YKFL and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

[2020] AATA 1889

YKFL and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 1889 (19 June 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/0612

Re:YKFL  

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member

Date:19 June 2020

Place:Sydney

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...........................[SGD].............................................

Mr S Evans, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – age pension – overpayment – where applicant did not declare regular monthly payment – whether applicant overpaid aged pension in the revenant period – whether there are any grounds to waive or remit the debt – tribunal satisfied debt correctly imposed – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)

CASES

Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relation [2007] AATA 1114
Read v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 26
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 51 ALD 695

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Social Security Guide

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr S Evans, Member

19 June 2020

1. This is an application to review an age pension debt.  The Applicant concedes he received a regular monthly payment whilst in receipt of the age pension but submits as the payments were not income he did not declare them.  The Respondent contends that the payments were income amounting to $60,000 per year and the Applicant consequently owes a debt to the Commonwealth which should be repaid. 

   INTRODUCTION

2. YKFL (“the Applicant”) seeks review of a decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division (“AAT1”) of this Tribunal which affirmed a decision of the Services Australia (“the Respondent” also known as “Centrelink”) that the Applicant was overpaid the age pension. 

3. The matter was heard by telephone on 3 April 2020.  The Applicant was self-represented.  The Tribunal took oral evidence from the Applicant and the Tribunal has before it documentation relating to the matter including the section 37 Tribunal documents; the entirety of the evidence has been taken into consideration. 

4. For the reasons which follow, the decision under review will be affirmed. 

   BACKGROUND 

5. The Applicant has been in receipt of the age pension from February 2002.  He was advised on many occasions between 2010 and 2015 if there were changes to his income that he was required to inform Centrelink. 

6. Between 30 September 2011 and 28 February 2015, the Applicant received $5,000 per month (“the payments”) from Newport Digital Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (“NDTA” or “the company”) which were not reported to Centrelink. 

7. On 1 April 2015, Centrelink received a “tip-off” that the Applicant was self-employed.  On 5 May 2016 Centrelink decided to raise and recover a debt of $76,929.40 (“the debt”) in relation to the period from 30 September 2011 to 5 January 2016 (“the relevant period”) on the basis the income from NDTA had not been taken into account when calculating the Applicant’s rate of age pension. 

8. On 26 October 2016 a Centrelink Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”) affirmed the decision to raise the debt and the debt amount.  On 19 April 2017 the decision was affirmed by the AAT1.  Having been granted an extension of time, on 5 February 2019 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal’s General Division for review. 

   EVIDENCE

9. In April 2015 the Applicant set out his case to the Respondent in correspondence which reads in part:

   I am the creator and founder of a technical device… The company I formed in 2010 (NDTA…), was to develop from an idea, a device for possible commercialisation, which is a speculative research and development project… The company is owned by 5 shareholders, and is a R&D company.  As of this writing, it has nothing to commercialise and therefore has no saleable or commercial value. 

   I paid for the establishment of the company – from my limited savings with some assistance from my family (the ultimate beneficiaries), and a friend.  I have achieved success in attracting technical expertise to the idea… and have secured several Australia investors, to finance the ongoing R&D expenses.

   The project is managed by one of the investors – VCAMM… VCAMM provides secretarial services to NDTA… as part of its investment contribution.  The investors of NDTA … agreed to reimburse my founding costs and ongoing Chairman Expenses, on a monthly basis, in lieu of lump sum repayment.  In return, I act as the non-executive Chairman of the Board. 

   There have been no disbursements or dividends to shareholders and there are no paid Directors.  Therefore, I assumed that there was nothing to report, and I apologise for that. 

   To prevent insolvency, there was an additional sum contributed, in February of this year, I returned $39,187 dollars to the company… from my repayments, as part of a total sum of $125,000 from other investors, to conclude a contract requirement …. I currently hold approximately 22% of the voting stock of NDTA… There are insufficient funds to pay ongoing Chairman Expenses, and I provide my services pro bono. 

   If the company is ultimately successful and produces a saleable or marketable device from its R&D, that event will be recorded and audited by VCAMM and the information forwarded to your department.  The company audit of NDTA is part of the VCAMM auditing process, which is undertaken by the Attorney General’s Department of Victoria…

   [Errors in original] 

10. Included in the documents before the Tribunal are a series of reports, emails and minutes from NDTA.  These include documents relating to a company board meeting on 29 August 2013 and another which confirms the Applicant resigned as Director of NDTA on 6 October 2015. 

11. NDTA company minutes from 1 March 2010 have been provided by the Applicant who draws the Tribunal’s attention to them noting, “the [Applicant] would hand over” administrative functions as he exited the running of NDTA.  The minutes go on to confirm the Applicant’s “cost incurred in formation and running costs would in time be reimbursed from incoming funds – the source and timing of those funds was not specifically defined or noted at this meeting”. The minutes later foreshadow the Applicant travelling to the USA and China as part of a trade delegation on behalf of NDTA.  

12. A letter from the Applicant to Centrelink dated 12 November 2015 provides further information.  He and an associate, Ms F, provided the original financial contributions for the establishment of NDTA and the current investors provided capital in 2012.  He writes he owes Ms F USD $225,000 “which included payments to the American company NDT Inc”. Further, he writes he “arranged with the company secretary of NDTA… that she forward my agreed chairman expenses of $5,000 per month to Ms F’s account, in lieu of a lump sum repayment, which the investors declined to provide.  I was appointed the chairman and the company repaid this money as chairman expenses”. 

13. After confirming he still owns a percentage of NDTA stock, the Applicant writes, “VCAMM can provide you [Centrelink] with the details of my expenses during the time the company repaid them… the secretary was given all the receipts, including a letter for their records, clearly outlining that it was not income, but expenses…. The company did not deduct tax, because it clearly designated as an expense.  There was a shortfall to Ms F in my repayment to her, from my monthly expenses…”.

14. Stephen Duchen was the Managing Director of NDTA.  In November 2015 Mr Duchen completed an information request for Centrelink in which he confirms the payments to the Applicant were for “services pursuant to the company’s shareholder agreement”.   

15. Clause 4.4 of the 2011 NDTA shareholder agreement states that the Applicant, and one other, “will be responsible for the day to day activities of the Companies and in this the companies that provide their services will be paid the sum of $5,000 per month in arrears until proof of concept stage is reached”. 

16. On 11 November 2015 Mr Duchen wrote in an email to the Applicant:

    You [the Applicant] received 43 payments of $5,000 per month from September 2011 until March 2015 inclusive making a total of $215,000.

    Whatever your establishment expenses were I can’t believe they were anywhere near that amount. 

    I am actually staggered that we paid this total amount to you… 

    …

    The shareholders agreement also stated that the payments of $5000 / month were to be made to you … for your services until the prototype was developed…

    ….

    We do not have any invoices from you and we can’t locate any letter you sent to the company.  It appears that all payments have been made directly to your bank account [not to Ms F]. 

    It is also relevant that your payments stopped in March 2015 which is also the time that you contributed $39,285 (so it is going to be difficult to argue that the payment you were receiving were going to repay that amount when it hadn’t even been made yet). 

    It is also difficult to justify why the agreement mentioned … you were receiving $5,000 per month if it wasn’t for your services to the company.  

17. In February 2019 Mr Duchen writes in his capacity as Director of Sensadata, which NDTA became, “As far as I am aware [the Applicant] has not been a salaried employee of the Company”. 

18. The Applicant maintains the payments from NDTA were reimbursements, specifically of his founding costs and chairman expenses. He has submitted an email dated November 2015 from his solicitor Philip Dwyer which states: 

    My understanding was that… you had incurred costs and had contributed time, expertise and effort in the developmental stages of [NDTA]. Rather than try and calculate the value of this initial capital contribution and to preserve investor funds to pay for the future developmental costs… it was agreed to pay you … a monthly sum.  That also had the effect of securing the services of you … and went in some way to reimburse the expenses you were likely to incur in that capacity. 

19. The Applicant has submitted 19 pages of bank account statements which he states are evidence of costs incurred for which he was compensated through the monthly payments.  The personal bank account statements include significant cash withdrawals, foreign telegraphic transfers, account transfers and post office debits as well as ordinary personal transactions.  There are also records of payments relating to what appears to be overseas travel to the United States and Mexico.  The Applicant contends that these records are evidence of costs for which he was reimbursed during the debt period and evidence of money being transferred to Ms F for her investment.  It is important to note, there are no receipts, itemisation or accounting to accompany these transactions, some of which are outside the relevant period. 

    THE APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS: 

20. The Applicant contends the payments from NDTA were not income, but the repayment of expenses and his initial investment contribution in NDTA.  He says he never managed any aspect of NDTA and has provided evidence the payments were for costs and expenses.  He submits the Respondent erred by classifying the payments as income as he was not an employee of NDTA.  He writes that Centrelink should have interviewed individuals associated with the company who could verify the payments were not for the management of NDTA, but simply his money “being returned for the establishment costs, equipment purchases, and licensing fees and Chairman expenses - paid in arrears - into the account of Ms F [the Applicant’s] major co-investor”.    

21. As the payments were not income, he submits he does not have an age pension debt. 

22. The Applicant expressed concerns about the debt being reduced or waived because in his view, doing so carries “a stigma” and the implication he is “guilty” of owing a debt to the Commonwealth. 

23. However, notwithstanding the aforementioned concern, if it is determined the payments were income and he owes a debt to the Commonwealth, he submits that his health and financial circumstances are such that the debt should be waived. 

    ISSUES

24. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are: 

    (i)Was the money received by the Applicant from NDTA income; and if so

    (ii)was the Applicant overpaid age pension from 30 September 2011 to 5 January 2016; and if so

    (iii)whether there is any basis to write off or waive part or all of the debt resulting from the overpayment. 

    RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES

25. The legislative provisions relevant to this application are:

    ·Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (“the Act”);

    ·Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the Administration Act”);

    ·The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (“ITA Act 1997”)

    Calculation of age pension

26. Section 55 of the Act provides that a person’s rate of Age Pension is to be calculated according to the Rate Calculator at the end of section 1064 of the Act. I will not set out the provisions of the Act dealing with the calculation of age pension as the issue in dispute is whether the payments constituted income. I note however, the Rate Calculator in section 1064-A1 of the Act requires that the ordinary income of the person calculated on a fortnightly basis to be taken into account when working out the person’s rate. The amount payable is reduced if the fortnightly income of the person exceeds a certain amount.

    Definition of income

27. Income is defined in section 8(1) of the Act as follows:

    “income”, in relation to a person, means:

    (a)an income amount earned, derived or received by the person for the person’s own use or benefit; or

    (b)a periodical payment by way of gift or allowance; or

    (c)a periodical benefit by way of gift or allowance

28. Section 1075 (contained in Division 1A) of the Act permits a person who carries on a business to reduce their ordinary income through losses and outgoings that relate to the businesses and are allowable deductions under the ITA Act 1997.

29. The Social Security Guide (“the Guide”) provides the following guidance at 4.3.2.10: 

    4.3.2.10 Income received to cover specific expenses

    Payment to reimburse for expenses

    Some amounts are not considered to be income if they are paid to a person to reimburse them for the cost of specific expenses (e.g. work related) they have incurred. In these situations, the person does not gain additional benefit from the payment.

    Example 1: A payment is not considered income when an employee pays accommodation costs for a work trip up front and their employer reimburses the employee after for the expenses incurred.

    Example 2: Reimbursements paid to people such as mayors, council members, Justices of the Peace and volunteers for expenses they have incurred in undertaking their role.

    If a person receives more than the amount of the expenses they actually incurred, any extra IS considered to be income.

    Debt not recoverable 

30. Section 1236 of the Act specifies the requirements in order for the Secretary to write off debts. It relevantly states:

    (1A)The Secretary may decide to write off a debt under subsection (1) if, and only if:

    (a)the debt is irrecoverable at law; or

    (b)the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or

    (c)the debtor’s whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor; or

    (d)it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.

    …

    Administrative error

31. Section 1237A of the Act provides for waiver of a debt due to administrative error. Relevantly, Subsection 1237A(1) states:

    (1)Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.

    Special circumstances

32. Section 1237AAD provides for waiver of a debt due to special circumstances. It provides in part: 

    The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:

    (a)the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:

    (i)making a false statement or a false representation; or

    (ii)failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act, the Administration Act or the 1947 Act; and

    (b)there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and

    (c)          it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.

    CONSIDERATION

    Were the payments income?

33. The Respondent contends that the payments to the Applicant from NDTA were undeclared income received and that as it was not declared, the Applicant was overpaid the age pension.  The Secretary has calculated the Applicant received an annual income of $60,000 from 30 September 2011 through to 1 March 2015. 

34. Clause 4.4 of the shareholder agreement supports this contention stating the Applicant, and one other, “will be responsible for the day to day activities of the Companies and in this the companies that provide their services will be paid the sum of $5,000 per month in arrears until proof of concept stage is reached”. 

35. “Ordinary income” is defined in subsection 8(1) of the Act as income that is not maintenance income or an exempt lump sum. “Income” is defined to include an income amount entered, derived or received by the person for the person’s own use or benefit. Consistent with the NDTA Shareholders Agreement at Clause 4.4(b), it is submitted by the Respondent that the $5,000 monthly payments made to the Applicant were made on the basis of services he provided in being responsible for the day to day activities of the NDTA, and therefore comes within the definition of income for the purposes of the Act.

36. In support of this, the Respondent draws the Tribunal’s attention to Read v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 26 where the High Court considered “income” as it appeared in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and noted at [3]:

    The definition [of income] is couched in the widest terms, presumably to ensure that public expenditure is directed to those who stand in actual need of the periodic support which income-related provisions provide. 

37. As mentioned, the Applicant contends the money he received from NDTA during the relevant period was for the reimbursement of expenses and initial capital investment by him and others. He did not report the payments because he maintains he was not required to as they were not income.  For the same reason, he did not submit a tax return during the relevant period. 

38. In support of his position, the Applicant provided 19 pages of bank statements, some of which date back to 2005; these were considered at the hearing.  When asked by the representative for the Respondent what some of the significant transactions were for at the hearing, the Applicant was unable to say.  Asked about his total monthly expenses, he said he was unable to say what they were but did note that some months he paid more than $5,000 in costs and less in others.  He told the Tribunal that he is “not an accountant” but “just lets the documents speak for themselves”.

39. Even with the benefit of the Applicant’s evidence, the bank statements provided by the Applicant do not enable the Tribunal to conclude that the amounts recorded are reimbursements of expenses.  Even if the amounts were to be accepted, they are nowhere near the amount received in payments over the relevant period. 

40. Also before the Tribunal is evidence of the Applicant’s investments including a letter confirming that “in excess of $300,000 (US)” was invested in the USA based company NDTI and that the Applicant had made several visits to the USA.  The timing of the investment in NDTI would appear to be many years outside the relevant period. Further, there is no way for the Tribunal to determine with a degree of confidence the undated investments in NDTI were somehow returned to the Applicant through the payments from Australian entity NDTA. 

1. Section 1075(1) of the Act provides for income to be reduced by losses, outgoings and amounts that related to business and are allowable deductions under various provisions of the ITA Act 97. The Respondent contends the Applicant’s ordinary income is unable to be reduced under this subsection as he was not carrying on a business; the Applicant does not contend that he was.  Whilst the Applicant would have been able to make similar reductions were he operating as a sole trader this is not contended by the Applicant; there is no evidence before the Tribunal he sought to satisfy or comply with the numerous features required to be a sole trader.

2. The evidence supports the conclusion the Applicant did not utilise any business structure at all. Further, he did not report his income in an individual tax return, pay any income tax, nor keep an auditable or even usable record of income. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to properly assess any business deductions even if the Applicant met the other requirements of section 1075.

3. The Applicant has been upfront about the misconception that he was not required to keep any such records or submit a tax return.  He has presented this as a simple matter of receiving a regular payment as reimbursement of expenses and founding costs which should be accepted as fact. 

4. In doing so, the Applicant is inviting the Tribunal to find the payments received during the relevant period were to cover expenses and initial investments which has neither been accounted for or adequately identified. There is no explanation before the Tribunal as to how the $5,000 per calendar month figure was arrived at if it was for payment of costs.  There is no summary accounting of the expenses incurred or the initial investment that he made in the company.   

5. The Applicant says when he returned from overseas and applied for the age pension he had no assets of any financial worth.  If this is accepted it would limit his capacity to make a financial investment in the company for which he contends the payments were part compensation for.  He contends he received money from Ms F and family members to invest in the company, which may be the case, but there is a dearth of evidence before the Tribunal which raises doubt to such a contention.  It is not possible for the Tribunal to know the value of those investments or the payments the Applicant maintains were transferred to others for the purpose of repaying them for their investment.    

6. Whilst he has been able to provide a statement from Mr Duchan that he was never a “salaried employee”, Mr Duchan clearly identifies the payments were for “services”, not reimbursement for expenses or costs. Further, the Secretary contends even if it were accepted the Applicant was carrying on a business for the purposes of section 1075 of the Act, there is insufficient evidence to properly assess any business deductions, and the Tribunal agrees.

7. In light of these considerations, the Tribunal finds that the NDTA payments during the relevant period were ordinary income in accordance with section 1072 of the Act.

   Was the Applicant overpaid age pension from 30 September 2011 to 5 January 2016

8. Under section 1223 of the Act if a person receives a social security payment in an amount that exceeds his or her entitlement, the amount of the excess is a debt due to the Commonwealth.

9. Having determined the NDTA payments were ordinary income, it follows that the Applicant has incurred a debt; there does not appear to be contention around this point. 

10. Noting the overpayment amount proposed by the Secretary was not challenged by the Applicant, I am satisfied that the overpayment amount of $76,929.40 appears correct. 

    Are there grounds to write-off or waive the debt, in whole or in part?

11. Debts may be written off under section 1236 or waived under section 1237A or section 1237AAD in certain circumstances.

12. French J observed in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 51 ALD 695 at 695, 696 as follows:

    From time to time in the administration of social security benefits overpayments occur. Sometimes these are the result of innocent non-compliance with the requirements of the law which can be affected by the stress associated with the circumstances that led to the receipt of benefits in the first place. The taxpayer is entitled to expect that in the ordinary course money paid to people which they are not entitled to receive will be recovered, albeit in a way appropriate to the circumstances which led to the overpayment and the circumstances of the persons concerned. However, the confining of a recovery regime by rigid rules, particularly in this area of the law, is likely to be productive of unfair or harsh outcomes in some of the great variety of fact situations that can arises. There are provisions in the Act which recognise that reality. They relate to the writing off and the waiver of debts otherwise due to the Commonwealth.

13. I am satisfied the Applicant’s debts cannot be written off under s 1236 as none of the preconditioning criterial set out in s 1236(1A) are satisfied; the debts are recoverable at law. The Applicant has some capacity to repay the debt, albeit one which is limited by his current financial circumstances, but he is currently repaying the debt at the standard recovery rate of approximately 15% of his age pension entitlement. The Applicant expressed dissatisfaction at the arbitrary nature of Centrelink regarding the recovery rate.  He was previously having $25.00 per fortnight withheld, and it has increased to $135.80.  It is open for him to pursue this issue with the Respondent and was advised so by the Respondent’s representative at the hearing.  

14. Waiver of the debts under section 1237A only arises in respect of “the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt”.

15. On 10 June 2011 the Applicant was sent a notice which stated in part: 

    You must tell us within 14 days… if any of the changes below happen or are likely to happy to your and/or your partner. 

    Earnings – employment income from an employer or self-employment…

    Business – gross income and expenses from a business, private company or private trust, director’s fees, dividends and distributions, becoming involved or changed involvement in a business, company or trust. 

    Other income - … other regular payments … or any other income from any source…

16. The Applicant received many similar notices reminding him of his reporting requirements prior to and throughout the debt period and he accepts as much. It is not in contention the Applicant did not inform Centrelink of the regular payments he was receiving from NDTA.  Of relevance however, the failure to inform Centrelink of these payments resulted in the Applicant being paid an age pension which did not take these payments into account. 

17. In this respect the facts in this matter are straightforward.  The Applicant applied for the age pension based on him receiving a certain amount of income.  The age pension was granted and he subsequently failed to declare income and consequently, was overpaid.  I am not satisfied any proportion of the debt is attributable to error on behalf of the Commonwealth. 

18. The sole remaining issue is whether any part of the debt for which the Applicant is liable may be waived on the grounds of special circumstances under s 1237AAD.  This section allows debts to be waived provided the applicant did not knowingly fail to comply with a provision of the Act. It is accepted by the Secretary that whilst the Applicant failed to comply with numerous information notices issued under section 68 of the Administration Act requiring him to report his income, he did not do so because he did not view the money received from NDTA as income and therefore, did not “knowingly” fail to comply and satisfies section 1237AAD(a).

19. Special circumstances is not defined it the Act but has been extensively considered in case law. In Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relation [2007] AATA 1114, Deputy President Forgie noted the relevance of an individual’s personal circumstances and the consideration of the administration of the social security system when considering “special circumstances”.

20. The Applicant in this case submits his health problems and financial circumstances make him eligible for having the debt waived.  A medical certificate dated August 2019 is before the Tribunal confirming the Applicant suffers from health problems including “cardiac disease, join replacement, multiple skin cancers, and recent ophthalmic trauma”.  The certificate goes on to note he requires yearly cardiac assessments, regular eye injections and will be required to have a knee and hip replacement in the near future.  Health complaints attributable to the Applicant, are not particularly unusual in people of his age. 

21. It is apparent the Applicant has limited financial assets and this causes significant stress for him. He told the hearing: 

    … I wanted to be supporting through my own contributions.  I wanted to give up the pension.  I have been used to not being on it and I thank the government for giving me the pension… I got defrauded of everything that I owned and I came back bereft of any material possessions.

22. There is no statement of financial interests before the Tribunal.  There is evidence of a compensation claim which the Applicant settled in October 2010 for $135,000.  After costs the Applicant is eligible for $61,276.04 of this amount, but it is currently subject to a garnishee order.  The Applicant wrote in a submission to the Tribunal in October 2019: 

    Following the failure of both the US entity and VCAMM [NDTA], I have no other source of return on my investments.  If the Centrelink position is supported then they have the power to garnishee my recent injury award, which would impose an unendurable hardship on me.  I have no material possessions and the pension and this award is my only financial support. 

23. As the method of debt recovery is not the decision currently being reviewed, the Tribunal is not able to make a finding in relation to the mechanism through which the debt is repaid.    

24. I accept the Applicant has some health concerns but note he continues to work and is currently involved in a project which he is hoping to commercialise, but it has been delayed due to Covid-19. 

    CONCLUSION

25. The Applicant has, he said, lost everything.  He has been involved in investments which have lost vast sums of money both in Australia and the United States.  He feels he has been let down by others and he is remorseful about the financial impact it has had not only on him but also his family and friends. 

26. The Applicant has been overpaid age pension to the amount of $76,929.40 over the period from 30 September 2011 to 5 January 2016 as he received regular payments of $5000 per month between September 2011 and February 2015.  This amount is a debt due to the Commonwealth for which he is liable.  Further, there are no grounds to write off or waive the debt. 

    DECISION

    For the reasons stated above, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 66 (sixty -six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member.

...................................SGD.....................................

Associate

Dated: 19 June 2020

Date(s) of hearing:	3 April 2020
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms E Ulrick