Sambevski and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Sambevski against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding Family Tax Benefit payments. The core dispute revolved around whether "special circumstances" existed that would permit a late lodgement of Mr Sambevski's tax return for the 2013/2014 financial year, which was a prerequisite for receiving a top-up payment. The case was heard by Mr Conrad Ermert, a Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether there were special circumstances that prevented Mr Sambevski from lodging his tax return before the end of the 2013/2014 financial year. Mr Sambevski contended that he and his wife had not received a notice from Centrelink advising them of a reduced timeframe for lodging tax returns, and that mail was occasionally misdelivered to their neighbours. He argued that if they had received the notice, they would have complied with its advice.

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "special circumstances" as interpreted in previous cases, including *Beadle and Director-General of Social Security* and *Groth and Secretary Department of Social Security*. These decisions established that special circumstances must be unusual, uncommon, or exceptional, and markedly different from the usual run of cases, such that something unfair, unintended, or unjust had occurred. The Tribunal found that the non-receipt of mail due to misdelivery, while unfortunate, was not an unusual or uncommon occurrence. Furthermore, legislation, such as section 29(1) of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth) and section 224(3) of the *Administration Act*, presumes service by post is effective unless proven otherwise, and that delivery occurs in the ordinary course of post. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances presented did not meet the threshold for "special circumstances."

As the Tribunal was unable to exercise the discretion to allow the late lodgement due to the absence of special circumstances, Mr Sambevski was not entitled to an increased reconciled amount of Family Tax Benefit for the 2012/2013 financial year based on his actual combined adjusted taxable income. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.