Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

COA re signature

Add Topic

My partners ex forged his signature a few times, before, during and after their divorce leaving him with debts. ecause of this he is wary about signing the change of assessment forms as the page with his signature goes to his ex and as things are a bit na

Sorry to bother every one, but we have a slight problem.  My partners ex forged his signature a few times, before, during and after their divorce leaving him with debts.  Due to trying to keep an amicable relationship for the kids sake no legal action was taken. Because of this he is wary about signing the change of assessment forms as the page with his signature goes to his ex and as things are a bit nasty at the moment he is concerned she may do it again.  CSA officers will not process COA without signature and will not with hold signature from ex.  Is there any way around this that anyone knows of.  Also asked to be sent a copy of case notes and was told point blank that they would not do this.

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
 Could you do another signature for CSA benefit not the one you normally do.
annie said
 Could you do another signature for CSA benefit not the one you normally do.
  At the end of the phone conversation he said yes he'd sign it and we thought if he does it different to his normal one but able to verify it for csa purposes then that would have to do.  The csa officer we spoke to who is handling the coa became very indignant at our request as if it was a personal insult to him.

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
overcsa

Apart from the csa issue it seems the real issue is about debts and signature frauds (to obtain money).
The other part of this is the fear that she will do it again.

So one way would be to ensure that she understands the consequences of her actions - either by pointing them out to her or her experiencing them first hand. fraud is fraud - just because people used to be married doesn't make it OK.

I have often seen public notices in papers being used to issue legal type positions - I am not responsible for debts of …. and … has no authority to incur debts in my name . An a letter to her.

lawyers may give you more advice.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I agree with this one, I too have had CSA Senior Assessmnet Officers take "seemingly" personal offence to not giving them the information they require. When questioned about what my parents do and where they work in a COA interview I told him that under the Privacy Act I could not tell him. But he took it as a personal slqap and got very offensive and defensive. I am gathing that my reluctance to hand over EVERYTHING he wanted led to me now paying based on a wage $45,000 above what i actually earn.

Surely these people have been told of the Privacy Act, fraud law and their legal obligations and the overall right of a person under the constitution to stand up for their rights under law. but hen again everything you read tells you in spite of the law CSA can make "their own determination"… The guy that did mine started sprouting FBT and tax liabilities and wasnt even an accountant or a lawyer, just a public servant who had worked for government since high school. No qualifications, just "supposed" experience - I would however hazard a guess that he new all the stress leave and OHS rules for his employment.
Funny you say this nxus, I have an active IPP1 complaint going on right at the moment.  Can't say too much in case the CSA snoops identify the case from here.  

Their administration is apalling and when I sort my current issues I am planning on demanding the Public Service Commissioner instigate code of conduct proceedings against Matt Miller and his executive team for allowing such a scenario to occur.  Also planning writing in similar terms to Ms Helen Williams who is Secretary of DHS, ie Miller's direct boss.   

Also, am inspired by the www.centreflunk.com.au website.
Just posted a similar question. I didnt sign the forms but on my phone convo with CSA nothing was mentioned about me not signing it!!! How the hell does that work? They had already sent the exwife the forms regardless of me not signing them!  Paddy
Paddy, you are not quite making sense here.  It seems that was happened is your ex has gone to CSA claiming you have a greater capacity to earn/pay?  You then responded by completing the COA form, but leaving it unsigned, and returning it to the CSA who onforwarded it to ex?

The way I understand things the CSA will treat it as your response and forward it to ex.  Sloppy? yes!  Unlawful? Probably not!

Probably too late to run an argument that  their questions breach the Privacy Act because the damage is already done.

Can I suggest (not sure if it will work) that you ask CSA for a clean form to complete because you were confused?  I then suggest you examine the CSA Guide and identify every reason you possibly could that might lead to a reduction in CSA.  Also, critically examine your ex's claims and dispute any inconsistencies.

Also do not give an inch on any point with the CSA bods.  They will be trying to get your agreement.  

Good luck.
gday bigred.

its true I know but I am P####D Off. I kept the original forms and photocopied them and sent them copies, thats all. During phone appointment they never asked me about it.

What do ya mean they will be after agreement? I just do my tax return and they tell me what to pay. Its always been like that. On the exs application she wanted a minimum payment of $15k a year from me.  Paddy
Suggesting you be careful.  If you agree on a point, they don't have to prove it.
BIGRED is right……The basis of your arguement here is the "ex wants" for what reason?

Under what section of the "COA" Act?

She just cant come out and state "she wants" CSA know this and if whe does not have a valid reason under the ACT CSA will be looking for you to "agree to a figure" once you have agreed….. then you PAY regardless of what ex needs it for.

CSA operates on "justifyable reasoning" that is where a case exists it has to act, where one doesnt then it has to act on what info it has infront of CSA…. if you ex states that your child has medical needs and cant prove it then her case will be dismissed….. if you agree to pay for these so called medical needs and CSA get your agreement then they dont have to investigate whether the needs of the child are true or not…. they just state - its called an INFERENCE… the most dangerous word in the Payer dictionary…. two words here can save you a world of grief… Justifyable and Equitable….. CSA have to apply this rule when asked to do so.  If you dont ask then they can do whatever…..
Understand?

If your ex has listed Section 8 Capacity to earn (not capacity to pay) then CSA can rule that you have the "earning" capacity to pay more….

Watch for CSA trying to impose a figure that creates a debt….. if you get a debt then they can wade through your life - NO HOLES BARRED. Watch for Capacity to Pay….  this is where your ex sees you go on a holiday or buy a chocolate bar and goes crying to CSA that you can afford chocolate -therefroe you can afford another $250 a month. (sarcasm)….

Last edit: by nxus

Reply

thanks nxus for your reply. I just have trouble understanding that if my ex has applied for CTE than how after C$A have sighted all tax returns from myself can they believe my exwife that I could of earnt more?? As this woman over the past 4 years has no understanding that I have been through an untesting period?  Also my exwife didnt apply for a so called "agreement" it was a COA for CTE? Not sure on all this very worried and so on? Paddy
ok so its a CTE… but based on what. if CSA have your tax returns then the ex must have "other evidence" that you earn more… or that you have changed your job "voluntarily" and without just cause, causing your salary to decreased for the purposes of reducing your CSA assessed income…

If you have evidence to the contrary then push it through CSA… But of you cant come up with the evidence for why her claims are not justified then they will make the decision for you… You will need evidence for any SSAT hearing if you get that far.

Can you see the justification as to why CSA are accepting her evidence? If as you state all she has is your last 4 tax returns, but you DO in fact have the capacity to earn more than you do then expect to pay more (unless you will suffer financial hardship.

Need more info for this one… it is all a bit confusing.
CTE makes an assessment then forwards it to the COA is my understanding of how these things work.  COA process is where payer gets to defend himself - hence my earlier remarks that he should mount a counter claim that what he is assessed at based on tax returns is neither just or equitable.  Seems like his ex has made some spurious claims about hidden income or underemployment.

I am becoming quite an expert on how they act as I traverse my journey through CSA.
Yes one does feel that one could form ones own version of CSA with the knowledge one amasses.

The process here (from what i read) is that CSA has received a COA from the ex…. not a RICA (registrar initiated change assessment).

under the RICA it would be Capacity to Pay (CTP) that would forward their "views" on his ability to pay… under a COA section 8 (CTE) they have to have the evidence that makes hiim fail to pass one of their "tests" under the CSAssessment ACT….

Reason 8 is also commonly
used in a number of other situations that may be less straightforward. These include:
- where a parent has voluntarily left employment to study or for some other reason, but retains a capacity to earn a higher income;
- where a parent operates a company, business, family trust or other entity that can reduce the taxable income that might otherwise be available if the parent was a 'Pay As You Go' taxpayer;
- where a parent has resources available that may be used to help support the children, for example, a large termination or redundancy payment, a compensation payment or an inheritance;
- where a parent has seasonal work, for example, working in high income employment for six months of the year and not working at all for the other half of the year;
- where a parent has salary sacrificing arrangements in place with an employer that reduces taxable income, for example, through voluntary superannuation contributions;
- where a parent receives other benefits from an employer, such as the private use of a vehicle, accommodation or allowances that are not fully used for work purposes;
- where part or all of a parent's income is non-taxable, for example where a parent serves overseas with the defence forces or is a member of the defence force reserves, or receives a non-taxable pension.

If you fall into one of these categories then you will have to justify your position and the reson why you changes, left, etc, etc, etc.

Remember if you have chnaged jobs but are still working in the same industry, same capacity but are just earning less (due to employer paying less) then this is not a reason for assuming you have a capacity to earn more… it just means old employer paid more or you did "alot of overtime/extra hours"… which is bad for your health and not in the best interest of your kids.

It is the CSA interpretation of the Act that is the problem…. Some SAO's believe that their interpretation of the law is above reproach and the more you give them in defence of the law then the more they have to use the "I believe" int he final decision…. This was my issue…. pushed to give out information that was discounted in the final decision but gave the SAO a reason to state "there are no grounds under FBT to blah blah blah - but I believe that benefit is being derived yada yada yada.."

If this case is such that the ex "has evidence" then stick to the evidence and do not go outside it shen the SAO asks questions that are "out of left field" - you have the right not to answer questions on the grounds that you may incriminate yourself.

A simply "no comment - now lets get back to the evidence at hand" should suffice.

Read your reply NXUS and yes I have read the CSA website hence why I am posting here. I do not see where I fit into this COA CTE.

I have not changed jobs it is because my exwife found an article that was published about the company that I work for. In the article it stated that the company had made a profit for that year. Now because I work there my exwife believes that I recieved half of the companies profit. Getting back to my point of the fact that I am always up to date on tax returns and as CSA would see I am a wage earner. Not Company owner. My whole CSA phone interview was about 'Are you the owner' on and on. Where do I fit into this? Paddy
Ahhhhhhhh….. got you now….so you fall into the "supposition is 9/10th of the law".

The only thing I can see is that (and ido say "if") you are TOTALLY separated from the company owners/directors that is the owner/director is not your new partner/sister/ brother/ parents then go straight to CSA and state this… that you derive NO additional benefit from the company.

The problem is that if you are not separated from the company CSA can use this to state you are gaining benefit from the compnay structure - and its a hard fight to state otherwise.

The thing to remember here is that once they have a foot in the door information wise, they will use it to gather as much as they can.

Your ex stating that you derive profits from the company has to be backed up by your tax returns and the company issuing a dividend or franking credit to you on their company tax return - if you have non of these then advise CSA that you don't.

They still have to go through the COA motions in regards to writing a staement of what they found and why they are making the decision… it sounds to me that if you are just and employee - then the EX's COA will be overturned…. and being a COA Section 8 (CTE) you are in the best position, as this will ascertain that what you are paying based on your salary is ALL you can be based on…

It is up to the company board of directors what they pay you, when they pay you and whether or not they pay you a pay rise…. regardless of all this these things will be listed on your next tax return anyway - so there are no grounds for a COA.

The only case that they have grounds to investigate further is that your ex has claimed the compnay made a profit and she believes that the company is paying you a benefit outside your salary for the SOLE purpose of reducing your income for the purposes of reducing your child support liability. This is the kicker… so if the companyy supplies you with a vehicle because it is for part of your job…. and you get to drive it home because you go straight from home to a job site, then this is not "for the sole purpose etc… etc…"

At the end of the day they will ask questions, it depends on what evidence they think they have and how you respond both to the question and the evidence at hand…. Information FREELY GIVEN is information they dont have to go looking for or interpret or JUSTIFY……….got me….

If they deny her claim she will be hard pressed to come back under any other "section" of the COA.. e.g. cost of care, child illness, etc etc etc… if she does CSA should see straight thru it… they are quite good in cases like this… its just what they do when they "think" they have something that annoys me…
I will let you know that I have nothing to do as per ownership of the company and neither does my wife, relations, friends etc. This is where I am astounded that C$A are believeing the exwifes claims. Doesnt my tax return which states wage earner bare any answers to this absurd witch hunt? This article that was found is 3 years old, hence why the exwife wants my C$ to get back dated. This system is ridiculous how has she gotten this far?  So now this started back in April and still no decision? This is affecting my whole day to day living. I mean I already pay good money but she is requesting double, when will I get an answer? Paddy 
Hmmm sounds like she is in fact stating "that because the compnay earned a profit then they should be paying you more"….

CSA should find in your favour - but as long as your nose is clean in all other areas… But having said that - will "avoding a question" lead CSA to think that there is more to learn about you…. Its a hard road

.I can only suggest what i said before….. stick to the evidence. Stick to the fact that you dont control the company profits.. and if they start asking questions outside her claim… just keep going back to "bears no relevance to the case at hand"…. or "that question has nothing to do with my apparent 'ownership' of this company"…
Been there and done that, mate.. Good luck - justice should prevail for you…

For as much as the guide, legislation and in some cases posting from seniors on here will state the "facts of the day" - CSA does act outside of what it has published… you just have to be alert and recognise it….

BigRed, MikeT and others often write in relation to "experieince" rather than publications - these are good sounding boards…
I would of thought that 'justice would have prevailed' by now wouldnt you? After all when I sent back forms there was a letter from my boss's of the company stating that I had no dealings with 'ownership or profits' that i am just a wage earner! What reason would there be for this sort of emotional, physical cruelty in the wait for a descision? Paddy
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets