Australia's #1 for Law

Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!

WA Child Support Assessment Changed?

Discussion in 'Family Law Forum' started by Hoang Trang, 20 April 2017.

  1. Hoang Trang

    Hoang Trang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22 July 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    9
    Btw they have my 2016 full time taxable income. I'm self employed therefore " I'm taken this as an advantage to hide
    income ". My income 4 years ago is less then now due to the crap economy here in WA. They think this is polony too
     
  2. MartyK

    MartyK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 June 2016
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    51
    Do they give any reason as to how they calculated the inflation rate? Even if they were using the MTAWE, the inflation rate is only 2.1% in child support period starting 2017 (or 4.8% if using the 2014 figure). 2.4.2 Formula Tables & Values | Child Support Guide

    From what I know of CS dealings with small business owners, you'll likely have better luck at the AAT. Especially when this review/assessment was child support initiated.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    242
    Yep the legislation stipulates the rounding. That is the point - there are elements within the system that are unfair. Remember when the gov got rid of 5 cent coins. no one would have accepted scenario where the payer - lets call them the shopper had to accept a $1.91 purchase being rounded up to $2.00. But that is what CSA do with their rounding

    There is empirical evidence within the system that disadvantages the non-primary carer.

    The magical 35% threshold is another one. The lengths some primary carers will go to in order to make sure the other parent has less than 35% care so they can claim the full FTB. I don't blame my ex for the stupidity outlined above. She would have been happy for me to have 50/50 care but she could not afford to lose the $$$.

    So within the system there are obstacles that make in harder for parents to come to an agreement about best interests of the kids because each child and each 2% of care beyond 35% impacts on the financial realities.
     
    Stars Seed likes this.
  4. MartyK

    MartyK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 June 2016
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    51
    Well actually according to the legislation, while the percentage is rounded up to the next whole number after 50% care, it is rounded down when below 50%.

    CHILD SUPPORT (ASSESSMENT) ACT 1989 - SECT 54D Rounding of a percentage of care

    The care percentage V cost of care is bias against both payees and payers, depending on which you fall into and the actual care.

    I do not usually bother much with CS arguments nowadays. Since the 2008 amendments. Those parents, in my view, had it tough (pre 2008!)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    242
    Look I agree the 2008 reforms changed the game considerably. But to the original poster, the one basic still applies - you've gotta get your head around the CSA rules.

    You can find the guide on the human services website. But even that is a riddle wrapped up in a conundrum.
     
  6. MartyK

    MartyK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 June 2016
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    51
    Yes, yes and yes!! Hoang, CS can be a Law unto themselves! You do have a lot going on right now and I do wish you the best of luck with this.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    242
    Actually - Hoang, I'd love a bit more detail. We have kinda railroaded your thread. Marty did say something interesting.

    According to the Ombudsman CSA stuff up roughly equally regardless - primary care or non-primary care.

    So mate why not give us some detail so we can help understand their decision.
     
  8. Hoang Trang

    Hoang Trang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22 July 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    9
    Self employed in partnership with family. Was working full time when I had primary care of my children. After care changed to me 3 nights a week I started part time. My partner opened up a new business on top of her current one so we decided it was best for our family for me to focus on the kids and she be the provider. I have my step son who lives with us and i do all the school drop offs and pickups etc.

    My partner and I recently purchased a house while I was still working full time. She also purchased a new car and her new business mid last year.

    They questioned her vehicle and the business. Car registered to her and business under family trust as her being the director and her son being the sole beneficiary. Mind you my ex told them I brought a new car and a new business.

    Next they questioned how I can afford to buy and support a house with my full time income and current part time income. It is a expensive house though but partner is on good income and she pays the mortgage.

    Lastly they said I have the capability to work full time and being a stay home dad to my step son is " not my problem ". They suspect I have not reflected my true income and possibly consealing Assets into trust accounts and companies which I don't own, I am only a sole trader.

    My income in 2013 which they referenced to was higher then last years. WA had a mining boom back then and now its all but gone. Again suspect I have a bigger interest in my business then my current income so took 2013 and added $15k ontop!?
     
  9. Hoang Trang

    Hoang Trang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22 July 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    9
    Thanks mate it means a lot
     
  10. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    242
    OK - yo're not gonna like this...You were working full time, when you had primary care of kids. BUT when your care got reduced you also reduced your work...Surely, if you are no longer primary carer you would have more time to work? Not less.... So they have you on capacity to work.

    So her son is the sole beneficiary of her business? But he is a school aged child? You don't work full time because you look after step-son? but he is a school aged child? So you're not exactly looking after him 24/7? And why is a child the sole benefactor of a business?

    Ok the whole business / trusts stuff is a mystery to me. I'm a simple payg wage slave with zero ability to hide / scam etc etc....

    But, frankly, I smell a rat... Maybe the increased your payments because there is evidence that you're trying to reduce your payments...

    Yup - they area law onto themselves. But I wonder if it might be the case that when they find someone scamming they elevate payments well beyond what is fair just because they can and as a warning to you not to try and pull the wool over their eyes again...
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;