Rauser and Haimowitz (Child support) - [2020] AATA 2033

Rauser and Haimowitz (Child support) [2020] AATA 2033 (19 March 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2019/MC017653
APPLICANT:  Mr Rauser
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Haimowitz

TRIBUNAL:Member Y Webb
DECISION DATE: 19 March 2020
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of both parents - benefits derived from business – costs of the children include private education - decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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

BACKGROUND

This review relates to the issue of child support regarding the youngest child (“the child”) of Mr Rauser and Ms Haimowitz. The child is 16 years old and according to the Department of Human Services’ (“Child Support Agency”) records the child is in the 100% care of Ms Haimowitz.
The child support case has been registered for collection by the Child Support Agency since 19 November 2015.
On 28 February 2019, Ms Haimowitz applied to the Child Support Agency for a change to the administrative assessment on the basis of Reasons 3, 8A and 8B. Mr Rauser cross-applied on the basis of Reasons 5 and 8A.
At the time of Ms Haimowitz’s application for a change to the assessment, the administrative formula assessment calculated that for the period 1 March 2019 to 31 May 2020 Mr Rauser was assessed to pay an annual rate of child support of $3,173 based on his 2017/2018 adjusted taxable income of $41,874 and a 2017/2018 adjusted taxable income of $121,684 for Ms Haimowitz.
On 5 July 2019 a delegate of the Registrar, [decided] that Reasons 3, 5 and 8B had not been established but that Reason 8A had been established in relation to both parents. The delegate varied both parents’ adjusted taxable incomes for the period 28 February 2019 until a terminating event occurred for the child. She varied Mr Rauser’s adjusted taxable income to $62,173 and Ms Haimowitz’s to $170,175.
On 16 August 2019 Ms Haimowitz objected to that decision and on 10 October 2019 an objections officer partly allowed her objection, finding that Reasons 3 and 8A had been established. The objections officer varied Mr Rauser’s adjusted taxable income to $62,099 and Ms Haimowitz’s to $180,680. The objections officer also decided that Mr Rauser should, from 1 October 2019 until the child turned 18 or ceased to be an eligible child of the assessment, contribute approximately $6,000 per year to the child’s school fees. This resulted in an annual child support liability of approximately $5,400 from 28 February 2019 and an annual child support liability of $11,295 inclusive of the 20% school fee contribution from 1 October 2019.
On 18 October 2019 Mr Rauser requested review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rauser and Haimowitz (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 2033
Decision Date: 19 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia regarding a child support departure determination. The applicants, Rauser and Haimowitz, sought to challenge a decision made by a Senior Child Support Registrar. The core of the dispute revolved around the assessment of the income, property, and financial resources of both parents, and specifically, the benefits derived from a business. The costs associated with the children's private education were also a significant factor in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the Senior Child Support Registrar had erred in their assessment of the parents' financial circumstances and the resulting child support payable. Specifically, the appeal raised questions about how to properly account for benefits derived from a business when calculating a parent's income for child support purposes, and whether the Registrar had adequately considered the costs associated with the children's private education in their departure determination.

The Full Court affirmed the decision of the Senior Child Support Registrar. The court's reasoning focused on the Registrar's proper application of the relevant legislative provisions concerning the assessment of income, property, and financial resources. The court found that the Registrar had correctly considered the benefits derived from the business and had taken into account the costs of the children's private education when making the departure determination. The principles applied centred on the legislative framework for child support assessments and the Registrar's discretion within that framework.

Orders