Tuckey and Giles (Child support)

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.