Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Case laws/decisions

Maintenance Calculations. Here are some from SSAT appeal judgements from Federal Magistrates Court.

I am preparing an appeal at SSAt after a ridiculous decision by the CSA about depreciation being a taxabe income which in essence significantly increase my obligation to pay child support. I know there is a case where this method is not appropraite as it was identified by the ombudsman in a case study (they cannot/will not release any details). Is there anyone who can guide me in the right direction.

The Senior Case Officer at CSA believes that the depreciation on my company car, qwhich is part of the company's claim not mine, should be added back as salary to me because I am the sole director. What a load of hog wash.O_o
Here are some from SSAT appeal judgements from Federal Magistrates Court.^ssat

  1. In the income tax year ending 30 June 2006, the respondent had a gross income of $65,178. He claimed deductions for the business (which were allowed by the Australian Taxation Office) of $33,132. These included depreciation of $8,831; motor vehicle running costs of $15,941; lease of the transport service licence of $6,000 and interest for financing arrangements of $1,746. He claimed other personal deductions including superannuation contributions.
  2. When the change of assessment was made by the Senior Case Officer to increase the child support income amount, a calculation was done adding back the depreciation and some superannuation to the net business profit (see paragraph 24 of the Reasons of the Tribunal).
  3. The respondent appealed that decision to the Tribunal.
  4. Having decided to add back to the respondent's income the depreciation allowance and part of the superannuation contributions to his taxable income the tribunal then made some findings about other expenses that were necessary to enable the respondent to support himself. Those expenses included the capital costs of finance. The Tribunal also found that the respondent's other necessary expenditure was in the region of $1,753 per month. On the basis of those findings the respondent had income of $38,093 and expenses of $29,477 ($8,441-capital costs of finance and $21,036 reasonable other necessary expenditure). The respondent's statement of financial circumstances reveals that he has a taxation liability of $2,600 per annum. Thus on the findings of the Tribunal the respondent has approximately $6,016 per annum ($115 per week) available to meet his child support obligations. There is no real explanation in the reasons for coming to a determination the effect of which was less than half of the amount that was available to the respondent to meet his child support obligation.
  5. In considering the commitments of the respondent father that are necessary to enable him to support himself, I agree with the Tribunal's conclusions that the depreciation allowed by the Taxation Office ($8,831) and some of the superannuation that the respondent had paid ($3,566) be disregarded.
  6. Reluctantly therefore, I have determined that I should remit the matter back to the Tribunal for a rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.^ssat^ssat^ssat^ssat^ssat


What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets