ZHCV and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) - [2025] ARTA 2190

ZHCV and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2190 (21 October 2025)
Applicant:ZHCV
Other Party: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2024/10306
Tribunal:Senior Member T Hamilton-Noy (second review)
Place:Melbourne
Date:21 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 21 October 2025 at 1:48pm
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 161(1B) and (1C) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

Catchwords
Family tax benefit top-ups and supplements – partner’s failure to lodge income tax return – whether special circumstances prevented lodgement – no special circumstances
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133
Groth and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) FCA 1708
Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 732
Onody and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 4990
Secretary, Department of Social Services and Willersdorf [2016] AATA 535
Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] AATA 766
Statement of Reasons
Background

This application relates to a refusal by the Respondent to pay the Applicant reconciled amounts (“top ups” and supplements) of family tax benefit for the 2022/23 financial year.
The Applicant received fortnightly payments of family tax benefit during the 2022/23 financial year, based on her and her partner’s estimates of income. The Applicant lodged her 2022/23 income tax return on 29 June 2024 and her partner lodged his 2022/23 income tax return on 6 July 2024.
On 9 July 2024, a decision was made to not pay top-ups or supplements of family tax benefit to the Applicant for the 2022/23 financial year, as her partner had not lodged his income tax return by 30 June 2024.
The Applicant sought an internal review of the decision and on 7 August 2024, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
The Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 17 August 2024 for an independent review of the decision.
From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 were taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gave the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. The Tribunal at first review on 7 November 2024 affirmed the decision to refuse to pay the Applicant top-ups and supplements of family tax benefit for the 2022/23 financial year.
The Applicant then made an application for second review of the decision on 4 December 2024.

Evidence before the Tribunal

The Tribunal conducted a hearing with the parties on 9 October 2025. The Applicant and her partner both participated in the hearing by telephone and both gave evidence on affirmation. A representative of the Respondent also participated by telephone and made oral submissions.
At the time of the hearing, and the time of making its decision, the Tribunal and the parties to the review had the following documents before them:
(i)Bundle of “T” documents that had been provided for the purposes of the first review hearing (pages 1 – 130);
(ii)Documents provided by the Applicant: documents filed on 10 February 2025, including medical documentation and documents relating to work on the family home; emails dated 17 April 2025, 5 June 2025 and 6 June 2025; quote for blinds provided on 28 May 2025; emails forwarded on 21 March 2025 about a house move; and a timeline from January 2025 to June 2024 prepared by the Applicant’s partner;
(iii)A Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions prepared by the Respondent, dated 5 June 2025, with annexures (26 pages).

Relevant law

The legislation relevant to the administration of family assistance payments is contained in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Family Assistance Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Family Assistance Administration Act).
Subdivision C of Division 1 of Part 3 of the Family Assistance Administration Act deals with variations to determinations of family assistance payments. Section 28 of the Family Assistance Administration Act provides for variations of instalments and past period entitlement determinations where an income tax return has not been lodged. Subsection 28(1) states that:
(1)  This section applies if:
(a)   a determination under section 16 or 17 is in force at, or was in force before, a particular time; and
(b)   there are one or more days (the cancellation days) before the particular time in respect of which the following conditions are satisfied:
(i)   the cancellation days occur in the income year (the cancellation income year) that began 2 years before the beginning of the income year in which the particular time occurs;
(ii)   the claimant is entitled to be paid family tax benefit under the determination for the cancellation days;
(iii) the claimant, or the claimant's partner at the particular time (if he or she was also the claimant's partner at some time in the cancellation income year), or both, are required to lodge an income tax return for the cancellation income year but have not done so by the particular time;
(iv)   by the particular time, an assessment has not been made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936of the taxable income for the cancellation income year of everyone to whom subparagraph (iii) applies.
Subsection 28(2) of the Family Assistance Administration Act states that if the section applies, the Secretary must vary the determination so that it has the effect that the claimant is not, and never was, entitled to family tax benefit for the cancellation days.
Subsection 32C of the Family Assistance Administration Act is relevant where a “first individual” is required to lodge an income tax return. Subsections 32C(3) and (4) provide that the relevant reconciliation time for the first individual is:
(3)  The relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936of the first individual's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the first individual's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of:
(a)   the first income year after the relevant income year; or
(b)   such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the first individual from lodging the return before the end of that first income year.
(4)   The further period under paragraph (3)(b) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year.
Section 32D of the Family Assistance Administration Act applies where a person is a member of a couple and their partner is required to lodge an income tax return, and provides that, in these circumstances the relevant reconciliation time is:
(1)  This section applies to the first individual for a same - rate benefit period if:
(a)   the first individual was a member of a couple throughout that period; and
(b)   the other member of the couple (the partner) is or was required to lodge an income tax return for the relevant income year; and
(c)  the first individual continues to be a member of the couple until the end of:
(i)   the first income year after the relevant income year; or
(ii)   such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows, if the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances that prevented the partner from lodging the return before the end of that first income year.
(2)   The relevant reconciliation time is the time when an assessment is made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936of the partner's taxable income for the relevant income year, so long as the partner's income tax return for the relevant income year was lodged before the end of:
(a)   the first income year after the relevant income year; or
(b)   such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii).
(3)   The further period under subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) must end no later than the end of the second income year after the relevant income year.
The test set out in paragraphs 32C(3)(b) and 32D(2)(b) has been described as a two-part test, where the Tribunal must be satisfied firstly that there were special circumstances that existed and, secondly, that the circumstances in question prevented the lodgement of the income tax return within time (Hooker and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 732 at [14]).[1]
[1] Cited in Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) at paragraph 26.
“Special circumstances” is not defined in the legislation, but has been considered extensively by the Federal Court and the AAT. In Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1, the AAT stated (at [12]) that:[2]
An expression such as “special circumstances” is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend upon the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special.
[2] Cited in Respondent’s SFIC at paragraph 31.
In Groth and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) FCA 1708, the Federal Court stated (at [12]): [3]
The phrase “special circumstances”, it has been said, although imprecise is sufficiently understood not to require judicial gloss…it is sufficient to observe that it would require something to distinguish Mr Groth’s case from others, to take it out of the usual or ordinary case. That was, I consider, the only enquiry to be undertaken in this case. It would of course follow that if one were to conclude that something unfair, unintended or unjust had occurred that there must be some feature out of the ordinary.
[3] Cited in Respondent’s SFIC at paragraph 32.
Further, the Full Federal Court observed in Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 (at [66]) that:[4]
…what is required will be circumstances which distinguish the case in consideration from the usual case. There will be a requirement that the circumstances are such that takes the case out of the ordinary…
[4] Cited in Respondent’s SFIC at paragraph 33.
In Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] AATA 766 at [42], the AAT found that any special circumstances must have served as an “insurmountable block, hindrance or impediment” to an individual’s lodgement. The AAT in Onody and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 4990 observed (at [46]-[48]) that:[5]
The challenges faced by Ms Onody were far from trivial, however her circumstances did not represent anything particularly out of the ordinary for people in her position. They did not include unexpected circumstances considered in Willersdorf as contributing to the “perfect storm” such as: the death of a brother; termination of staff; estrangement from family members; and not receiving the Centrelink notice.
There are a number of decisions of the Federal Court and the Tribunal that indicate unusual circumstances are not enough to be considered special circumstances. The circumstances must be unusual so as to produce an injustice in a situation where the sections were applied rigidly. In particular the Full Federal Court has observed:
Each particular case must be considered on its merits. It is the essential nature of the provision to create a broad discretion to meet a great variety of circumstances which must occur, raising considerations of individual hardship, need, fairness, reasonableness, and whatever else may move an administrator, keeping in mind the scope and purposes of the Act, to make a decision one way or the other.
One of the reasons s 32C of the Administration Act exists in the legislation is to set the timeframe for lodging tax returns in order for the Department of Human Services to reconcile estimated income with actual income. There appears to be no injustice if the only penalty for failing to lodge tax returns on time is the penalty intended in the legislation.
[5] Both cases cited in Respondent’s SFIC at paragraphs 39 & 36.
The AAT distinguished the facts of the above case from that of Secretary, Department of Social Services and Willersdorf [2016] AATA 535, where the AAT had found that there were special circumstances that had prevented lodgement of income tax returns, as set out at [61]-[63]:
The distinguishing features of this case are:
·       Ms Willersdorf provided her accountant with all necessary material to carry out the tax return in December 2013 which was more than 6 months in advance of the required date for lodgement on 30 June 2014;
·       Ms Willersdorf had a long term relationship with her accountant who, I infer, was familiar with her business affairs and taxation requirements;
·       It was not a simple tax return because of the significant increase in revenue generated in 2012/2013 and the change from trading as a sole trader to trading through a company;
·       There were a number of emails from Ms Willersdorf following up the lodgement of the tax returns namely on 31 March, 10 April and 12 June 2014;
·       Ms Willersdorf and her family moved residence at the very time that the Centrelink letter advising of the changed deadline would have been received and consequently Ms Willersdorf did not receive that letter;
·       Ms Willersdorf’s brother passed away suddenly in December 2013 which had a dramatic effect on the family into 2014;
·       Ms Willersdorf’s estrangement from her sisters in about April 2014;
·       The situation at Ms Willersdorf’s work in June 2014 involving the termination of a contract trainer; and
·       The failure by Ms Willersdorf’s accountant to lodge the tax returns by 30 June 2014.
These factors combined to create what would be considered the perfect storm in the period leading up to 30 June 2014. None of the above factors on their own would necessarily constitute special circumstances but in combination and viewed as a whole they do constitute special circumstances so as to make the exercise of the discretion appropriate in this instance.
The second part of the test required by s 32D is that the special circumstances must prevent the claimant from making a claim within time. In my view, s 32D requires there to be a strong causative relationship between the special circumstances and the failure to lodge the tax return by the due date. The second part of that test is made out because Ms Willersdorf had provided her material well in advance of the time for the tax return to be lodged and she was entitled to trust her accountant to lodge the tax return on time. Ms Willersdorf did not simply provide her materials to her accountant and do nothing more but instead she regularly followed up her accountant in the period leading up to the deadline of 30 June 2014. In all of the circumstances, including her long term relationship with her accountant and her particularly complex accounting requirements in that financial year, she could not have been expected to do any more. The combined effect of the special circumstances operated so as to prevent her from lodging within time.
While not binding on the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered that the above AAT cases provide some guidance as to the interpretation of the relevant provisions.

Consideration

The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had been in receipt of family tax benefit from May 2010 and that, during the 2022/23 financial year, she had received family tax benefit by way of fortnightly instalments, based on her estimate of combined income that had been provided to the Respondent.
On 20 March 2024, the Applicant had been sent a notice by the Respondent about her obligations for the 2022/23 financial year. The letter was headed “Family Tax Benefit – you need to confirm your family income for 2022-23” and read, in relevant part:
You need to confirm your family income for the 2022-23 financial year by 30 June 2024. To do this:
· You need to lodge your tax return or tell us if you are not required to lodge.
·Your partner needs to lodge their tax return or you need to tell us if they are not required to lodge.
If you and your partner do not do this, you will have to pay back any Family Tax Benefit paid for the 2022-23 financial year. Your fortnightly Family Tax Benefit payments may also stop.
You may get top ups and supplement payments if your family income is confirmed by 30 June 2024.
It is not disputed that the Applicant lodged her income tax return on 29 June 2024. The Applicant lodged her income tax return before the end of the first income year after the relevant income year and met the relevant reconciliation time within the meaning of section 32C of the Family Assistance Administration Act.
Neither party submitted that the Applicant’s partner lodged his income tax return on or before 30 June 2024. The Respondent submits the Applicant’s partner lodged his 2022/23 income tax return on 6 July 2024. In his evidence at the hearing, the Applicant’s partner disputed this and asserted that he had lodged the return on 4 July 2024. The “FAO Income for Previous Year (FIPY)” screen contained in documents provided to the Tribunal states that date of lodgement for the Applicant’s partner was 6 July 2024 and the Tribunal found that this was the best evidence before it as to the date of lodgement. The Tribunal notes that, even were it to accept the evidence given by the Applicant’s partner, it is not disputed that he did not lodge the income tax return within the relevant reconciliation time.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal must consider whether there were special circumstances that prevented the Applicant’s partner from lodging his income tax return by 30 June 2024, such that the provisions in paragraph 32D(1)(c) of the Family Assistance Administration Act applies.
The Applicant submits that this requirement is met in the particular circumstances of her case and that she was facing a number of circumstances leading up to 30 June 2024 that, when considered cumulatively, amount to special circumstances. Her written submissions provided to the Tribunal were consistent with her oral submissions at the hearing and focused upon the care her husband was required to provide to her after surgery, which occurred at a time the family was also renovating their existing home and house hunting for a new home.
The Tribunal considered the following factors, raised by the Applicant, in respect of the application.

The Applicant’s lack of awareness of lodgement requirements

The Applicant submits that she was unaware her partner was required to lodge his 2022/23 income tax return by 30 June 2024. As noted, above, the Applicant had been sent correspondence by Centrelink in March 2024 advising her of this requirement. While not disputing she had received the correspondence, she asserted that letters sent to her had been unclear, as they referred to “you and/or your partner” being required to lodge. The Applicant gave evidence that she had assumed it related to her and was indicating it was optional if her partner had wanted to lodge his income tax return at the same time.

The Applicant acknowledged she had lodged tax returns late in the previous financial year and that top-ups and supplements of family tax benefit had initially not been paid to her. The Applicant stated this had been due to an issue with her partner’s accountant. When asked whether she had then been aware of the requirement to lodge within time in the following financial year, she stated, “no, not really”, but that it was always their intention to lodge their income tax returns. When taken to the letter that had been sent to her, dated 20 March 2024, the Applicant agreed the letter reflected that she and her partner were required to confirm their incomes by 30 June 2024.
The Applicant had been sent SMS reminders of the requirement to lodge on 27 May 2024 and 11 June 2024. While agreeing she had been sent the SMSs, the Applicant stated she had “not seen the SMSs unfortunately” and that she looks more at emails.

The Applicant’s surgery in February 2024

The Tribunal accepted from the medical documents provided by the Applicant that she was admitted to hospital for a right knee replacement on 13 February 2024 and was discharged from hospital on 25 February 2024. She spent some time as an inpatient in a rehabilitation unit and was assessed by an occupational therapist to require assistance for laundry, cleaning and meal delivery.
The Applicant submitted that one of the reasons for her partner not lodging his income tax return was the assistance he was required to provide her after her discharge from hospital. The Tribunal noted that this was in contrast to the details of an occupational therapy report, dated 23 February 2024, in which it was noted that: “Due to her husband’s job requiring him to work form 9am to 8:30pm, he is unable to support [the Applicant’s] return to domestic activities”.
When asked about her post-surgery activities, the Applicant made reference to physiotherapy and to attending a pool for exercise. However, she gave little detailed evidence about any specific activities and stated she could not remember how many times her partner would accompany her on average per week. Similarly, when asked about the details of the care her partner had asserted he had been providing to her post-surgery, the Applicant was unable to provide any compelling level of detail to the Tribunal. She stated she had been unable to do the shopping or “all of the things required for their house”, but stated that she couldn’t remember the details and all she knows is it was pretty full on. When the contents of an occupational therapy report were put to her (as referred to above, reflecting that her husband was unable to support her due to his working 9am to 8:30pm) the Applicant responded by stating that while she was at home full time, from morning to evening he couldn’t be catering to her whims.
The Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s partner was similarly unable to provide any level of detail of the care he claims to have provided the Applicant from February 2024 onwards after her surgery. When asked for details, he responded by stating that the Applicant had been in pain when out of hospital, had ice on her knees and he would have to attend to her, including when she used the toilet, and there were “other things she couldn’t do”.
The Applicant’s partner prepared a written time line from January to June 2024, setting out his daily activities, which he described as follows:
·In January 2024, he was overseas;
·In February 2024, his daily activities included preparing children for school and dropping them off, work, school pickup, visiting the Applicant in hospital, returning home, helping children with homework and food prep and work;
·In March 2024, his daily activities included preparing the children for school and dropping them off, fragmented work time in addition to caring for the Applicant and taking her to specialists, school pick up and returning home, house inspections, renovator meetings, work and food prep, fragmented work time and caring for the Applicant;
·In April 2024, his daily activities included preparing the children for school and dropping them off, very distracted work time, travel to the Applicant’s specialist, renovation supply and sourcing, school pick up and return home, house inspections, house clearing, children’s home work, the Applicant being too tired, little or no work time and then work;
·In May 2024, his daily activities included preparing the children for school and dropping them off, renovation supply sourcing and house clearing with little work time, school pick up and return home, house inspections, house clearing, house packing, children’s home work, the Applicant being too tired, little or no work time and then work; and
·In June 2024, his daily activities included preparing the children for school and dropping them off from the new house, house packing, car loading, house clearing and travelling to the new house and unloading, work, school pickup, travel to the old house, packing and loading and clearing again, unloading, new house settling, dinner, children, homework and work.
The time line prepared by the Applicant’s partner further noted that, in addition to the above, through the year extra time was required to take the children to psychology, occupational therapy, karate, swimming, tennis and music lessons, each of which required two to three hours inclusive of travel, so that his work time was even more fragmented.

Sale and purchase of homes

The Applicant’s partner gave evidence at the hearing that the family had purchased a new home and had settled on the home on 24 May 2024 and moved in straight after settlement, at the end of May 2024. They had sold their old home in the next financial year, on 16 September 2024, and settled the property on 18 October 2024.
Both the Applicant and her partner gave evidence that significant time had been spent in the first half of 2024 preparing their former home for sale and establishing a new home. They referred in their evidence to having spent time choosing curtains, and obtaining multiple quotes for painting, removal and flooring. The Applicant provided documents to the Tribunal establishing there were email communications between herself and her partner about moving boxes and other items, and seeking quotes for various items that were consistent with the preparation and staging of a house for sale; the Tribunal noted that these were dated May and June 2024.
When asked how much time had been spent on these activities, the Applicant stated it took a lot of time, took most of her day and that she had also had the children at home and had had to feed them. She referred in her evidence to having been exhausted in her condition with the recent surgery, and having found the process physically challenging and mentally exhausting.
The Applicant’s partner, when asked how much time house-related activities had taken, responded by stating that inspections had been at random times and that renovations were similar; they had attended auctions; and it was hard to say because there was no specific schedule. When asked again, the Applicant’s partner referred to activities taking at least two hours.

Circumstances particular to the Applicant’s partner’s income tax return

The Applicant’s partner gave evidence he had changed accountants in May 2024. When asked what schedules he had had to prepare for the preparation of the income tax return, the Applicant’s partner responded by stating that usually something was required, his new accountant needed to be briefed, and the system he was using was not what the average accountant liked (as it was not MYOB or Xero). The Applicant’s partner stated that his accountant required clarification on various things and there were a series of interactions between himself and the accountant. When asked how long it had taken him to complete the schedules, he responded by stating that it was more about answering questions when the accountant needed clarification.
When asked what had happened between 30 June 2024 and 4 July 2024 that meant the tax return was unable to be lodged, the Applicant’s partner stated that they understood the main priority was to lodge the Applicant’s tax return and her tax return already showed his income. Because his accountant was preparing his tax return and his company tax return, the accountant was having to finalise other details to do with the company. When asked to clarify that the accountant had had all of his documents before 30 June 2024, the Applicant’s partner stated yes of course; the accountant was wanting to clarify, and he was busy on other things so couldn’t give the accountant an answer straight away. He noted that this had not just been one thing, but was the children, the Applicant, his business and everything was important and everything was demanding his time.
When asked the reasons he couldn’t have lodged his income tax return before January 2024, the Applicant’s partner responded by stating this was not a fair question to ask and of course if he dropped everything else, he could have done it, but that was six months in advance and it wasn’t foremost on his mind.

Other circumstances

The Applicant told the Tribunal that her son has been diagnosed with autism and she had other long-term health issues after an accident in 2017. She referred in her submissions to having ongoing pain, attending a physiotherapist and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Respondent’s position

In written and oral submissions made to the Tribunal, the Respondent submitted that the circumstances outlined by the Applicant do not meet the threshold to be considered special circumstances.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has been receiving family tax benefit since 2010 and has received notices each year about her lodgement obligations. A decision had been made not to pay her top-ups and supplements for the previous financial year, which had been set aside on internal review, and she was also sent reminders about her obligations regarding the 2022/23 financial year by way of a letter dated 20 March 2024 and SMS reminders on 27 May 2024 and 11 June 2024. The Respondent submitted that any ignorance of the law does not amount to a special circumstance.
The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant’s husband’s increased responsibilities for the household, and the family’s decision to sell and buy property, are not sufficiently uncommon and are part of the vicissitudes of daily life. The Applicant has not provided evidence of her partner changing accountants and, even if it was accepted that this had occurred, an accountant’s failure to lodge a tax return on time is not a special circumstance. Nor has the Applicant provided evidence of her child’s autism diagnosis
The Respondent further submitted that, even if the circumstances referred to by the Applicant are capable of constituting special circumstances, these circumstances did not prevent the Applicant’s partner from lodging his income tax return by 30 June 2024. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to the top-ups and supplements of family tax benefit for the 2022/23 financial year, because of the late lodgement and because special circumstances that prevented the lodgement have not been demonstrated.

Findings and conclusions of the Tribunal

As the Applicant lodged her own income tax return within the relevant reconciliation time, the legal issue for the Tribunal is whether her partner had special circumstances that prevented him from lodging his income tax return before 30 June 2024.
By March 2024, when a letter was sent to the Applicant advising her of the 30 June 2024 deadline for lodging the relevant income tax returns, the Applicant had been receiving family tax benefit for just under 14 years. She had lodged late the previous financial year and had had to go through a review process to have her late lodgement assessed, within the context of seeking top ups and reconciled amounts of family tax benefit. She had been sent two SMS reminders of the 30 June 2024 deadline and – contrary to her assertions – had been sent clearly worded correspondence from Centrelink about the requirement to lodge and the consequences if lodgement was not completed by 30 June 2024. Having regard, in particular, to the late lodgement the previous financial year and the Applicant’s awareness of the decision that had been made within that context about her entitlement to top ups and supplements of family tax benefit, the Tribunal had great difficulty accepting she was not aware of the lodgement requirements or the consequences of non-lodgement. The Applicant’s reasons for not engaging with the correspondence and SMSs sent to her were unclear. The Tribunal does not accept that any advertent or deliberate failure to engage with information sent to her by Centrelink constitutes a special circumstance in this matter.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant underwent surgery in February 2024 and is prepared to accept that her partner was required to undertake household functions that he would not normally undertake. The extent of these functions was unclear to the Tribunal from the evidence of the Applicant or her partner, on the basis that neither was able to give a clear and credible account of what functions her partner was required to undertake and the amount of time each week this amounted to. The descriptions given in the Applicant’s partner’s timeline referred to usual family activities such as school pick up and preparation of meals. The Tribunal was not persuaded that such functions, normally undertaken by the Applicant, meant that her partner was prevented from tending to his financial affairs, such as preparation of the relevant information for his accountant. The Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant’s hospitalisation in February 2024 and subsequent period of rehabilitation and recovery was a special circumstance that prevented her partner from lodging his income tax return by 30 June 2024.
The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant and her partner moved into a new home in late May or early June 2024 and that this would have involved an amount of disruption to the household. The Tribunal accepted that the former home was sold in September 2024 and that preparations for house-related renovations and staging of the old home occurred across May and June 2024. However, the Applicant and her partner were both unable to provide the Tribunal with clear evidence about the time involved in the various house-related activities and its consequent impact on them meeting their other obligations, such as the lodgement of the Applicant’s partner’s income tax return. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant and her partner moving home in May or June 2024 and the subsequent sale of their former home, in the next financial year, was a special circumstance that prevented the Applicant’s partner from lodging his income tax return by 30 June 2024.
The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant’s partner changed accountants in May 2024. He was unclear in his evidence as to the documents that had been required, or the specific circumstances that had caused any delay in the accountant’s lodgement of the income tax return. He acknowledged he could have lodged his income tax return in the first half of the financial year but stated it had not been foremost on his mind. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant’s change of accountant, or any documents he needed to provide to an accountant for his income tax return to be finalised, creates a special circumstance that prevented him from lodging his income tax return by 30 June 2024.
The Tribunal has also considered the above circumstances in cumulation, in addition to the Applicant’s evidence of having a child with autism and her evidence about the physical and mental health impacts she continues to experience from an accident that occurred in 2017. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the circumstances described by the Applicant and her partner amount to circumstances that are out of the ordinary, are unusual or are markedly different to circumstances faced by family tax benefit recipients. They were not an insurmountable block to lodgement of the income tax return, as described in Singleton, or a “perfect storm” which prevented lodgement, as described in Willersdorf.
The Applicant’s partner did not meet the relevant reconciliation time within the meaning of section 32D of the Family Assistance Administration Act. As a result, any top ups and supplements of family tax benefit were not payable to the Applicant for the 2022/23 financial year. The decision under review is legally correct and this decision is affirmed.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing: 9 October 2025

Representative for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent:
Ms M Chiu

Date of hearing:	9 October 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms M Chiu