Hello,
In a recent change of assessment the Child Support Agency assessed that 100% of my deductions were to be included as earnings. I am a self employed tradesman who apparently now earns $70,000 a year instead of $52,000 a year.
This is while my ex can claim 100% of her deductions on her investment property. Also the CSA are saying that a rural property (which is my principle place of residence) I bought seven years ago was bought to avoid paying extra child support with the interest I could be earning. That added an extra $27,000 to my earnings. However the ex does not have to do the same with her property (which is not her principle place of residence).
To make this even more interesting I had another change of assessment application from the mother of my other child last year in which half of my deductions were allowed and my property was not included! It has appeared to me that the CSA make it up as they go along. There has been very little consistency in their rulings over the last ten years.
Am I being too simplistic in assuming this is one rule for one and another rule for another?
Should I cop this one on the chin or do I have grounds to appeal?
Can anyone help?
In a recent change of assessment the Child Support Agency assessed that 100% of my deductions were to be included as earnings. I am a self employed tradesman who apparently now earns $70,000 a year instead of $52,000 a year.
This is while my ex can claim 100% of her deductions on her investment property. Also the CSA are saying that a rural property (which is my principle place of residence) I bought seven years ago was bought to avoid paying extra child support with the interest I could be earning. That added an extra $27,000 to my earnings. However the ex does not have to do the same with her property (which is not her principle place of residence).
To make this even more interesting I had another change of assessment application from the mother of my other child last year in which half of my deductions were allowed and my property was not included! It has appeared to me that the CSA make it up as they go along. There has been very little consistency in their rulings over the last ten years.
Am I being too simplistic in assuming this is one rule for one and another rule for another?
Should I cop this one on the chin or do I have grounds to appeal?
Can anyone help?