Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

facing possible bankruptcy csa debt too big

Eclipse said
however it does seem odd that you could provide CSA with evidence that they would simply ignore. 
Yes it does seem odd - perhaps pointing toward a conflict of interest on the part of the decision maker.
In my case, the SCO (and I quote) "arbitrarily" set my CS to an amount that under the formula, indicated my income to be THREE TIMES what it actually was.
Her reasoning was that as I owned a house, I had no accommodation expenses (because there are no expenses associated with owning a house in CSA Bizzaro World I guess) and the amount she "arbitrarily" set would be what I would likely have to pay in rent if I didn't own a house.
Now, I don't know which planet has 3 bedroom rentals for $80 per week, but clearly this SCO does - it's probably in the aforementioned CSA Bizzaro World…

The Objections officer didn't bother offering any such garbled cruft, instead simply saying that she found my income to be THREE TIMES what it actually was without showing how she arrived at that figure.
Fantastically, the assessment on that income matched perfectly with the amount "arbitrarily" set by the SCO.
Equally fantastically, the OO found that the amount I claimed for postage of items I sell is actually paid for by the customer and therefore will be "added back" to my income.

My experience of the CSA COA process leads me to believe that the two officers who made decisions in my case are either incompetent or culpable and I was treated with contempt and arrogance at every turn.
I can only conclude that the COA process and therefore the CSA itself are either corrupt or criminal.

And yes, I did appeal to the SSAT who actually made a decision based on the (accurate) financial information supplied and correctly applied the legislation to my case.

Eclipse said
Further, it is almost 0% likely that the CSA, or any government department for that matter, would take a matter to court unless they were of the view that their position was sound - not legally arguable, but sound.  There are far too many negatives for government departments to take matters to court on anything less than solid grounds and after all reasonable attempts have been made to resolve the issue before commencing any legal actions.

Therefore, I suggest that your story is probably not completely accurate.  Not saying the CSA may not have made some mistakes in your case, they may well have.  However, there is no chance that CSA would have gone to court unless they were reasonably sure they had a solid case.
My experience with this pack of Trolls is that they will use any tactic they can think of in an attempt to bully payers into submission.
Threats of legal proceedings would certainly fall into that category…
seriously.  Threats of legal proceedings are one thing, actually starting those proceedings is another.  Any government department has far too much to lose and nothing to gain by participating in court actions when they have no firm basis to do so.
OK, lets get into some details in an attempt to have some better understand and form opinions etc.

Firstly the csa assessment stands at approx 400 per week and that is from the start of the 2010 financial year and to run for 3 years and according to them was based on the following;

The mother states she has nil income apart from centerlink benefits and the 100 per week I give her, she also claims to have no monies in the bank, she also said that she had not disposed of any property in the past 3 years (question on the csa coa form) but she had in fact sold one property for 800k and bought another for 400k, csa did not investigate this even though I handed up copies of the sale and purchase records.

My financial position at the time of the assesment I was earning 20k pa with another additional 30k in benefits coming my way through loan repayments to me, total income if you like 50k and I did agree to accept the 30k as income because at some point in the future it would have become income anyway.

Csa sets income at 150k for the purposes of calculating cs based on my companies financials showing before depreciation of approx 130k before tax and here is the interesting bit in that the real money available for distribution (capacity) is as follows.
Company profit before tax is approx 130k (after my wages)but remember that does not take into account the 30k benefit I am receiving nor what I have to pay the ato for that year and nor does it take into account that due to an ato audit the company ends up with a 400k debt to the ato to be paid over 4 years, currently between the years tax bill and the audited debt the company pays 9600 per month to the ato, thats 115k per year.

Now do the sums, the ato of 115 and the benefit of 30 k comes to 145k and that is to come out of 130k, can someone tell me how this can be done especially when the csa want another 20k on top of that, how does that not show the ability to pay is just not there the 30k benefit is to cover house mortgage (yes I know I should not have bought the house) and remember that I have agreed that the 30k can be seen as income so that one is not an issue, based on csa calc etc my level of child support should be approx 100 pw.

My companies financial position is that it obviously has a debt to the commonwealth also and it must be paid as per the agreement with the ato, if it is not then they will fold the company and come after me as a director for the debt so it must pay and that leaves the cash flow in negative territory as it is.

It has been suggested that I just take the money out of the company but that will have only one result and that is the company will fold and I will be investigated and under the companies act I risk loosing my freedom, so that is not an option.
I am not telling you anything that the csa does not know and in fact that the csa has not confirmed, they have spoken to the ato, they have both mine and the companies financial records, they have everything apart from a calculator that works and the ability to admit they are wrong and say sorry.

Please also remember that I am 63 years old and living in a region where there are no job prospects for me outside my company
I have competing obligations to the csa, the ato and to the companies act as a director that if I dont want to get into further trouble I must remain mindful of and act accordingly, in short I am screwed.

Re threats of legal stuff etc not only did they make them why do you think I am in court in approx 6 weeks, they are taking me to court, not me them.

More info available should any one want it

Last edit: by Aussie

Eclipse said
seriously.  Threats of legal proceedings are one thing, actually starting those proceedings is another.  Any government department has far too much to lose and nothing to gain by participating in court actions when they have no firm basis to do so.
 
If you threaten me with legal action with no intention of following through and I take you at face value and engage solicitors, or otherwise act to my cost as a result of the expectation that you will do as you say, there may be an estoppel if you fail to proceed.

From Mason CJ in Commonwealth v Verwayen

"The result is that it should be accepted that there is but one doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a court may do what is required to prevent a person who has relied upon an assumption (present, past or future) after being induced to do so by the other from suffering detriment in reliance upon it. There must be proportionality between remedy and detriment. The assumption may be with regard to legal as well as factual matters. "

One of the things I most despise about the CSA is the propensity to make baseless threats.
eclipse said … "seriously.  Threats of legal proceedings are one thing, actually starting those proceedings is another.  Any government department has far too much to lose and nothing to gain by participating in court actions when they have no firm basis to do so."

the csa does in their opinion and according to legislation, "have a firm basis to do so", remember that the debt is now a proven debt to the commonwealth and they want the money.

this is real world stuff, well real in the csa world any way
Craigo:  I don't support making baseless threats either.  That wasn't the intention of my response.

Estoppel doesn't apply in the situation you describe.  It stops a person from doing something they said they were not going to do.  It is not a remedy for when a person says they will do something but don't.
Indeed it is, if I reasonably rely upon your claim and there is a cost to me, it is reasonable for me to expect you to carry it through. If you don't, the estoppel occurs, as per Mason.
Maybe it was my shorthand.  Estoppel would not operate in the situation you describe, because the outcome would be to your detriment.  You simply wouldn't argue it.  If you did, the court would probably order that you be examined.   :lol:

It can operate to make a person do something they said they were going to do, but not if that is to your detriment.

Eclipse said
Maybe it was my shorthand.  Estoppel would not operate in the situation you describe, because the outcome would be to your detriment.  You simply wouldn't argue it.  If you did, the court would probably order that you be examined.   :lol:

It can operate to make a person do something they said they were going to do, but not if that is to your detriment.


 
Eclipse, if the threat is made in the course of proceedings to recover a disputed debt and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the debt is not properly due, then it is an entirely sensible action to take. The litigant can either proceed, agree to settle or contest the estoppel proceedings brought by the defense.

There is no law that can prevent one from acting to one's detriment, but there are laws to prevent others from inducing them to do so.
I suppose you could do that.  Maybe I just can't envisage a reason to risk being wrong and commencing an action.  Also, unless you could get an indemnity for costs incurred, you still could end up worse off than simply doing nothing.

Anyway, I think we are in agreement on the law.  Tactics for legal matters is not my bag, so I will stop posting about it.
Eclipse said
I suppose you could do that.  Maybe I just can't envisage a reason to risk being wrong and commencing an action.  Also, unless you could get an indemnity for costs incurred, you still could end up worse off than simply doing nothing.

Anyway, I think we are in agreement on the law.  Tactics for legal matters is not my bag, so I will stop posting about it.
 

The point I'm making is that the threat of legal action is used far too freely. If one has a strong case to defend and the agency threatens such action then refuses to bring it, it is reasonable to demand that they either put up or shut up.

the agency deliberately makes these threats in order to intimidate, not because it has any intent of carrying them through. That is a clear estoppel if it causes others to act in genuine belief that the action will occur as promised/threatened by what is, after all, a Government organisation and therefore required to act as a model litigant at all times.

Let's face it, there's a reason there's a compensation and WAIVER team…

Just would like to add a sorry for derailing the thread to Aussie. I wish I could offer proper advice for you in your situation, but it's way beyond my scope.

Last edit: by Craigo

no prob craigo, i actually learnt something from it that has helped me make one decission, thanks
Well, if it was even a little helpful, that's all to the good. Best of luck!
aussie, dont give up the fight.
i have made an agreement with csa after i have halved my debt through evidence i supplied. my reasons..
1. urgent personal matters
2. if the tax payer has already paid this money to my ex, regardless if it was right or wrong, and that is not there responsability
3. a lovely new case manager, who i could speak sensibly to, and, she helped me reach a sustainable agreement, even suggesting thyat she will get my payment suspended(if i make a resonable lump sum payment) for 4 months, due to my seasonal work and time to tend to my health.

so there are some nice people there, just not enough.
yes they do fail to recognise, accept, forward, or just outright ignore your information, and use what ever means to extort the money from you.
while my experience is limited, and there some very knowlegable following your topic, i can only relate my experience that some might been seen in it to help.
if u cant get along with your case manager, insist on change, they will try to deny u, but its your right.
csa forms aren,t worth the paper they are on, but i would send them a coa every week, maybe if every done that, would annoy the hell out of them.
dont wait for them to take you to court, get it to court yourself, if u feel confident that you have a just case.
and good luck

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets