Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Adjusted Taxable Income

How does C$A treat additional income?

Hi Guys,

I'm after a clarification on this one before I ask C$A….

I am a PAYG employee
I am aware if you have a negatively geared investment property, C$A will "add back" the losses to your ATO taxable income to essentially arrive back at what your PAYG summary says BUT,
If you have some income from an additional source, say Primary Production and you are able to offset that income with farm expenses to the point where the expenses are more than the income does THAT also get "added back" by C$A or is it only negatively geared property that does?

appreciate any comments
The CSA will find anything they can to add back onto your income to give you a new assessable income, which is wrong in every ones calculations except the CSA
Do the basic maths yourself, forget about depreciation, bank interest and fees. Your income less expenses leaves you with what your physical income is, and base your child support on that amount.
You will have a fight on your hands if you want to go down that road. Once they add back depreciation etc you should notify the Ombudsman asap.
Taylor,

thanks for the reply.

I am not proposing to "go down that road" - I already am, as it is the current situation, but I have been providing C$A with an estimate without taking that into account.
I'm curious as to how the C$A "system" tracks that particular component as it automatically (somehow) adds back the negatively geared property.

Just wondering if it can do the same for the Primary Production component.
I just love the CSA and their let maximizes the amount we collect attitude.  I've been a "customer" of CSA for the past 8 years and during that time I stayed at the same job the whole time.   When I separated I was making about 50K now due to promotion and such I'm on 85K.  I have no problems paying on this money.  I have a problem with additional income I have to pay on because I choose to work a part time job and I also believe in saving for a rainy day and the bank interest adds another 4K onto my income so all up its 109K.  So instead of paying about 18K I have to pay 24K.  The children Mother does not have to contribute and money.  But why should she between Welfare and FTB part A/B and Child support she on good money.  Sorry to have a bit of a vent on your post
Hi,
I am new to the forum but this is an interesting thread.  I have been to the SSAT 3 times but the latest go around was just a rubber stamp of the CSA objection decision.  My income was a key issue.  Again they add depreciation but do not offset actual capital expenditure in the period - even though I pointed this out in my application, and provided BAS evidence that money is spent on capital.  Evey step of the way - original decision, objection, and SSAT review - a different method has been used.  I am pushing this fact now with a submission to the ombudsman - referring back to the ombudsman's report of 2010.  The ombudsman recommended and the CSA agreed that they should use standardised formats, be clear and logical etc.  I know the CSA can always use the "every case is different" excuse, but I have used the original COA decision report in my case as an example of the CSA being unclear, illogical, inconsistent, and unable to add up.

Does anyone know if the CSA are going to have to tighten up their methods, rather than using whatever random number generator the case officer wants?
Even the conservatives are scared of reforming CSA so I'd say it's unlikely to change. Vagaries and interpretation help CSA justify greater collection totals (thus saving via FTB) so they have no compelling reason(s) to address customers' quarrels. I wish I could say otherwise but I think that's what it comes down to.
Has anyone looked at the recent amendments to The Guide?

One area that came up in our recent case was drawings. They can now use the drawings figure from a sole trader and add tax to establish a ficticious estimate. I am amazed that the CSA can get away with this as in our case we took funds out but put alot back in. My point is how can they get away with just looking at one particular aspect of a business without looking at the whole picture.

Another question I have is who amends this guide?
Alessandro said
They can now use the drawings figure from a sole trader and add tax to establish a ficticious estimate. I am amazed that the CSA can get away with this
 

Isn't that amazing how they can try anything and get away with it.

What section of the CSA Act says they can do this.?

I don't believe that I have read anything like that.

Amendments to The Guide

It is under What's New in 'The Guide' and was updated on the 8th November 2013 and back in October.

Who makes these changes? It doesn't appear that the Assessment and Collection Act has been amended?



Attachment
taylor said
Isn't that amazing how they can try anything and get away with it.
They can and will continue to do so whatever they want because there are precious few checks and balances on them.

Until people get organized together to effect change - this behavior will continue.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets