Tuckey and Giles (Child support) - [2022] AATA 312

Tuckey and Giles (Child support) [2022] AATA 312 (1 February 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/AC022911
APPLICANT:  Mrs Tuckey
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Giles

TRIBUNAL:Member P Jensen
DECISION DATE: 1 February 2022
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – whether a fixed annual rate of child support should not apply – income exceeds the allowable limit – the application for fixed annual rate not to apply should be refused – 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 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

Mrs Tuckey and Mr Giles are the parents of [Child 1]. A child support case is registered with what is commonly called the Child Support Agency or CSA. The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides for an administrative assessment of child support payable. It uses a formula which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care for the child. From 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021 the administrative assessment was based on Mrs Tuckey’s 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $703, Mr Giles’s 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $57,082 and Mrs Tuckey’s 26% care and Mr Giles’s 74% care of [Child 1]. The administratively assessed rate of child support payable was $0; neither parent was required to pay child support to the other parent.
In July 2021 the Australian Taxation Office assessed Mrs Tuckey’s 2020-21 adjusted taxable income to be $17,214. The child support administrative assessment was based on that adjusted taxable income from 1 September 2021. The CSA decided to assess Mrs Tuckey’s rate of child support at what is commonly called the fixed annual rate, which, given Mrs Tuckey’s circumstances, was $1,477 per annum. On 6 September 2021, she applied to have the fixed annual rate not apply. The CSA refused her application. She objected to that decision. An objections officer disallowed her objection. She applied to the Tribunal for further review. I heard the matter on 1 February 2022. Mrs Tuckey and Mr Giles gave sworn evidence by conference phone. The relevant facts are not in dispute.
The CSA’s decision to require Mrs Tuckey to pay the fixed annual rate was made pursuant to subsection 65A(1) of the Act which states:
The Registrar must assess an annual rate of child support payable by a parent for a child for a day in a child support period as the [fixed annual rate] if:
(a)the parent did not receive an income support payment during the last relevant year of income; and
(b)the following amount is less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount:
(i)if subparagraph (ii) does not apply--the parent's adjusted taxable income determined in accordance with section…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tuckey and Giles (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Tuckey and Giles (Child support) [2022] AATA 312
Case: [2022] AATA 312
Decision Date: 1 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mrs Tuckey to have a fixed annual rate of child support not apply, on the basis that her income exceeded the allowable limit. The dispute arose from a decision by the Child Support Agency (CSA) to refuse Mrs Tuckey's application. The decision was reviewed by P Jensen M.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Family Tax Benefit (FTB) constituted "income" for the purposes of subsection 66A(4) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1988 (the Act), which dictates when a fixed annual rate of child support may not apply. This involved determining whether FTB was a prescribed payment under regulation 13 of the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 2018.

The court reasoned that FTB is paid to Mrs Tuckey in her personal capacity for her own use and benefit, and is not paid directly to the children or held on trust for them. It noted that FTB is not listed as a prescribed payment under regulation 13. The court also referred to the case of *Chamberlain & Slade (SSAT appeal)*, which, while dealing with Carer Allowance, supported the view that payments not specifically prescribed or falling within a prescribed category are considered income for the purposes of subsection 66A(4). Applying this principle, the court found that FTB is income under subsection 66A(4). Consequently, as Mrs Tuckey's income exceeded the relevant threshold, the CSA correctly refused her application, and there was no residual discretion to grant it.

The decision under review, which affirmed the CSA's refusal of Mrs Tuckey's application, was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

According to departmental policy:[1] Family Tax Benefit Part A is a supplementary payment to assist low and middle income families with the direct cost of raising dependent children. …Family Tax Benefit Part B is a supplementary payment that recognises some parents and non-parent carers may have differing abilities to engage with the workforce based on their particular circumstances and the age of their youngest child. [1]>However, family tax benefit is paid to Mrs Tuckey in her personal capacity. It is not paid to the children directly and it is not paid to Mrs Tuckey to be held on trust for the children. It is available for Mrs Tuckey’s “own use or benefit”.The regulation to which subsection 66A(4) refers is regulation 13 of the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 2018.[2] Various types of payments are prescribed, including “disability support pension paid to a person under the social security law”. Family tax benefit is not prescribed, either specifically or via a category of income. [2]>It is worth noting that the Act does require decision-makers to disregard family tax benefit in other circumstances. Departure decisions are made pursuant to Part 6A of the Act. Subparagraph 117(7A)(b)(ii), which is contained in Part 6A, states: In having regard to the income, property and financial resources of a parent of the child, the court must:…(b)disregard:…(ii)any entitlement of the child or the carer entitled to child support of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit. The case of Chamberlain & Slade (SSAT appeal) [2012] FMCAfam 658,[3] while not directly on point, also supports the view that family tax benefit is income for the purpose of subsection 66A(4) of the Act. Mr Chamberlain received carer allowance. Departmental policy stated:[4] Carer Allowance is a supplementary payment that may be available to you if you are a parent or carer who provides additional daily care and attention for an adult or child with a disability or medical condition, or for an adult who is frail aged. Carer Allowance is free of the income and assets test, is not taxable and can be paid in addition to wages, Carer payment or any other Centrelink payment. [3] at paragraph 7. Mr Chamberlain submitted that carer allowance was not income as defined by subsection 66A(4) of the Act. At the time, the relevant regulation was regulation 7D of the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 1989. Carer allowance was not a prescribed payment under that regulation.[5] The Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”) accepted that “the entirety of the carer’s allowance received by Mr Chamberlain, at relevant times, was used up by the costs incurred in caring for his mother, particularly petrol costs.”[6] Nevertheless, the SSAT concluded that carer payment was income as defined by subsection 66A(4) of the Act. On appeal, the Federal Magistrates Court noted that its role was confined to deciding whether the SSAT had correctly applied the law. As an aside, the Court noted that “[s]ome may view [the SSAT’s conclusion as] controversial, given the nature and purpose of a carer’s allowance”. However, the Court concluded that the SSAT had correctly applied the law. [5]Chamberlain at paragraph 43. [6]Chamberlain at paragraph 45. Finally, I note that regulation 13 of the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 2018, which effectively replaced regulation 7D of the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 1989, was made after Chamberlain was decided. For those reasons, I find that family tax benefit is income as defined by subsection 66A(4) of the Act. It follows that Mrs Tuckey’s income was not less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount and the CSA could not grant her application for the fixed annual rate to not apply; there was no residual discretion to do otherwise. The CSA’s decision to refuse her application was correct according to law. DECISIONThe decision under review is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.