Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

COA objection allowed.

Add Topic
I am in utter disbelief!!

The CSA has allowed an objection by the payee in my case to object to a decision following a COA in Jan 2011 which found that I was to be assessed at the minimume income level because of loww income due to my business making negligible profits.
The payee provided no information other than a she felt that I was working cash in hand and cited reason 8.

I wrote to them highlighting that no new info had been provided and that the objection by the payee should be rejected.
I just received the decision and they have added back $20,000 of business costs consisting of
  *small business tax break
  *home office expenses
  *motor vehicle expenses
  *motor vehicle depreciation
to my personal income to increase liability to more than double my income!!!:o
The other flabergasting thing is they have assessed an amount of $50,000 as my assessable income from  March 2013 onwards.
This is 2 years in the future!!
How can they do this?
Downlow,
            the CSA making utterly dis-believable decisions in the COA process is not something new; they appear to be very able at conjuring up ridiculous amounts. It is known that they have used years old business loan applications a number of times to introduce inflated amounts. They have been shown by the courts to discount legitimate depreciation and to only apply the legislation in part. They have also been shown to not apply like methods to recipients and liable parents with a bias of disadvantaging the liable parent; the Ombudsman report issued in 2010 reports on this very aspect.

You need to object to the decision and open the path that may result in a fairer application of the legislation. That path is to take the matter to SSAT (Social Securities Appeal Tribunal) not that you have to do this within 28 days of receiving the objection decision. You may wish to have a look through some judgements which may give you some pointers. If you do a search on Ladd, you should this case and two others, Voss and Ryan, which are also quite informative. With SSAT you have a better chance of a just and equitable result. However, that may not be the case. You option is then to take the matter to court. However, this has to be on a point of law. Both SSAT and court are free to apply/file, although you may need to have legal representation for the latter.

Here's a link to the SSAT website. Here's a link to section 4.2, "External review applications to the SSAT or AAT" , of the CSA Guide.

Hopefully there's enough pointers to get you on the way.
Thanks for the pointers.
what is your view of the assessment of future income starting in March 2013.  Is this lawful according to the CSA guidelines seing as the tax returns from the previous tax period need to be used to show income.
What if my business makes a loss or ends up closing will this assessment still be used?
Downlow said
Is this lawful according to the CSA guidelines seing as the tax returns from the previous tax period need to be used to show income.

I don't think that it is lawful. A child support period can last for a maximum of 15 months. I can't see anything that allows the CSA to override this in the case of a Change of Assessment. Furthermore I cannot see how it would be just and equitable as all change of assessment have to be to to utilise a presumption of future events. However, I am aware that some in the CSA have issues with interaction between brain and fingers so it may just be that.

I would suggest complaining about the 2013 assessment; saying that it cannot be just and equitable, perhaps also asking for the winner of the next few years worth of Melbourne Cups, as that would allow you to pay even more CS. Perhaps they should inform all liable parents about potential betting results, it would apparently cost nothing, it could save the whopping waste spent on surveillance and it could lead to the purported debt being drastically reduced. :)
Mike I think it is fairly obvious C$A believe the assessment should be increased out of fairness etc… so yes I believe the point of law at 117(1)(b)(ii)(A) (decision must be fair and equitable) would support an appeal to a court.

A start date in 2013 must be a typo.
The Objections officer has applied another child support period based on assumed future earnings of $50,000 earnings from march 2012 to feb 2013. Sorry for the mistake.

I plan to object to the decision and see where it gets me. :thumbs:
The Ombudsman will be hearing from me also.

I dont hold much hope for a fair and equitable decision as I have complained about the Objections officer previously and was only sent a letter seeking to "help my understanding of the process" rather than address the legitimate complaints made.

 Such as seeking to use financial information more recent that the last financial year and allowing an objection of the initial COA decision by the payee on no new information or no new grounds.

 The same old opinions of the payee were brought out again…"all businessman reduce their income to pay little tax,  and I must be working cash in hand".
This was accepted by the CSA without any evidence and another COA initiated.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets