A fair go
Income of both houses
I have recently had a payrise which will see my payments go from $1380 pm to well over $1800 pm. I have 2 children with 30% care.
The question I have is my x and her busband run a business which she claims $39,000 income from. However the business generate a large income for the x's home. As they are married and therefore by default both own the business how to I get CSA to take into consideration the profits from the business as her income (which is in his name). The amount of money is total rediculas and my famly struggles while the x drives around in a $120,000 car.
Any help appreciate.
Also I have paid child support for 7 year now without fail. I recently was informed that CSA are now deducting payments directly from my pay which started last month. Is there anyway I can have this reversed or stopped as my x regularly rings up and makes claims that I dont see the kids etc. CSA take her at her word change my assessment and hit me with back charges until I can convince them I do see the kids as per the court order. The problem now is they will take the back charges straight out of my pay!
In regards to the other parent's income, in theory you could apply for a change of assessment (COA) by way of reason 8 (a parent's income, property, financial resources, or earning capacity). With very little doubt if the other parent were the payer then they would find ways to increase the income of the other parent. However, the CSA have been found to be biased against the payer in the change of assessment process. There is a good chance that they would find some way of distorting the legislation to increase your income and or decrease the other parent's income. You could then take the matter to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). However, SSAT appear to be following in the CSA footsteps when it comes to distorting the legislation (I believe that SSAT have recruited some of the CSA's COA team). Your only recourse would then be to take the matter to court and this can only be done on a matter of law.
So when the boot was on the other foot, I must be the a fool, as I have made regular payments, completed my tax return each year and yet all I have had is considerable greif from my case officer.
As Mike T has alluded to, change of assessment, SSAT and then Court, is the only possible out. But be mindful that CSA will really only look at the payer's details in minute detail and have a cursory veiw of the payee's income. On numerous occassions, I have had to object to a COA decision purely on this alone.
Suggest you do some detective work, such as photos of the x's motor vehicle, and other assets etc…CSA have legislative powers to obtain information through other means, such as state motor registries, land title offices etc. Further, if your x is in business with partner, then for a nominal fee to ASIC a name search for shareholdings and office holders of private companies or related entities. The more information obtained and presented in the COA process, the CSA and SSAT may be persuaded to look further at your x's arrangements.
Of course, should it all go pear-shaped, and you are looking for an 'error of law' to take the next step to the Federal Magaistrate's Court, then you can then cite that CSA failed to make proper enquiry inrelation to the material before it.
They can do what they like when they like because you are playing in there ground and its there rules.
The whole system is wrong because there is no consideration for the paying parent and when you object to there decision and take it to the SSAT then they only follow the CSA decision and then if you disagree with there decision you can only take the matter to the courts if the SSAT have written a mistake in the law for there findings.
Why isnt there an independant government body who can help the payer like the CSA help the payee
With the new formula, it is in the payers interests that the recipients (payee) income is smaller rather than larger.
The formula takes both parents incomes, subtracts the self support amount (for ea) adds them together to retermine the cost of the child(ren) then apportions that by means of a percentage of care that ea has. So it is better for you that she have a lower income as the cost of the child will therefore be less.
Turboadam saidSo it is better for you that she have a lower income as the cost of the child will therefore be less.
It 's very rarely, if ever, better for the recipient to have a lower income. This is because the resultant cost of the children is apportioned according to the percentage of the combined incomes.
Here's some examples:
Example 1 - Current Situation (based upon assumptions)
It would appear that necroyp would have a taxable income of about $150,000, if there are 2 children 13+ and that necroyp has 30% care if the other parent has a taxable income of $39,000.
The cost of the children in this scenario is $34,659 (COC), necroyp's parent's income percentage (PIP) is 87.55%, a level of care of 30% results in a 24% reduction resulting in necroyp paying 63.55% of the $34,659 cost of the children, which equates to an annual rate of CS of $22,026.
Example 2 - Recipient's Income increases
If the other parent were earning $120,000 then the COC increases to $35,523 (note it's such a small increase because the income cap has been reached i.e. the income is over 3 times the annualised male total average weekly earnings amount i.e. 9 time the self support amount; the income cap was reached when the other parent's income was approximately $45640), necroyp's PIP is reduced to 56.56%, the level of care is unchanged thus resulting in necroyp paying 32.56% of the $35,523 which equates to an annual rate of CS of $11,566 (again note that crossing the income cap threshold drastically changes matters, so this scenario is extreme).
Example 3 - Recipient's Income decreases
As another example if the other parent's dropped to $30,000, then the COC decreases to $33,489, necroyp's PIP jumps to 93.22%, 24% care reduction results in necroyp paying 69.22% of the $33,489 which equates to an annual rate of CS of $23,182 ($1931 pm).
I think, but I'm not sure, that the only advantage of a recipient having a lower income is that the cost of children for relevant dependant children (RDC) or for multi-case children (these use the same cost of children tables, but only using the appropriate parent's Child Support Income (CSI) at these two stages (i.e. the cost RDC's is subtracted from the CSI before working out the cost of multi-case children and both, if any, are subtracted from the CSI before working out the cost of children)).
All calculations are courtesy of the Advanced Child Support Calculator.
The calculator is freely available to all from the Home Page.
necroyp saidAlso I have paid child support for 7 year now without fail. I recently was informed that CSA are now deducting payments directly from my pay which started last month. Is there anyway I can have this reversed or stopped as my x regularly rings up and makes claims that I dont see the kids etc. CSA take her at her word change my assessment and hit me with back charges until I can convince them I do see the kids as per the court order. The problem now is they will take the back charges straight out of my pay!
Application to stop deductions from salary or wages
Application to stop deductions from salary or wages
You can submit this form online.
Purpose of this form
Are your payments up to date?
If YES, we will accept your request if we are satisfied that you will continue to make the payments by the due dates.
If NO, we are unlikely to accept your request except in special circumstances.
Have you asked us to stop employer deductions in the past and been refused?
If YES, you can ask us to stop deductions again if the last time you asked was more than 2 months ago.
If NO, you can apply now.
Have you had a pay direct to Child Support Agency (CSA) arrangement cancelled in the past?
If YES, you can ask us to stop deductions again if we cancelled your last arrangement more than 6 months ago.
If NO, there is no waiting period to apply.