Tritton and Ashley (Child support)

[2023] AATA 4466

Tritton and Ashley (Child support) [2023] AATA 4466 (14 December 2023)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/MC026560

APPLICANT:  Mr Tritton

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Ashley

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member S De Bono

DECISION DATE:  14 December 2023

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides as follows:

• For the period 12 October 2022 to 23 April 2023 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $99,000;

• For the period 24 April 2023 to 14 October 2023 Mr Tritton‘s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000;

• For the period 15 October 2023 to 14 January 2024 Mr ’s administrative assessment of child support reverts back to the administrative assessment based on Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income of $87,007;

• For the period 15 January 2023 to 31 December 2024 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income and financial resources of the liable parent – benefits derived from business – decision under review set aside and substituted

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

1. The issue to be considered in this application is whether there is a reason to change the administrative assessment of child support and, if so, whether it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to do so.

2. Ms Ashley and Mr Tritton are the parents of [Children 1-3] (the children). There has been a child support agreement in place from 14 November 2017. Services Australia (Child Support) has collected child support from Mr Tritton as the parent liable to pay child support from 11 October 2022. The children are recorded as being in Ms Ashley’s 100% care.

3. Prior to Ms Ashley’s departure application (known as a change of assessment application) the administrative assessment in place was as follows:

   ·For the period 1 March 2022 to 31 August 2022 Mr Tritton was required to pay child support of $5,655 annually based on his 2020/2021 adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $47,266 and Ms Ashley’s provisional ATI of $27,574.

   ·For the period 1 September 2022 to 30 November 2023 Mr Tritton was assessed to pay $15,990 in child support based on his 2021/2022 ATI of $87,007 and Ms Ashley’s provisional ATI of $27,574.

4. There was a previous change of assessment which applied for the period 12 February 2020 to 28 February 2022 which set Mr Tritton’s ATI at $90,661.

5. On 11 October 2022 Ms Ashley lodged a change of assessment application on the basis that in the special circumstances of the case, the administrative assessment of child support would result in an inequitable level of financial support to be provided by Mr Tritton, because his income and financial resources were not reflected in the administrative assessment of child support (known as Reason 8A). Ms Ashley also applied on the basis that in the special circumstances of the case, Mr Tritton’s earning capacity is greater than is reflected in his income for child support purposes (known as Reason 8B).

6. On 30 January 2023 Child Support made the following departure determination finding Reason 8A established and changed the administrative assessment as follows:

   ·For the period 12 October 2022 to 31 October 2025, Mr Tritton’s income is to be set at $167,286. This income is to be increased by the child support inflation factor on 1 November 2023 and 1 November 2024.

7. On 8 March 2023 Mr Tritton lodged an objection to this decision. On 14 July 2023 an objections officer partially allowed Mr Tritton’s objection, setting aside the decision above and replacing it with the following change of assessment:

   ·For the period 12 October 2022 to 31 October 2026 the ATI of Mr Tritton is set at $140,000.

   This means Mr Tritton is required to pay Ms Ashley $2,454 monthly in child support.

8. On 10 August 2023 Mr Tritton sought further review with the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Directions were issued to both parties on 2 November 2023. On 14 December 2023 a telephone hearing was held in which Ms Ashley and Mr Tritton gave evidence under affirmation. The Tribunal considered the documents and information provided to the Tribunal and the parties prior to the hearing, as well as the oral evidence of Ms Ashley and Mr Tritton.[1] Relevant aspects of the material and evidence will be referred to in the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision.

CONSIDERATION

[1] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 subsection 37(1) and section 38AA Statement and Documents provided by Child Support numbered 1 to 421; Mr Tritton’s documents numbered A1 to A398; and Ms Ashley’s documents numbered B1 to B56.

1. The rate of child support payable by a liable parent is usually based on an administrative assessment under Part 5 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). The liable parent or a carer may apply for a determination departing from the administrative assessment under Part 6A of the Assessment Act.

2. Section 98C of the Assessment Act establishes a three-step process to be satisfied: that there is a ground for departure; that it is just and equitable to depart; and that it is otherwise proper to make a departure determination. Once satisfied, the Tribunal may make one of the determinations prescribed in section 98S of the Assessment Act.

Reason 8A – income, property and financial resources of Mr Tritton

1. The grounds for departure from an administrative assessment of child support are those set out in subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Assessment Act provides that a ground for departure from an administrative assessment arises as follows:

   (c)      that, in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child:

   ….

   (ia)     because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent;

2. The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the Assessment Act. In Gyselman and Gyselman,[2] the Full Family Court indicated that for there to be special circumstances, the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary.

   [2] [1991] FamCA 93.

3. Mr Tritton submitted that the administrative assessment determined by the objections officer did not reflect his current ATI as shown in his 2021/2022 tax return and this has resulted in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by him to the children. Ms Ashley submitted that she thought a fairer assessment of Mr Tritton’s income was reflected in the original departure determination.

4. Mr Tritton said he owns his own business, [Company] (the company) as a courier driver, the business was registered [in] October 2019.[3] Mr Tritton is the sole director and shareholder of the company. On 20 January 2021 Mr Tritton entered into a contract with [Principal] as an independent contractor. The contract stipulates Mr Tritton is to provide his own vehicles and maintain the vehicles at his expense. Mr Tritton said he was required to display [Principal]’s signage on the vehicles and the vehicles are to be kept overnight at [Principal] property, he said this is a requirement of [Principal]. On occasion Mr Tritton said he may take a van overnight to his home if he has to get the vehicles washed or serviced. Mr Tritton said he does not use the vans for his personal use and generally drives his own car to and from [Principal]. The Tribunal accepted this submission and finds that 100% of the vans are utilised for business purposes.

   [3] A3 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

5. The payment arrangement with [Principal] is found in Schedule 2 to the contract. Mr Tritton said he is paid based on the number of deliveries he does, and the weight of the package. He said he works six days a week and has two vans on the road, another driver subcontracts to him.

6. Mr Tritton said he has two vans both branded with the [Principal] decal. Mr Tritton initially purchased a van through the company on 20 April 2021 financed through [Finance company 1], the loan is over a five-year term and Mr Tritton is paying $954.31 monthly.[4] The company then leased another van through [Finance company 2] on 30 January 2023 on a five-year lease to own loan, ending in December 2027, monthly repayments are $1,177.54.[5]

   [4] A39 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

   [5] A41–A42 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

7. Mr Tritton said he has a business loan with [Finance company 3] for $70,000. Documents before the Tribunal show repayments of $838.90 weekly, commencing on 2 July 2023 and ending on 23 May 2024.[6]

   [6] A380–A384 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

8. Company tax returns before the Tribunal show the following:

Financial year ending 30 June 2022[7]	Financial year ending 30 June 2023[8]
Total business income	$335,788	$259,761
Contractor, subcontractor and commission expenses	$135,717	$81,637
Rent expenses	$9,000	-
Depreciation expenses	$41,357	$52,584
Motor vehicle expenses	$41,839	$57,032
All other expenses	$19,885	$68,508
Total expenses	$248,771	$259,761
Taxable income	$87,007	$0

[7] A44–A56 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

[8] A82–A86 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

1. Mr Tritton said gross business income from deliveries reduced from the 2022 to 2023 financial year due to COVID-19 restrictions easing in Melbourne towards the end of 2022. Mr Tritton said during COVID-19 online shopping increased and there was an increase in demand for deliveries, resulting in an increase in income for the company in 2022. During the 2023 financial year this demand reduced resulting in a reduction of business income. Mr Tritton said he does not expect the company’s income to increase to the level which existed during COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Melbourne.

2. Mr Tritton said the difference in the fuel costs between the 2022 and 2023 financial year was due to increases in the cost of fuel. Mr Tritton said he keeps a record of the running costs for the vans, including fuel and services via a log book for the whole financial year. Mr Tritton considered the vehicle expenses outlined in the company tax returns accurately reflect the annual expenses for the two vehicles. The Tribunal accepted this submission.

3. In relation to the depreciation expenses of $41,357 for the 2022 financial year and $52,584 for the 2023 financial year, this was a deduction for general small business pool.[9] The small business pool is a simplified depreciation rule which applies to most depreciating assets and includes vehicles such as vans.

   [9] Pages A51 and A86 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

4. Mr Tritton said he could not provide financial statements for the company as this would be at an additional cost to his accountant and he currently cannot afford this. Mr Tritton thought the depreciation expenses related to the two vehicles. Mr Tritton said the cost of vehicles has also increased, he said he purchased his first vehicle for about $50,000 but by the time he purchased the second vehicle this was about $61,000.

5. The small business pool is a simplified depreciation rule which applies to most depreciating assets including vans for business which have an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million from 1 July 2016.

6. The Tribunal also asked Mr Tritton about the other expenses which are not specifically broken down, $19,885 for the 2022 financial year, and $68,508 for the 2023 financial year. Mr Tritton said the amount of $68,508 includes directors’ fees of $51,171 paid to Mr Tritton in the 2022/2023 financial year.[10] Mr Tritton could not elaborate further on these expenses.

   [10] Page A98 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

7. Mr Tritton has liabilities in terms of the van loans of $25,582.20 annually, a business loan to [Finance company 3] which is currently $43,622.80 annually. In relation to the business loan, Mr Tritton said he borrowed money for the business but has used some of these funds for personal expenses as well.

8. Mr Tritton said he rented a small office during the 2022 financial year but could not continue to do this in 2023. The Tribunal accepted rent as a cost to the business in the 2021/2022 financial year which reduces the company’s income accordingly.

9. Mr Tritton said he has had a couple of drivers who were contracted to him that have “come and gone”. Subcontractor deductions were $135,171 for the 2021/2022 financial year and $81,637 for the 2022/2023 financial year. The subcontractors for Mr Tritton were [Subcontractor] and then, [Mr A] who commenced a contract with Mr Tritton in around March 2023. Mr Tritton said the reduction in the subcontractor costs reflected the reduction in deliveries and included a period when Mr Tritton did not have a driver, he thought this was for a period of about 6 weeks from July 2022, business bank statements before the Tribunal confirm this submission.

10. The following bank statements were before the Tribunal:

    ·[Bank 1] online Business cash account ending in account number 4209;

    ·[Bank 1] account ending in account number 4217;

    ·[Bank 1] GST payment account ending in account number 4233;

    ·[Bank 1 Business] account ending in account number 4241;

    ·[Bank 2] account ending in account number 3414.

11. Mr Tritton said all the income from the company is deposited into the [Bank 2 account] ending in account number 4241, he withdraws money from the company account to his personal [Bank 2] account ending in account number 3414.

12. The Tribunal notes that there are deposits from Mr Tritton’s [Business] account ending in account 4241 paid into his personal CBA account which total around net $36,000 for the period 21 July 2022 to 21 July 2023.[11] Grossed up, this amount is equivalent to a gross income of $64,431.[12] Mr Tritton’s personal tax return for the financial year ending 2023 shows a gross income from directors’ fees of $51,171.[13]

    [11] Pages 176–220 of the section 37(1) documents and A253 to A275 of the hearing papers.

    [12] This is based on tax that would be payable on a net amount of $36,000 which would be $28,430.

    [13] Page A98 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton’s income from the company paid to him by transfers from the business account to his personal account for the 2022/2023 financial year added to his directors’ fees is equivalent to a gross annual income of $64,431.

14. The Tribunal then considered whether some expenses deducted from the Access Advantage Business account ending in account number 4241 could be considered personal expenses in nature. For the period 29 March 2023 to 12 May 2023 personal expenditure included purchases of groceries, gym membership, nutritional supplements, takeaway food, haircuts and clothes.[14] The Tribunal considered these expenses as personal expenses and not business expenses.

    [14] See Appendix 1 which shows a snapshot of personal expenses.

15. The Tribunal excluded payments that appeared to be payments for fuel, insurances and car parking which the Tribunal accepted these associated costs in running the business.

16. For the period 29 March 2023 to 12 May 2023 the Tribunal noted that there was around $5,000 in personal expenses in a period of 45 days or about 6 weeks. This equates to personal expenditure of around $800 a week by Mr Tritton from his business account. Given that Mr Tritton uses his business account for personal expenses, the Tribunal accepts that over the course of a financial year of 52 weeks that Mr Tritton’s personal expenditure from his business account is likely to be around $41,000 for a 12-month period.

17. The Tribunal is satisfied that about $36,000 net was deposited into Mr Tritton’s personal account and approximately $41,000 net in personal expenses was withdrawn from his business account. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton’s net income from the company would be in the vicinity of $77,000 (this is equivalent to a gross income of $99,900 annually).  Mr Tritton confirmed his rent for his primary residence is also deducted from his business account. The first rental payment of $1,869 was deducted from his business account on 26 April 2023 and is paid monthly, annually this is an expense of $22,428. The company tax return confirmed that Mr Tritton is no longer paying rent for business premises, so there are no deductions in relation to a home office which have been claimed for the 2022/2023 financial year.

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton has access to the gross business income which he has used for personal expenses, the Tribunal has determined that this includes net $36,000 deposited from the business account into Mr Tritton’s personal account. Personal expenses deducted from his business account are calculated to be net $41,000 and, rental payments of net $22,428 annually for his current residence which commenced on 24 April 2023, is also deducted from his business account. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton has had access to the business income for personal use during the 2022/2023 financial year in the range of net $99,000. A net income of $99,000 is equivalent to gross annual income of around $133,000.

19. The Tribunal concludes that a large portion of both ‘depreciation expenses’ and ‘other expenses’ shown in the table in paragraph 18 of these Reasons, are used by Mr Tritton for his personal use but in turn reduces his gross income from the business accordingly.

20. It is well established in case law that there exists a common situation of a self-employed person’s taxable income not corresponding with his or her income or financial resources for child support purposes.[15] In Costa & Fairbank[16]  the Court said about the interpretation of the term “financial resources”:

    “Financial resource” refers to something which is not property but from which financial benefit is or may be gained. In light of the objects of the Act, the term should be broadly defined and would refer to any financial benefit that would enhance the capacity of parents to provide a proper level of financial support for their children.

    [15] See Voss v Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 1296).

    [16] (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 39.

21. The courts have also concluded that a “forensic audit” or major investigation of the financial circumstances of a party is not required to be undertaken. Rather, there must be satisfaction on the balance of probabilities as to the party’s income, property and financial resources.[17]

    [17] See for example Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1305.

22. The Tribunal has determined that Mr Tritton has had the advantage of the small business pool depreciation, this reduces his gross business income and has allowed him to add to his personal financial resources, by using some of the depreciation costs as additional for personal expenses. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is a financial resource available to Mr Tritton which is over and above his personal taxable income.

23. Mr Tritton claimed depreciation expenses of $41,357 for the 2022 financial year and $52,584 for the 2023 financial year. Accordingly, in light of the Tribunal’s findings in relation to Mr Tritton’s personal expenditure $41,000 is added back to Mr Tritton’s gross business income. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton’s personal income from the company for the 2022/2023 financial year is in the vicinity of $99,000 from 1 July 2023 and $133,000 from 24 April 2023.

1. At the time of Ms Ashley’s change of assessment application Mr Tritton’s administrative assessment of child support was based on his 2022/2023 taxable income of $87,007, this required Mr Tritton to pay an annual amount in child support of $15,999.

2. Setting Mr Tritton’s income at $99,000 will increase Mr Tritton’s child support liability to $18,768, an increase of $2,778 on the administrative assessment in place at the time of Ms Ashley’s departure application.

3. Setting Mr Tritton’s income at $133,000 means he will have an annual child support liability of $27,414 which is an increase of $11,424 in Mr Tritton’s child support liability. This differs slightly from the objections officer’s decision by reducing Mr Tritton’s child support liability.

4. As there is a difference in child support liability from the administrative assessment in place at the time of Ms Ashley’s change of assessment application of $2,778 and then $11,925, consequently, the Tribunal is satisfised that these are special circumstances which are out of the ordinary and uncommon which make the administrative assessment in place at that time unjust and inequitable. Accordingly, a ground for departure in accordance with Reason 8A is met.

5. As Mr Tritton is currently employed full time in his own business as a courier driver, the Tribunal is satisfied he does not have unexercised earning capacity and a ground for departure in accordance with Reason 8B is not met.

Would a departure from the administrative assessment be just and equitable?

1. Having found that special circumstances exist such that the administrative assessment resulted in an unjust and inequitable result, a ground for departure is established in relation to subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) (Reason 8A) of the Assessment Act, the next step for the Tribunal is to consider whether it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment.

2. In deciding whether it is just and equitable, the Tribunal had regard to the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act. Section 3 of the Assessment Act makes it clear that the parents of a child have the primary duty to maintain the child over all commitments, other than commitments necessary for self-support or the support of another person to which they have a duty to support.

The needs of the children

1. In determining the proper needs of a child, it is necessary to have regard to the manner in which the child is being, and in which the parents expected the child to be, cared for, educated or trained, and any special needs of the child (subsection 117(6) of the Assessment Act). The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the parties relating to the needs of the children.

2. Both [Child 1] and [Child 2] are enrolled in [School], a private [Religious] school from prep to Year 12. Ms Ashley said at present the school is aware of her situation and she is not required to pay school fees. Annual school fees for 2024 are $2,368 for one child and $2,013 for a second child.[18] Ms Ashley also included costs for [Religious] classes and [Sport] classes, as well as a stationery list for [Child 1] for Grade 1 for 2023.[19]

   [18] [School’s website URL]

   [19] B45–B50 of Ms Ashley’s submissions.

3. The Tribunal does not consider private [Religious] classes or [Sport] classes a special need but rather extra activities that parents or the children may want to participate in. School stationery is covered in the general administrative assessment of child support and is also not a special need.

4. Both Ms Ashley and Mr Tritton confirmed that the children have no special needs and currently Ms Ashley said she does not have a liability for school fees. If this changes she can lodge a new change of assessment application.

5. Both Ms Ashley and Mr Tritton confirmed that the children do not have any income or financial resources of their own.

Ms Ashley’s income, property and financial resources

1. Ms Ashley said she is not currently working and has not worked since [Child 1] was born. [Child 1] is now 7 years old. Ms Ashley is in receipt of parenting payment (single) and family tax benefit (FTB). She lives in public housing.

2. Ms Ashley on her Statement of Financial Circumstances (SOFC) shows parenting payment (single) of $922.10 which she has indicated is a weekly amount but is actually the fortnightly rate, and FTB of $573 fortnightly. Ms Ashley indicates rent of $339.90 weekly, which leaves her with around $1,200 fortnightly for all other expenses. Child support is added to this amount. Ms Ashley owns a [Vehicle] which she values at $10,000, this is her only asset. She has limited savings. Ms Ashley confirmed that her SOFC was an accurate reflection of her financial circumstances and the Tribunal accepts this.

Mr Tritton’s SOFC

1. Mr Tritton indicates total average gross weekly income to be $3,500 (or $182,000) annually.[20] But he said his income fluctuates and is dependent upon how much work he has. He indicates weekly expenses of $2,236.[21] The Tribunal has determined that Mr Tritton’s bank statements hold a more accurate determination of his income and financial resources.

   [20] A327 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

   [21] A331 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

2. Mr Tritton said he is currently disqualified from driving for the period 15 October 2023 to 14 January 2024, this was confirmed by a letter from VicRoads.[22] He is currently receiving 5% of the business income from the driver he has contracted to drive for him. Mr Tritton said he is struggling financially at present.

   [22] A2 of Mr Tritton’s submissions.

3. As the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tritton has had access to financial resources, being business income for personal expenses, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment of child support at the time of Ms Ashley’s application to change the assessment.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following departure determination:

• For the period 12 October 2022 to 23 April 2023 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $99,000;

• for the period 24 April 2023 to 14 October 2023 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000;

• for the period 15 October 2023 to 14 January 2024 Mr Tritton’s administrative assessment of child support reverts back to the administrative assessment based on Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income of $87,007.

• for the period 15 January 2023 to 31December 2024 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000.

Would there be resulting hardship from a departure from the administrative assessment?

1. Subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act requires the Tribunal to take into account whether any departure determination or failure to make a departure will cause any hardship to the child, the carer, the liable parent or any other person the parents have a duty to support.

2. The Tribunal finds that, based on the evidence and information provided to Child Support and to the Tribunal, it is unlikely that either parent will experience hardship from this departure determination and this departure determination is a more accurate reflection of Mr Tritton’s access to financial resources a portion of which he has utilised for personal use from the business. The Tribunal’s decision recognises that Mr Tritton’s income will be reduced for the period that he is disqualified from driving. The Tribunal expects Mr Tritton will return to driving once his suspension period has ended.

3. Mr Tritton has claimed depreciation which has meant he has had access to financial resources from his business activities for personal use. The Tribunal is satisfied that the departure determination will not cause hardship for Mr Tritton as he uses the income for the business for personal discretionary spending.

4. The Tribunal has shortened the departure period given there exists a degree of uncertainly with the Australian economy and the prospect of further interests rate raises creating further pressure on household expenditure which may impact Mr Tritton’s income from his business. The Tribunal wanted to balance the departure period with economic uncertainty, while also providing some certainty going forward for Ms Ashley.

Is it otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination?

1. The third step is to consider whether it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination in accordance with sub-subparagraph 98C(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Assessment Act. Subsection 117(5) of the Assessment Act sets out the matters that must be considered when deciding whether it would be “otherwise proper” to make a departure determination. Subsection 117(5) focuses on the balance of support carried between the parents on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. It is appropriate for the children to be primarily supported by their parents rather than by government assistance. Paragraph 117(5)(b) of the Assessment Act means that the Tribunal must consider whether the level of a benefit, in particular family tax benefit, received by the party caring for the children may be affected by the level of child support. The Tribunal has concluded that it is otherwise proper in the circumstances to depart from the administrative assessment.

2. The Tribunal notes that it is open to either party to lodge further change of assessment applications should future circumstances of either party change significantly from the circumstances upon which this decision is based.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides as follows:

• For the period 12 October 2022 to 23 April 2023 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $99,000;

• For the period 24 April 2023 to 14 October 2023 Mr Tritton‘s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000;

• For the period 15 October 2023 to 14 January 2024 Mr Tritton’s administrative assessment of child support reverts back to the administrative assessment based on Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income of $87,007;

• For the period 15 January 2023 to 31 December 2024 Mr Tritton’s adjusted taxable income is set at $133,000.

Appendix 1. A sample of Tribunal identified personal expenditure from [Bank 1] Business Account ending in account number 4241:

Date	Purchased	Amount	Page
29/3/2023	7-Eleven	$3.50	A139
$3.50
McDonalds	$4.50
$12.00
[Restaurant 1]	$78.20
30/3/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
[Butcher]	$30.00
3/4/2023	[Fitness]	$22.50
[Beauty]	$38.00
[Cafe 1]	$39.55
[Barber]	$54.99	A140
4/4/2023	[Religious] store	$20.00
[Ice Cream]	$56.96
5/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
[Restaurant 2]	$137.43
[Restaurant 3]	$139.77
6/4/2023	7 Eleven	$3.00
Ampol	$5.50
Krispy Creme	$25.90
7-Eleven	$3.00
11/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.50	A141
[Fast food 1]	$4.00
7-Eleven	$7.00
[Fast food 1]	$12.00
[Desserts 1]	$16.30
[Fitness]	$22.50
[Café 2]	$31.88
Oporto	$36.95
[Entertainment]	$56.00
12/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00	A142
[Café 3]	$123.50
[Touring]	$129.41
13/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
[Desserts 2]	$32.00
7-Eleven	$2.00
14/4/2023	[Lifestyle]	$24.25
Coles	$33.21
[Supermarket]	$48.55
17/4/2023	7 Eleven	$7.00
[Lifestyle]	$12.75
[Fitness]	$22.50
[Desserts 2]	$35.00
[Entertainment]	$128.00	A143
18/4/2023	7-Eleven	$12.00
[Venue 1] Melbourne	$22.00
[Restaurant 1]	$23.32
[Venue 2] Melbourne	$45.00
[Kebabs 1]	$54.97
20/4/2023	7-Eleven	$2.00
[Café 1]	$12.75
[Restaurant 4]	$34.00
21/4/2023	7-Eleven	$2.00	A144
24/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
$6.00
Muffin Break	$9.00
7-Eleven	$11.00
[Fitness]	$22.50
[Take Away 1]	$29.00
[Beauty]	$40.00
[Fashion]	$45.00
26/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.50
$6.40	A145
[Butcher]	$10.00
Chemist Warehouse	$10.07
[Fast food 2]	$18.23
[Café 4]	$26.50
[Barber]	$81.50
27/4/2023	7-Eleven	$1.50
Coles Express	$3.00
[Ice Cream]	$25.98
Coles Express	$49.95
[Restaurant 5]	$213.37
28/4/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
McDonald’s	$4.50
[Fast food 2]	$18.23
[Retail]	$212.05	A146
[Shoes]	$349.00
1/5/2023	[Sweets]	$2.29	A153
BP [Location]	$2.50
$2.50
7-Eleven	$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
Woolworths	$4.80
7-Eleven	$5.00
Coles	$7.50
$8.50
7 Eleven	$9.00
[Fast food 2]	$18.23
[Fitness]	$22.50
[Venue 3]	$25.00
$25.00
[Take Away 1]	$28.00
[Restaurant 1]	$28.40
Oporto	$28.95	A154
Hungry Jacks	$30.75
$40.30
[Venue 3]	$50.00
Coles	$56.60
[Cakes]	$97.48
[Supplements 1]	$224.85
2/5/2023	BP [Location]	$1.50
7-Eleven	$3.00
[Café 5]	$13.69
$16.73
[Fast food 2]	$18.23
[Restaurant 4]	$20.00
[Venue 2]	$45.00
[Butcher]	$62.20
3/5/2023	Coles	$1.50	A155
BP [Location]	$1.50
McDonald’s	$4.50
[Mall]	$15.66
[Restaurant 6]	$70.30
[Supplements 2]	$129.85
4/5/2023	Coles	$2.50
Coles	$7.86
Oporto	$15.45
[Mall]	$18.18
[Butcher]	$10.00
[Kebabs 2]	$17.90
[Mall]	$20.20
5/5/2023	[Barber]	$82.50	A156
[Menswear 1]	$99.00
[Menswear 2]	$149.00
Coles	$164.88
8/5/2023	[Cafe 1]	$3.75
7-Eleven	$4.00
Starbucks Coffee	$4.70
[Lounge Bar]	$5.08
Coles	$7.50
McDonald’s	$9.00
[Butcher]	$20.00
[Fitness]	$22.50
[Take Away 1]	$28.00
[Showroom]	$30.00
$30.00
$30.00
$30.00
[Venue 2]	$45.00
[Restaurant 6]	$70.73	A157
9/5/2023	Coles	$1.50
7-Eleven	$3.00
$6.00
[Takeaway 1]	$22.00
Nando’s	$30.20
10/5/2023	7-Eleven	$3.00
11/5/2023	[Butcher]	$10.00
[Fast food 2]	$16.21
[Takeaway 2]	$28.00
12/5/2023	Coles	$1.50
BP [Location]	$1.50
Coles	$1.50	A158
7-Eleven	$3.00
[Mall]	$15.66
Total	$5,002.74