Shoesmith and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Servi Ces

[2003] AATA 590

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 590

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/967

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		NATALIE SHOESMITH

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller

Date16 June 2003

PlaceLismore

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

D.W. MULLER

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – overpayment, actual annual income higher than estimates

Social Security Act 1991

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Don Muller       

1.This is an application to review a decision to recover a family tax benefit debt of $524.62 for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.

2.The facts are as follows:

(i)On 1 July 2001, the Applicant provided an estimate of the income of her husband and herself for the purposes of calculating the rate of payment of the family tax benefit.  She estimated that her husband’s annual income would be $43,000 and that she would earn nothing.  The benefit was paid to her at a rate which was based on those figures.

(ii)On 12 September 2001, the Applicant provided a revised estimate of earnings.  She estimated that her husband would earn $41,000 and that she would earn $10,000.  The rate of benefit was revised to reflect a combined annual income of $51,000.

(iii)In November 2001, the Applicant provided a further revised estimate of earnings.  She estimated that her husband would earn $41,500 and that she would earn $11,500.  The rate of benefit was revised to reflect a combined annual income of $53,000.

(iv)On 2 March 2002, the Applicant provided a further revised estimate of earnings.  She estimated that her husband would earn $46,5000 and that she would earn $12,500.  The rate of benefit was revised to reflect a combined annual income of $59,000 and was paid at the revised rate through to 30 June 2002.

(v)The actual incomes for the tax year ended June 2002, were $11,740 for the Applicant and $46,302 for her husband.  That is, the total annual income was $58,042.

3.Although the family tax benefit was paid to the Applicant fortnightly throughout the relevant financial year, the rate was calculated on an annual basis.  Consequently, the rate had to be re-adjusted retrospectively when the actual income eventually became known at the end of the financial year.  In the final analysis the Applicant had been paid $524.62 more than she should have been.

4.The amount of $524.62 which the Applicant was overpaid is a debt owed by the Applicant to the Commonwealth.

5.There is no suggestion of dishonesty.  There has simply been a reconciliation of the rates based on the estimates of incomes and the rate based on the actual incomes.

6.The decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is affirmed.

I certify that the 6 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Don Muller

Signed:         .......................................................................................
           C. O’Donovan, Associate

Date/s of Hearing  16 June 2003
Date of Decision  16 June 2003
Applicant  No Appearance
Respondent  Ms. H. Wallis-Dunn, departmental advocate