Riordan and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2018] AATA 1478

Riordan and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2018] AATA 1478 (10 April 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/PC013680

APPLICANT:  Mr Riordan

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Deputy President J Walsh

DECISION DATE:  10 April 2018

CATCHWORDS
Child support - Refusal of an extension of time to object - A decision to accept an estimate of income - No reasonable prospect of success - Application for review dismissed

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. In this matter, Mr Riordan seeks review of a decision dated 22 February 2018 refusing to grant him an extension of time within which to object to a decision dated 2 May 2017 to accept his estimate of 2018 adjusted taxable income of $68,331 to be applied to the child support assessment from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018. Mr Riordan’s complaint is that, once his actual 2017 adjusted taxable income of $69,313 became available, that income figure should have been used in the child support assessment thereafter.

2. I convened a directions hearing today. Mr Riordan’s position reflects the ordinary Part 5 formula-based approach under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. However, where an income estimate has been accepted, subsection 61(1A) of the Assessment Act requires that it apply, here, for the full 2018 financial year. It follows Mr Riordan’s position is contrary to the relevant law and cannot be accepted. Mr Riordan says he was given misleading information by the CSA. Even if that was so, it does not change the way in which the relevant legislation applies in this matter.

3. It follows that Mr Riordan’s case cannot succeed on the law. There is no utility in granting an extension of time to permit an objection which cannot succeed. It is therefore appropriate to dismiss his application under subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success. I determine accordingly.

Deputy President J Walsh