed, theoretically, that all of the income and all of the assets of the Trust could be distributed to Mrs O'Meara if he and the other three siblings agreed, but he said that would not happen. He agreed that there was no legal impediment to that occurring but again reaffirmed that it would not ever occur. He agreed that there had never been a resolution that each of the five siblings have a 20 percent interest in the Trust but said that was the clear understanding of all five persons.
24. In re‑examination Mr Power again confirmed that his mother held no interest at all nor had she ever held any interest in the Trust. He said the only benefit that she obtained was a loan from the Trust which was a contribution towards the purchase price of a unit in which she lives.
the legislation
25. The relevant legislation is found at Part 3.18 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). The applicant conceded that the Trust is a designated private trust within the meaning of s 1207P of the Act and a controlled private trust within the meaning of s 1207V of the Act. He also conceded that his wife is an attributable stakeholder of the Trust within the meaning of s 1207X(2) of the Act.
26. The real issue in contention was the extent (if any) of attribution of assets and income of the Trust to Mrs O'Meara. The applicant initially submitted that there should be no attribution. The respondent submitted attribution of 100 percent.
submissions
27. The representative of the applicant submitted that s 1207V(2)(d)(ii) applied. That provision records that the individual passes the control test in relation to a trust if:
(d)the aggregate of:
. . .
(ii)the beneficial interests in the corpus or income of the trust held by associates of the individual (whether directly or indirectly);
is 50% or more; or
. . .
28. It was submitted that the mother of Mrs O'Meara passes the control test and that she had a beneficial interest in the Trust. It was submitted that her benefit was the monies provided to her to enable meeting the balance of purchase price of a unit in which she lives. Additionally, it was submitted, that the mother of Mrs O'Meara has the potential to receive further distributions should the need arise in the future. An example of a future need was suggested to be medical costs.
29. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that for the purposes of the above sub-section the individual is Mrs O'Meara's mother and she passes the control test in relation to the Trust because the beneficial interests in the corpus or income of the Trust held by her children (the five beneficiaries) is 50 percent or more of it and they are associates of her (refer s 1207C of the Act).
30. Mr Hamilton submitted that the real issue in dispute was to identify who was in control of the Trust. He submitted that Mrs O'Meara's mother had no control whatsoever of the Trust and on the evidence he said that there was not a skerrick of evidence in support.
31. It was submitted that a finding of 100 percent attribution should be made against Mrs O'Meara. By regard to a recent decision of Kenny J in Elliot v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1293 it was submitted that control signifies control that would permit the individual alone or with associates to control the Trust income or capital so that the individual alone or with associates can enjoy economic benefits.
32. It was also submitted that s 1207X(1)(b) and (c) direct that attribution be 100 percent unless the Secretary determines a lower percentage in relation to the individual. There was nothing from the evidence, on the submissions of Mr Hamilton, to permit a conclusion of a rate of attribution less than 100 percent. He acknowledged that a finding of 20 percent attribution had been made by the ARO and the SSAT but that conclusion, he submitted, was in error.
33. In reply the representative of the applicant submitted that his client's wife had little understanding of the Trust or its operation and had no effective control of it. He submitted that there should be a finding of 80 percent attribution to the mother of Mrs O'Meara and 20 percent attribution collectively amongst all of the five beneficiaries being the children of the mother of Mrs O'Meara.
34. It was also submitted by way of special circumstance in the event that a finding is made of attribution greater than zero percent that the applicant is an age pensioner who faces repayment of a debt exceeding $50,000 which will require him to sell assets. It was submitted that assets would need to be sold to meet payment of the debt and to provide day to day economic support.
conclusion and reasons for decision
35. The case for the applicant was of his mother-in-law that is, the mother of his wife, being a person who exhibited or exercised control over trust funds. The evidence heard in these proceedings clearly established:
(i)The Trust was established by funds provided by the grandmother of Mrs O'Meara;
(ii)None of the Trust funds upon it being created were provided by his mother-in law; and
(iii)His mother-in-law has not ever been a beneficiary, Class Guardian, Class Appointor or Director of the Trust company.
(iv)The reference by the SSAT in its amended decision (following a correction) to the applicant's mother-in-law having inherited shares from her mother and those shares being the capital base of the Trust is not supported by the evidence heard in this review and is inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Power, as recorded in the 2nd dot point at paragraph 25 of its decision.
36. This application was wholly misconceived. The applicant's mother-in-law has never had any control over the Trust. Whilst it would appear that there was a belief held by the applicant that the Trust funds were provided upon establishment by his mother-in-law, the Trust Deed and other like material contained within the T documents make no reference to her at all. Whilst s 1207V(2)(d) refers to beneficial interests, that expression is not defined but the expression would clearly refer to the interest of a person who is entitled by the Trust to a benefit. The applicant's mother ‑in‑law has no entitlement to a benefit by the Trust. Monies were advanced to her by the Trust to meet the cost in part of a unit where she resides but that sum is described in the Trust document as a loan. It is no coincidence that that person is the mother of all five beneficiaries named in the Trust documents. But that does not amount to her having an entitlement, by the Trust, to a benefit.
37. The issue relevantly to be determined is whether Mrs O'Meara passes the control test in relation to the Trust. For the purposes of the analysis that follows I am satisfied that she is the individual as that expression is used in s1207V and for the purposes of sub‑section (2) (d) (i) and (ii) her beneficial interest in the corpus or income and the beneficial interest in the capital or income held by her associates (refer s 1207C) being her siblings does amount to 50 percent or more.
38. Contrary to the submission of the applicant (paragraph 27 earlier), both parts of s 1207V(2)(d) must be read together. Part (ii) has no relevance if read alone. An associate of the individual, Mrs O'Meara, could be her mother (a relative – refer s 1207C(1)(e)) but only if she has a beneficial interest in the corpus or income of the Trust. As discussed, she has no such beneficial interest. The only associates are the siblings being the other four beneficiaries.
39. Being satisfied that the Trust is a controlled private trust and being satisfied that Mrs O'Meara is the individual, she is deemed pursuant to s 1207X(2) to be an attributable stakeholder (unless otherwise determined) and is also deemed to have an asset and income attribution percentage in relation to the Trust of 100 percent. That deemed finding may be reduced to a lower percentage in relation to Mrs O'Meara by application of the decision‑making principles found in the Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2000 being Legislative Instrument F 2007 B00425. Compliance with these Principles must occur if a determination is made pursuant to s 1207X of a specified percentage of attribution lower than 100 percent with respect to the assets and income of a trust attributable to an individual (the attributable stakeholder).
40. Despite the finding made by the SSAT, Mr Hamilton submitted that a finding should be made of 100 percent attribution in favour of Mrs O'Meara. He submitted that there was a failure to recognise or consider that Mrs O'Meara was a Director of the trustee company, that the trustee company was the trustee of the Trust, that Mrs O'Meara was a Class Guardian, that the other Director of the trustee company was an Associate, that other Class Guardians of the Trust were Associates, that the Class Appointors were Associates and a failure to consider the powers granted to the trustee company, the Class Guardians and the Class Appointors. Similar errors were alleged against the ARO who it was also alleged failed to apply the decision‑making principles under the Legislative Instrument. For the purposes of this part I note that the Secretary has not lodged an appeal against the finding made by the SSAT.
41. I found Mrs O'Meara and Mr Power to be witnesses of truth and I doubt that this review could have been satisfactory completed without their evidence.
42. Mrs O'Meara has virtually no involvement in the Trust other than participation in an annual general meeting and the signing of documents prepared for her by Mr Power. She does hold a loan account with the Trust and did benefit by the Trust making payment to Centrelink of the amount calculated as overpaid to her in benefit between 2002 and 2007.
43. Mr Power effectively manages the Trust by him calling meetings, preparing paperwork and lodging returns at appropriate statutory agencies. He confirmed that some monies have been paid to beneficiaries in the vicinity of approximately $5000.00 and a payment of approximately $60,000 was paid to one of the beneficiaries to meet the cost of private school fees for that beneficiary's child. He also confirmed that monies had been paid by the Trust to his mother, being the mother also of the other four beneficiaries, to meet the balance of purchase price for a unit in which she resides.
44. Mr Power said that should an issue emerge between the beneficiaries, a decision will be made either unanimously or by majority vote. He agreed that the Trust Deed permitted a distribution from the income and the capital of the Trust to any of the beneficiaries (Clause 10). Whilst the Trust had not ever resolved that each of the five siblings have a 20 percent interest in the Trust, there was a common understanding between all of those persons that the extent of their interest was confined to that percentage. He agreed that all of the Trust assets and income could be distributed to Mrs O'Meara if there was majority agreement amongst the beneficiaries but in his view that would not occur. That is to say, the theoretical possibility which he was asked to consider was, for practical purposes, virtually impossible, because a majority of the beneficiaries would not allow it to occur.
45. Part 2 of the decision‑making principles are concerned with whether a determination should be made that an individual is not an attributable stakeholder. I am not satisfied that this Part does apply. Paragraph 7 dictates consideration of whether there are relevant circumstances that would make it inappropriate for such a finding. Regard must be had to the circumstances arising from the legal structure of the Trust, from the administrative arrangements with respect to the Trust and whether an individual can be reasonably expected to exercise effective control.
46. Mrs O'Meara is a Director of the trustee company and a beneficiary, Class Guardian and Class Appointor of the Trust. She does have authority as a Director and is entitled to join with her siblings to make resolutions of the trustee company. She has received distributions from time to time and held a loan account of $81,602 at 21 July 2007. The Trust has paid her Centrelink debt. It is also reasonably foreseeable that Mrs O'Meara will benefit from future distributions. For these reasons I am not satisfied that Mrs O'Meara is not an attributable stakeholder.
47. For the purposes of Part 3 and Part 4 of the decision of the decision‑making principles and, in effect applying the circumstances recorded immediately above, I am satisfied that there should be an asset and income attribution percentage levied against Mrs O'Meara but in an amount less than 100 percent.
48. Mrs O'Meara is a Director of the trustee company and she is a beneficiary, Class Guardian and Class Appointor of the Trust. But she cannot act alone or in the absence of majority decisions made between all five siblings.
49. Whilst Mr Power said that it was theoretically possible that the other four siblings could decide to distribute all of the Trust capital and income to her, I am satisfied that a situation of that type would not occur in the absence of evidence from the other four siblings that they were prepared to immediately, or in the future, give up their interests in the Trust.
50. Mr Power said that all five siblings understood that they had a 20 percent interest in the Trust although there was no formal resolution to that effect. It is of interest to note that the Minutes of the Trustee Company on 30 June 2006 record that it was resolved that the net income of the Trust for that year be distributed to all five (named) siblings at 20 percent. In the Minutes of previous meetings, the whole of the net capital and foreign income is resolved to be distributed equally to all five (named) beneficiaries.
51. I am satisfied that the possibility of a 100 percent distribution of trust assets and income to Mrs O'Meara, although supported legally by the Trust Deed, must give way to the practical reality of the manner in which the Trust has been administered to date. From the evidence of Mr Power, decisions have been made in early years to distribute income from investments but in recent years to apply that income to loan accounts. Some modest distributions have been made and the only amounts of significance that have been paid were the monies advanced to meet the Centrelink debt on behalf of Mrs O'Meara and school fees on behalf of one of her sisters. It is not known whether those payments were made from the loan accounts of those persons or from the capital. The only other payment of significance that was learnt from these proceedings was the advance to Mrs O'Meara's mother but that payment was not made to her as a beneficiary. That payment advanced is recorded in the books of the Trust as a loan.
52. Acting alone, Mrs O'Meara is in a minority position but she has no greater power than any other individual beneficiary who alone is also in a minority position. The power that each of the five siblings has can be exercised only by a resolution of a majority. Whilst Mr Power undertakes most of the administrative work on behalf of the Trust, he does so without reward and I am not satisfied that he holds any greater power over the operation of the Trust than the other four siblings.
53. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to apportion attribution to Mrs O'Meara at 20 percent.
54. The submission (at the conclusion of the hearing) by the representative of the applicant that attribution should be found at 80 percent to Mrs O'Meara's mother and 20 percent to the five siblings collectively is therefore, for the above reasons and for the reasons at the commencement of this part, to be without merit.
debt/special circumstances
55. Having made the above findings I am satisfied that the amounts paid to the applicant between 2002 and 2007 are overpayments and do constitute a debt. That debt should be repaid because it was an amount of money paid to him to which he was not entitled (refer s 1223).
56. There were no submissions made by the applicant with respect to waiver or write off of the debt and upon the basis of what is known of the applicant and his circumstances I could not make a finding on either of those options. Certainly there is nothing which points to sole error on the part of the Commonwealth in the payments made between 2002 and 2007 (refer s 1237A).
57. With respect to s 1237AAD it was submitted that the applicant does possess special circumstances which should permit waiver of the debt. This provision is strictly not relevant because it need only be considered under this section if the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor (the applicant) knowingly making a false statement or false representation. Even if the applicant could satisfy that Part, and I doubt that he could, his circumstances are not special. Whilst he is an age pensioner and is now subject to a considerable debt, he and his wife do own considerable assets being their matrimonial home and another home in Rosebud. He has also had the benefit of Commonwealth funds to which he was not entitled. I am not satisfied that the requirement to repay those monies is unfair, unintended or unjust or that there is some feature out of the ordinary which would permit a finding that the circumstances of the applicant are special (refer Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Chamberlain [2002] FCA 67.
58. There was no challenge here or at the SSAT of the nett value of the Trust at relevant times, nor of the quantum of the overpayment as calculated by Centrelink.
59. Further purposes of this decision I am satisfied that the 20 percent attribution of Mrs O'Meara should be calculated against the nett value of trust assets at the dates and in the documents below, as found by the SSAT and conceded by the respondent (refer paragraph 72 of Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions):
8 March 2002 $1,371,242
30 October 2004 $1,418,819
21 July 2007 $2,915,745
60. The calculation of overpayment has regard to statutory provisions concerning allowable levels of assets and income before any overpayment is calculated. The Centrelink methodology and calculations are contained within the T documents. Mr O'Meara is entitled to seek clarification or explanation from Centrelink of the sum calculated as the overpayment.
61. For all of the above reasons I am satisfied that the decision under review of 20 percent attribution to Mrs O'Meara should be affirmed.
I certify that the 61 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Mr John Handley, Senior MemberSigned: Grace Carney, Personal Assistant
Dates of Hearing 24 October and 21 November 2008
Date of Decision 4 December 2008
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr K Tringas
Departmental Advocate Mr B Hamilton
3
2
0