PAMELA GROUNDS and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

[2009] AATA 223

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 223

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/4269

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PAMELA GROUNDS

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC

Date3 April 2009

PlaceBrisbane (heard in Maryborough)

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.............Signed..................

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – family tax benefit – adjusted taxable income – assessable income nil - net rental property loss – overpayment of benefit – waiver – no special circumstances – decision under review affirmed

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) Schedule 3, clause 2(1)

A New Tax System (Family Assistance)(Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 97, 101

Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541

Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Varela [2006] AATA 640

REASONS FOR DECISION

3 April 2009   Deputy President P E Hack SC    

1.This is an application by Mrs Pamela Grounds in which she seeks to review a decision, made by Centrelink on 4 July 2008, to raise and recover a family tax benefit debt in the amount of $80.30 in respect of the 2006/2007 financial year. It is said by the respondent, the Secretary of the Department Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs that this debt arose from an overpayment of family tax benefit on the basis of estimates of income which were less than Mrs Grounds’ actual adjusted taxable income. The decision was affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 27 August 2008.

2.I need point out, at the outset, that the Tribunal does not possess a general jurisdiction to review decisions made, discretions exercised or not exercised, or general policy decisions made on behalf of the Secretary. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions is limited to those decisions where a statute makes provision for such a review. And in undertaking that review the Tribunal is bound (as is the Secretary) to apply the legislation enacted by the Parliament. I am not free to impose idiosyncratic notions of what is fair, I must apply the law to the facts as they are found to be.

3.Thus, whatever view I may have about the utility of proceedings in this Tribunal involving an overpayment of $80.30 I am not at liberty to give effect to that view, I must consider the arguments of the parties and apply the law to the facts as agreed or found, to determine whether the decision under review was the correct or preferable one.

4.I do not understand Mrs Grounds (whose arguments were presented by her husband Mr Grounds) to take issue with the facts as they have been set out in the Secretary’s statement of facts and contentions lodged on 22 January 2009. What follows is taken from that statement.

5.Mrs Grounds received family tax benefit during the 2006/2007 income year. Her entitlement to that benefit was calculated and paid on the…