Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

New Salary Sacrifice laws with CSA

Add Topic

Someone please explain in plain english what this means.

End of financial year is fast approaching. How will salary sacrifing affect payments? Is it just for super or does it affect vehicles as well?
Yes it includes vehicles, even if they are not part of Fringe benefit tax. I have a commercial van, a 2 seater, that I got decision yesterday from csa that beacause i don't have another vehicle should be part of child support income!!
If you use the site search facility you will find about 40 specialist posts and articles about salary sacrificing and below and above the line group certificate and contribution related issues. The legislation has changed for the tax year 2009 -2010 onward and there are a range of deductions that are no longer considered deductable for purposes of CHILD SUPPORT calculations (Not Taxable deductions).

If you cannot find what you want please post and we will get a definitive response from CSA and or the Policy team at FaHCSIA who deal in this area.
 


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
soccerdad - It's only sacrificing to super that is added back to your taxable income to form a child support income - but this is old news - you should have been aware of this 12 months ago.

melon - you got done for your vehicle deductions because you have probably been through a change of assessment process. If you read about these processes on here you may find out that C$A has not necessarily followed the relevant legislation and you might be abel to appeal the decision.
Yes,
It was a change of assessment applicationd from x wife.
They simple said that 50% of all vehicle expenses in my company is to be added to child support income.
melon said
Yes it includes vehicles, even if they are not part of Fringe benefit tax. I have a commercial van, a 2 seater, that I got decision yesterday from csa that beacause i don't have another vehicle should be part of child support income!!
 
Do you mean that only part of the cost of the van should be classed as income? Makes sense in a CSA COA world but not the real world. They seem to think that you gain some sort of 'fringe benefit' from the private use of the van.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Yes,
Thats correct. A commercial van has no Fringe Benefit as per ATO, but CSA thinks that I use it 50% for private use. They have also told me that the depreciation of this van is only "a paper loss". So they have decided to add all depreciation cost to be part of child support income. I thought it was illegal to overvalue equipment etc. in a company!! The accounted depreciation (15% first year) is less than actual (~27%) as per "redbook" car valuations.
Melon, if you use the van 50% for private use you should concede that something should be included.  I would suggest that it is the value of the benefit received, not a CSA derived amount.  Do you keep a log book of the commercial use?  If so, should be easy to calculate the value o the personal benefit.
melon- I'm guessing you only have one child to cart around when you are parenting? Is that right?
I might be using the van 5% privately, mainly takeing my son to and from school when it's not possible with to combine with my delivery service. My work base is a my home (stock) so all my work starts here, hence the small private use. It's only a two seater which means that it's only space for me and my son.
Is your son old enough to sit in the front? Most vehicle manufacturers recommend children sit in the back.

You could easily solve the problem by having a low cost vehicle for private needs. It might be cheaper than paying extra child support.

In any case you need the van to transport your son around. This should have been taken into consideration and offset their actions.
Thanks for the ideas. He is old enough and there would be almost nil private use if not for the son's needs. Wonder if csa possible could understand that??
Thanks again for a good point.
You also could include some of the usage as part of maintaining your personal needs which should not effect your child support liability. It's all part of the 18k allowed for you to maintain yourself. I think this could be argued successfully however what about the financial circumstances of the ex and needs of your son that she is maintaining? Is there anything out of the ordinary here?
There are no special needs for my son. She has unilateral decided to enrol him in private boy school (very expensive). I have always been against this and no mutual intent was decided by the coa application by my x. I have also posted a separate question re this coa, where csa decided that my overseas pension insurance that i gets monthly payouts from is to be fully part of child support income, despite included in settlement in 2004 and also early payout (i'm 56) due to financial hardship. This is what i call doubble dipping. She is earning 88' a year. my real income is 12' from my company (now 25' as per csa + 30' overseas pension insurance).  I will try to appeal this as my regular income might increase in the future. With this new figures she is not to pay any child support. Was 3'/year.
She will claim private school fees as special circumstances. C$A are wont be too fussed about your settlement but I think a court would look at it. To get there you need to go through the C$A objections process and SSAT appeal first.

Have a read of this doc on this site:

"Finacial Resources - SSAT decisions set aside"

and you get an insight into how C$A/SSAT should be making their decisions.
melon said
I might be using the van 5% privately, mainly takeing my son to and from school when it's not possible with to combine with my delivery service
Combining private use will result in that private use being considered.
melon,  You said "I have always been against this and no mutual intent was decided by the coa application by my x." If you didn't agree to private school then CSA can't alter the child support amount on that basis.
Mike T & Luthien,
Thanks for your tips. It seems that csa is as "fluffy" as the family court.
The change they done is to include my overseas pension insurance (also included in settlement) now under a 5 year payout due to low income at age 56. csa has also added depreciation of commercial vehicle, profit (not taken as salary due to big losses earlier year) and added 50% of direct vehicle expenses to child support income. My income is now ~$24'(from my company) + S30' (pension) =$54'. Her income is $85'. Outcone from coa: NIL payable both ways. Our son is 12 and lives with me ~150 days/year or 42%. The school expenses Reason 3 - was not established.
I'am concerned about the doubble dipping into my pennsion insurance and the way csa is treating actual expenses in my company. I don't really care if nothing is payable now. But what happens when i'm getting more income in my company? That's way i want to stop this now.
melon,
         unfortunately even though it could be considered wrong I can't see anyway the double dipping, i.e. money considered as part of the divorce settlement v it also being considered as CS income, would likely be defensible as it's now income. Basically they are two separate areas. Perhaps with hindsight the decision to receive the super was a wrong decision in that aspect.

I believe you have little option either as if you reduce it, it would be seen as that and likely taken as hiding it and thus that it would even then still be taken into consideration.

Really you have to see this in the real light of what CS is. It is not really about children being supported from the Government and it's agencies, it's about it being proper or according to the legislation "otherwise proper", which I have only ever seen as being as how much FTB can be reduced. Likewise I have never seen a report from the CSA to those it reports to, detailing in anwway how money obtained for the purpose of child support is spent in supporting the intended recipients. Basically it's another tax and this is why the Government, through the CSA, want CS to be as high as possible rather than fair and actually supportive of the children in need of support. If the Government were to truly consider the support of the children, then any payment made under the guise of support for a child or children would come with an assurance of accountability that the money be responsibly spent for that purpose.
I wonder why the sale of her assets that she did receive in the settlement is not considered to be part of child support income? She sold one of the properties - she got with a net of $200'!
Is this fair??
Maybee it should not be fair?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets