Troilous and Olaya (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 2164

Troilous and Olaya (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2164 (9 September 2025)

Applicant:Mr Troilous
Respondent:  Child Support Registrar
Other Party:  Ms Olaya
Tribunal Number:  2025/SC030086
Tribunal:General Member S Irvine
Place:Hobart
Date:9 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – fixed annual rate of child support – self-employment – business ran at a loss – income support payments – money from mother is income – income exceeds the allowable limit – 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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Mr Troilous and Ms Olaya are the parents of one child, for whom a child support assessment commenced on 24 March 2015. Mr Troilous is the parent assessed to pay child support.
Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) issued a child support assessment notice for the child support period commencing 1 September 2024, according to which Mr Troilous was assessed to pay child support to Ms Olaya at a rate of $143.33 per month (an annual rate of $1,720). The assessment applied a ‘fixed annual rate’ of child support as Mr Troilous’ liability.
On 20 August 2024 Mr Troilous made an application to Child Support for the fixed annual rate of child support to not apply in his case. On 18 September 2024 Child Support advised Mr Troilous in writing of a decision to refuse his application, meaning that the fixed annual rate continued to apply.
On 19 September 2024 Mr Troilous objected to Child Support’s decision. On 19 June 2025 a Child Support objections officer disallowed Mr Troilous’ objection.
On 3 July 2025 Mr Troilous made an application to this Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support’s decision. A hearing took place on 28 August 2025. Mr Troilous and Ms Olaya attended the hearing by telephone and gave sworn evidence. At Ms Olaya’s request the Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in [Language 1], although during the hearing Ms Olaya elected to proceed without the assistance of the interpreter. The Tribunal had before it documents submitted by Child Support numbered 1 to 72 and D1 to D3, and documents submitted by Mr Troilous numbered A1 to A9.

CONSIDERATION

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Section 65A of the Act provides that the Child Support Registrar must assess an annual rate of child support payable by a parent at the rate set out in that section (known as a fixed annual rate) if the circumstances set out in subsection 65A(1) are met. Those circumstances are that:
·The parent did not receive an income support payment in the last relevant year of income (defined as the income year that ended most recently before the beginning of the relevant child support period); and
·The adjusted taxable income used for the parent in the child support assessment is less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount; and
·The parent does not have at least shared care of the child during the relevant care period.
At all relevant times the PP (single) maximum basic amount was $25,225 per annum.
It is not disputed that Mr Troilous did not receive an income support payment during the 2023/24 financial year, that his adjusted taxable income for the 2023/24 financial year was nil, or that he did not have at least shared care of either of the children. Mr Troilous said that, because he was attempting to start a business rather than looking for work, he did not realise that he may be eligible for any Centrelink payments until around August 2024 when he became aware that he could obtain some payments through a self‑employment assistance program. In the 2023/24 financial year his business ran at a loss, giving him a taxable income for that year of nil.
Section 65B of the Act provides that a parent may make an application for section 65A not to apply. Mr Troilous made that application on 20 August 2024. Subsection 65B(2) of the Act provides that the parent must provide evidence to demonstrate that:
·his or her current income is less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount, and
·it would be unjust and inequitable to expect the parent to pay the fixed annual rate.
Subsection 65B(3) of the Act provides that an assessment issued by the Commissioner of Taxation for the last relevant year of income is not sufficient evidence for this purpose. Income is defined in subsection 66A(4) of the Act to mean:
(a) any money earned, derived or received by the parent for his or her own use or benefit, other than money earned, derived or received in a manner, or from a source, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(b) a periodical payment by way of gift or allowance, other than a payment of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Was Mr Troilous’ income less than the PP (single) maximum basic amount?

The issues arising in this case are whether, during the relevant child support period, Mr Troilous’ income was less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount, and, if so, whether it is unjust and inequitable to expect him to pay the fixed annual rate of child support.
In respect of determining a parent’s current income, the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill[1] which introduced these provisions indicated as follows:
In determining whether the annual rate should not apply to the parent, the Registrar will consider the current income of the parent for the 12 months commencing from the date the person applied to not have the annual rate apply.
[1] Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme – New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006
The Child Support Guide at 2.3.5 reiterates that intention as follows:
A parent’s current income is generally their income for the 12-month period from the date of the application.
Mr Troilous made his application for the fixed annual rate not to apply on 20 August 2024. In respect of his income since that date, Mr Troilous said that he started receiving some Centrelink benefits about 11 months ago, and he is also trying to build up his business and in the most recently ended financial year he has been able to make a very small income from his business. However, he isn’t yet able to make enough money to live on, and so in addition to his income he has been borrowing money from his mother to meet his essential expenses such as his mortgage payment.
Following the hearing Mr Troilous provided the Tribunal with a copy of his 2024/25 tax return, which shows that in that financial year he had a taxable income of $19,365, made up of self-employment assistance of $14,802, jobseeker payment of $2,336 and net business income of $2,227. He also provided a statement of all income and expenses generated by the business in the 2024/25 financial year which shows business expenses comprising website hosting, email, transport, software, insurance and social media. The Tribunal also obtained from Child Support a list of Centrelink payments made to Mr Troilous which shows that Mr Troilous first received jobseeker payment on 12 September 2024, and that in the period from 1 July 2025 to 20 August 2025 Mr Troilous received a total of $2,538 in jobseeker payment.
Given Mr Troilous’ evidence that he commenced receiving self-employment assistance in approximately September 2024, I am satisfied that in the period 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025 Mr Troilous had income from self-employment assistance and jobseeker payments totalling approximately $19,676. Noting that his profit from his business in the 2024/25 financial year was $2,227 and that Mr Troilous’ evidence is that his business income is slowly increasing, I find that his net profit from his business in the period 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025 is likely to have been at least that amount. That gives Mr Troilous income in the period 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025 of $21,093.
In addition to the income detailed above, Mr Troilous does not deny that he also received financial assistance from his mother throughout the period from 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025. Bank statements provided by Mr Troilous to Child Support show that in the period from 20 May 2024 to 20 August 2024 Mr Troilous received payments into his bank account marked ‘family loan’ totalling $5,000. Mr Troilous said that these amounts are money that was transferred to him from his mother, who is lending him money to meet his essential expenses while he builds up his business. He said that he is uncertain how much money his mother has given him in the period from 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025, but he estimated it would be around $1,000 per month.
Mr Troilous put it to me that the money he receives from his mother is not income, rather it is money that is loaned to him and that he is expected to repay when his business starts to make a sustainable profit. Mr Troilous was unable, during the hearing, to tell the Tribunal what the total amount owing to his mother is. Mr Troilous said he does not keep a tally of how much he owes, but he believes his mother may do so. He said that he and his mother have not yet discussed repayments in detail as he is not currently in a position to start making repayments. Mr Troilous said that without the financial assistance from his mother he would be forced to move to a new residence further away from his children, which would be detrimental to both him and his children.
The documents provided by Child Support include a handwritten note signed [Mother A] and dated 19 September 2024. The note says:
To whom it may concern
My son, [Mr Troilous], has been struggling financially and has not been earning enough to cover his full rent and bills, so I have been loaning him money to cover the difference so he can continue living close to his kids. This loan is not income and must not be treated as such. They money must be paid back in full once his business is turning a profit.
In a written submission made after the hearing Mr Troilous said:
The loan from my mother is over $24k – I am continuing to periodically borrow money to survive so we don’t have a static amount or a written contract. The plan is, once my business is making enough to support me and my [kids], we will agree to an appropriate payment plan and I will start repaying the debt with regular payments.
At the hearing Ms Olaya told the Tribunal that she does not know anything about Mr Troilous’ income, and that Mr Troilous has never paid any child support for their child, but she believes it is fair that he pay what Child Support assess him to pay.
I have considered whether the money that Mr Troilous receives from his mother is income within the definition set out in section 65B of the Act. The money is clearly not taxable income. Mr Troilous’ submission is that it is a loan that he will be required to repay, but the evidence before me is that he has not yet been called upon to repay any of the money, and in particular he did not make any repayments, and was not called upon to do so, in the period from 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025. There are also no imminent plans for Mr Troilous to make any repayments. I find that in the period 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025 the money provided by Mr Troilous’ mother is money received by Mr Troilous for his own use and benefit, and therefore it is income within the definition provided in subsection 65B(3) of the Act.
I do not have any clear evidence as to how much money Mr Troilous received from his mother in the period from 20 August 2024 to 20 August 2025, but I accept Mr Troilous’ oral evidence that it was around $1,000 per month, or around $12,000 in total, over the relevant period. Added to Mr Troilous’ other income in that period, I find that Mr Troilous had total income of approximately $33,000 in the relevant period, which is more than the relevant pension PP (single) maximum basic amount of $25,225.
I therefore find that Child Support’s decision to refuse Mr Troilous’ application for a fixed annual rate to not apply in the child support period commencing 1 September 2024 was correct.
I note that a new child support period commenced in the child support case on 1 August 2025. The fixed annual rate was not applied in that period, as Mr Troilous was in receipt of an income support payment during the 2024/25 financial year. Consequently Mr Troilous is not required to pay any child support to Ms Olaya from 1 August 2025.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing:	Thursday 28 August 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Other party:	Self-represented