Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

asset rich income poor

csa objection decision

For about 9 years paying parents income has been low less than unemployment. I have emailed the CSA many times and they told me I needed proof.

Finally last year I spoke to CSA again and was told to put income low investigate. As I am now married also told to write personal expenses as a couple and to explain to SCO this at conference. Paying parent wrote he is sole home owner has $355,000 remaining on the loan other expenses $49,900. SCO decision to increase amount from $20.00 a week to $170.00 a week. As it had been for many years either $10.00,$20.00 a week prior. I objected asking to be backdated. Payer objected now saying he has fiancee and was reluctant to mention her at first conference and chronic illness also not mentioned at conference. New decision from Obections Officer is $40.00 a week.

My question was how did he obtain a home loan for that amount being sole owner. I was told they could not go back that far, he is self employed and 50% shareholder in another company?

Last edit: by MikeT

I don't believe that there is any way that your question could be answered, it would only be speculation. Obviously and in order to protect against those falsely claiming that the other parent has a higher than actual income, evidence is required, although I'd dispute proof as such is required, more enough evidence to justify investigation. You appear to be saying that they did investigate.

If you can say that he is self-employed and is a 50% share holder in a company, as factual, then you must have the proof and the results appear to contradict what you are saying.

With regard to the raise to $170 per week, there does appear to be a common theme with SCO decisions, in that they appear to regularly produce amounts that are far in excess of what the data they have before them can justify. It is quite apparent that they often try it on simply to make the CSA and themselves look better at the cost of they very object of the legislation to ensure that parents (plural not singular) meet their financial responsibilities to their children (Section 4 of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989).

A recent SSAT decision, namely Ryan v Ryan, has exposed this tactic for all to see. In brief, SCO sets parents income at $92,000. Objection lowers this to $62,000. SSAT comes up with a decision of $58,500. In addition SSAT find, that not only have the SCO's wrongly increased the paying parent's income, but that they have also not applied the legislation to the receiving parent's income in order to artificially increase the amount collected or transferred. As such the receiving parent's income was raised from $25,000 to $42,000. As the portion of income (after deduction of the Self Support Amount, relevant dependant child amount and multi-case allowance) of each effects the distribution of the cost of children, then this jump from 25-42 has a similar effect on the income portions as the reduction of the other parents income, this obviously being very significant.

If the decision in regards to your objection was within the last 28 days, then you could take the matter to SSAT.
Payers expense form in change of assessment payer stated sole home owner and expenses.After decision reported he was reluctant to mention fiancee and reluctant to mention illness so he apparently has been unable to work since August last year.I found his buisness entity via internet entity started 1999.His previous work history income just under $29,000.Since approx.2000 cs payments based on income less than $12,000.Payers home purchased 2004 value $400,000.Why would a bank give a loan amount that high?From 2006 to 2009 nil child support payments made.
Astrogirl said
Payers expense form in change of assessment payer stated sole home owner and expenses.
You stated that previously, are you saying that the other parent shouldn't be allowed to live in a home and have expenses. If so that is contrary to CS legislation.

Astrogirl said
After decision reported he was reluctant to mention fiancee and reluctant to mention illness so he apparently has been unable to work since August last year.
Considering that many parents consider the other parent having a life it is understandable that some parents may wish that such personal information is not revealed to the other parent. However not revealing these would likely have an effect of an unjust decision being made and that the decision would likely be detrimental to the parent not revealing such iformation. Perhaps that was the case and thus to allow a just decision to be made, the information was reluctantly revealed. Why else would one hide a legitimate reason for being unable to work and thus get an income? Perhaps you see it as a ruse to report a low income, however I have little doubt that the CSA would not accept this without being satisfied that the claim is substantiated. I can't see any relevance in regard to the finacee, somehow I doubt from what you have said, that a reduction, by the way of a change of assessment, would have been made for any duty of care.

Astrogirl said
I found his buisness entity via internet entity started 1999.
From what you say, this was insufficient information to convince the CSA even though they apparently introduced their extensive investigative powers.

Astrogirl said
His previous work history income just under $29,000.
This would be appear to be from over 10 years ago from what you have said?

Astrogirl said
Since approx.2000 cs payments based on income less than $12,000. Payers home purchased 2004 value $400,000.
Don't you mean approx 2000 to 2005?

Astrogirl said
Why would a bank give a loan amount that high?
Perhaps others can answer this. Perhaps there was some astute financial wizardry behind it.  Perhaps the other parent was able to provide, at the the time of the mortgage application, the evidence required, perhaps the other parent was working and had the payslips but then subsequently became unemployed. Perhaps the illness the other parent is suffering is part of that. Perhaps you misunderstand the situation, you do appear to have got what you have posted mixed up and contradicting itself.

Astrogirl said
From 2006 to 2009 nil child support payments made.
This appears to contradict what you originally stated "As it had been for many years either $10.00,$20.00 a week prior."

Perhaps you should clarify your situation and for each year specify your income and the other parents income according to the statements from the CSA.

Is the other parent in arrears and if so by how much? How many children are there and what are there ages? What level of care does the other parent have and had?
I have 2 children.I work part time income just under $23000 a year.Liable parent business income just under $84,000 with total expenses of just over $70,000,leaving a profit of around $13,000 for 2007/08.Claims approx.$22,000 motor vehicle,$4400 for depreciation,$6,000 for write offs and $9,200 for office costs.The $10 and $20 amounts payer has been paying for the last 10 years based on income of less than unemployment benifets.Had illness since August 2009.
            I believe that I have asked some easy to understand questions, why have you not been courteous enough to provide all the details or provide an explanation of why those details have not been provided? Are you perhaps being a little hypocritical in expecting the other parent to provide information yet showing that you are pretty unwilling to provide information?

From what you have written, considering that an SCO has been involved, which would have resulted, if deemed appropriate of a registrar initiated change of assessment, then it is likely that the accounts are rock solid. I'm pretty sure that the $170 per week decision would have been via a reason 8 departure (change of assessment). You haven't explained why you objected to that, would you? I am certainly aware of how hard the CSA can dig their claws into small business owners who are payers, taking actions that are to be honest, beyond belief (resorting to years old business loan applications to set the income, implementing decisions that would require the public at large to be put at risk of life or limb for those incomes to be met).

What type of business does the other parent conduct? Perhaps if we know that, then we can ascertain whether the profit margin is realistic, although many business would have a relatively low profit margin, e.g. for independent truck drivers, the trucks can cost a fortune (e.g. a new prime mover would be over $150,000), to travel 100,000 kilometers would likely cost between 56,000-90,000 in fuel alone, depreciation would likely be quite high as would costs such an insurance, servicing and so on. It's also, I believe a highly competitive business and thus profit margins very low.

However saying all that, even if you knew how the other parent managed to get the mortgage, what difference do you think that might make?

I also ask that you show everyone a little courtesy and consideration by taking the time to tidy up what you write before you post by using paragraphs and also using a space after a punctuation marks. I will personally be reluctant to continue responding should you decide not to do this.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets