Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Payer Hiding His Income ?

Hi all.

I am the dreaded PAYEE lol and I have a problem. My ex is a real estate consultant and currently claims his income is $25,600 per year. I may be blonde but I find this hard to believe.

Now I'm not a greedy person, my daughter is 14 and in private education (at our verbal agreement, so I couldn't claim for him to pay half expenses as I didn't get it in writing). I receive a reasonably minimal amount based on this income, not even enough monthly to pay the private school fees per month.

I'm not complaining as it's better than nothing. Come July the payments will be $141 per month using the new CSA calculator.

Now this man is living in a prestigious area, has two nice cars, is quite the social butterfly, as are estate agents, lots of interstate holiday travel, yet claims this is his income. After investigation the figure of $25,600 is his base retainer so effectively according to the CSA he isn't going to sell one property over a year. We all know in today's market it is a real estate agent's paradise, all except for this one lol.

I tried a Change of Assessment (COA) but at the time they investigated he hadn't sold a property that month so they accept that as his income. His retainer was verified by his employer. There is no possible way he could pay his mortgage and car payments on this income! This income is low enough to be substituted through Centrelink yet there is no Centrelink link.

I give up. I'm not asking for millions but the burden should not be my husband's to bear (he already has his own CSA case).

I know my story is like many others but any suggestions on how to go about proving he earns more are sought.

(His tax returns come back high even after allowable deductions. For example, last year his tax return came in at $72,500 but the very next day he estimated it back to $25,600. Yes he gets a debt, but like he says, he'd rather pay a debt off than give me lump sums lol.)
HubbyPays ExDoesnt.

Perhaps this, from the new legislation, may be of interest, you may also wish to read all of section 60-63. and also perhaps section 161 which is referred to (not sure why as I found what I was looking for in section 64) :
The New Legislation said
64A  Penalty for underestimating adjusted taxable income

(1) A parent is liable to pay the Registrar a penalty of the amount worked out under subsection (2) if:

(a) the parent made an election under section 60 relating to a child support period; and

(b) the total of the parent's real remaining period adjusted taxable income is at least 110% of the amount the parent estimated at step 2 of the method statement in subsection 60(5) for the purposes of making the election.

(2) The amount of the penalty is 10% of the difference between:

(a) the administrative assessment of child support that would have been made if it were based entirely on the amount of adjusted taxable income in the election; and

(b) the administrative assessment of child support made under section 64.

(3) The penalty is due and payable upon the issue of the administrative assessment under section 64 and is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
(4) The Registrar may remit the whole or a part of the penalty if:

(a) paragraph (1)(b) applies because of an amendment of an Income Tax Assessment Act, or because of a ruling or determination under an Income Tax Assessment Act; or

(b) paragraph (1)(b) applies for some other reason, and the Registrar is satisfied that it would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances to remit the whole or that part of the penalty.

(5) If the Registrar makes a decision to remit only part of a penalty payable under this section, or not to remit any part of the penalty, the Registrar must serve written notice of the decision on the parent by whom the penalty is, or but for the remission would be, payable.

(6) The notice must include, or be accompanied by, a statement to the effect:

(a) that the parent may, subject to the Registration and Collection Act, object to the decision (the original decision); and

(b) that if the parent is aggrieved by a later decision on an objection to the original decision, he or she may, subject to that Act, apply to the SSAT for review of the later decision.

(7) A contravention of subsection (6) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.

(8) In this section:
real remaining period adjusted taxable income of a parent who made an election under section 60 has the meaning given by subsection 64(6).
I'm not sure what the registrar will do with the penalty money, but perhaps by letting the ex know that you are aware of this, may then make him consider better the kid than the CSA Christmas party or some other black hole  wishing well thing.

As always, my interpretation may well be incorrect, especially the Christmas party, that's likely too long after the event. ;)

A small detail

At the end of each C$ period, CSA is supposed to rationalise an "Estimated" income with ATO reported taxable income. Child support is then payable on the difference between Taxable and Estimate. The law also allows for penalties to be applied where the estimate is more than 10% below Taxable. (This is one of the eniequities, if the Payer overpays, it can not be recovered).

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Tell me about it. I've got reconciliations waiting to be done that are over 2 years old because they have a backlog so they say.

I know full well massive debt is going to be applied but for the last two years they have let him take his tax refund etc because the reconciliations haven't been looked at.
Yep all tax refunds are up to date, but this guy hasn't been reconciled for 2.3 years of ANY of his estimates.

I've phoned about them but they say there's such a backlog with the implementation of the new system but assure me they will get to it eventually … pffft.

What a scapegoat for payers to use knowing its not going to get looked at for ages!
LifeInsight said
After all the C$A gets some money for their coffers and you get yours eventually.

How does the CSA get any money for their coffers through this process?  All money collected goes to the payee, none is for the CSA itself.  

I think it would help if we all, payees as well as payers, understood that the money collected is for the children not the CSA itself.  I know that does not always happen, but that is the intent.

I am no fan of the CSA, have taken them to the Ombudsman many times, claimed compensation for their maladministration and even sued them, so please do not think I am defending them!

I just think we need to be clear who we are fighting on each issue - the government is responsible for the legislation and it is them we should lobby for changes; the CSA is not responsible for the rules, only the incompetent way it administers them, and makes no money from payers. The money is for the children - whether it reaches them is or not is another debate which is outside the ambit of CSA.


My understanding is that employees, even at the grass roots level of CSO 3, have the discretion to waive fines/arrears which I believe to be made out to be debts to the Commonwealth.
HubbyPays said
Yep all tax refunds are up to date, but this guy hasn't been reconciled for 2.3 years of ANY of his estimates.

I've phoned about them but they say there's such a backlog with the implementation of the new system but assure me they will get to it eventually … pffft.
Have you thought of lodging a formal complaint requesting compensation , perhaps claiming 2.3 years is too long a delay and amounts to inadequate administration?

Send it to CSA noting that a copy has been sent to the Ombudsman the follow up with a complaint directly to the Ombudsman about the compensation process if it takes more than the specified time.

This probably won't result in any compensation, but while they have the file open, they may do the reconciliation to get the Ombudsman off their back - 2.3 years is not adequate customer service.

to pay or not to pay

My ex husband has never paid child support and never will. He keeps his companys in other peoples names if there are a few in his own name he makes sure they run at a loss or he only pays himself $14k per annum.

CSA did prove his game but it is not simple and I have been informed that I will have to apply for child support every 12 months and then maybe in 20 to 50 years they will get the money. This makes it hard not to be emotional when he demands the children and then demands that I a single mother with 3 children one of who is intellectually and physically impaired pay for half of the travel costs every second weekend and half of all holidays to perth return for our children. Now I have to fight the case which holds up the legal system and makes my life more stressful and the childrens life more stressful. He is also demanding that I not relocate though he is allowed to move where ever and whenever he wishes. 84% of primary caregivers are women. Restraining financial, emotional and physical movement restricts more women than men. Maybe getting married or having children should be harder than it currently is.:|
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets