Wintle and Wintle (Child support)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 3752
•21 September 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Wintle and Wintle (Child support) [2023] AATA 3752
[2023] AATA 3752
21 September 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned a review by the Tribunal of a departure determination made under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The parties involved were Mr Wintle, the liable parent, and Ms Wintle, the recipient parent. The dispute centred on the calculation of Mr Wintle's adjusted taxable income (ATI) for child support purposes, with Ms Wintle arguing that Mr Wintle's reported income did not accurately reflect his financial capacity.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Wintle's income, property, and financial resources were adequately reflected in the administrative assessment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if a departure from the assessment was justified on the grounds of Mr Wintle's financial circumstances and whether such a departure would cause him undue hardship, while also considering the potential hardship to Ms Wintle if no departure was made. The Tribunal also needed to determine an appropriate ATI for Mr Wintle and the period for which the departure determination should apply.
The Tribunal found that Mr Wintle's reported income of $50,024 did not adequately reflect his financial capacity, noting his ability to meet significant discretionary expenses and the substantial assets he controlled through his company. Applying principles of child support assessment, the Tribunal determined it was reasonable to depart from the administrative assessment. The Tribunal calculated Mr Wintle's ATI by adding back the company's operating profit before tax for the 2023 financial year ($80,265) and a proportion of wages paid to Mr Wintle's partner ($22,984) to his reported gross income, resulting in an ATI of $153,273. The Tribunal concluded that this departure would not cause Mr Wintle significant financial hardship and that a failure to depart would cause hardship to Ms Wintle. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the departure to be otherwise proper, noting it would likely have a positive impact on the public purse.
The Tribunal made a departure determination varying Mr Wintle's ATI to $153,273 per year for the period from 29 July 2022 to 31 May 2025.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Wintle's income, property, and financial resources were adequately reflected in the administrative assessment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if a departure from the assessment was justified on the grounds of Mr Wintle's financial circumstances and whether such a departure would cause him undue hardship, while also considering the potential hardship to Ms Wintle if no departure was made. The Tribunal also needed to determine an appropriate ATI for Mr Wintle and the period for which the departure determination should apply.
The Tribunal found that Mr Wintle's reported income of $50,024 did not adequately reflect his financial capacity, noting his ability to meet significant discretionary expenses and the substantial assets he controlled through his company. Applying principles of child support assessment, the Tribunal determined it was reasonable to depart from the administrative assessment. The Tribunal calculated Mr Wintle's ATI by adding back the company's operating profit before tax for the 2023 financial year ($80,265) and a proportion of wages paid to Mr Wintle's partner ($22,984) to his reported gross income, resulting in an ATI of $153,273. The Tribunal concluded that this departure would not cause Mr Wintle significant financial hardship and that a failure to depart would cause hardship to Ms Wintle. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the departure to be otherwise proper, noting it would likely have a positive impact on the public purse.
The Tribunal made a departure determination varying Mr Wintle's ATI to $153,273 per year for the period from 29 July 2022 to 31 May 2025.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0