WA Child Support Assessment Changed?

[Hoang Trang]

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

 

[MartyK]

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.

 

[sammy01]

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.

 

[MartyK]

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!)

 

[sammy01]

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.

 

[MartyK]

But even that is a riddle wrapt up in a conundrum.

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.

 

[sammy01]

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.

 

[Hoang Trang]

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!?

 

[Hoang Trang]

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.

Thanks mate it means a lot

 

[sammy01]

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...