FM Sexton said

32 While I am satisfied it was appropriate for the Tribunal to analyse the companys depreciation expense as it did, and I find no error in that analysis, it was also necessary for the Tribunal to have considered the financial effect of treating a portion of that depreciation expense (in this case, nearly half) as a financial resource available to the appellant. This exercise would necessarily involve a consideration of the other company expenses. It was then a matter for the Tribunal, in the exercise of its discretion, to decide which of those expenses should be regarded as reasonable for child support assessment purposes, and which (if any) should not.

33 The company accounts[12] for the 2007 financial year show the company made an overall loss in that year of $48,734.90[13]. It was not open to the Tribunal to simply disregard all other expenses of the company resulting in that loss, as it has done. It is clear that if an amount of $39,266 (the depreciation expense the Tribunal found was not used for the purchase of new equipment) were omitted from the Statement of Financial Performance for the company for the 2007 financial year[14], the company would still have an operating loss of $9,468.90 [a loss of ($48,734.90) plus $39,266]. In other words, that amount of $39,266 is not left in the hands of the appellant because, in the circumstances of this case, it makes no impact on the funds available to the appellant from the company. The position may have been different had the company achieved a net profit in that year. It is noteworthy that there is consistency in the company accounts in the 2006 and 2007 financial years. The company has negative equity in both the 2006 and 2007 financial years[15], and the companys trading result in the 2006 financial year was worse than in the 2007 financial year. The Tribunal did not have regard to these facts.

FM Sexton said

34 I find the Tribunal misinterpreted the meaning of financial resources when it failed to examine the financial evidence before it in the context of determining what the actual personal financial resources of the appellant really were. This required an analysis of the personal benefits which actually flowed to the appellant from the company from the companys financial records. While I accept Mr Gouliaditis contention that it was a matter for the Tribunal whether or not to include particular liabilities of the company when deciding the extent of the appellants personal financial resources, the Tribunal could not simply disregard those liabilities without explanation, and the loss incurred by the company in that year. I do not accept the submission that the Tribunals approach was consistent with the Gyselman decision, nor that Gyselman should be distinguished because it concerned the debts of an individual. Gyselman makes clear that the assessment of financial resources required to be undertaken must be a realistic one, based on the evidence available.

35 I agree with the appellants counsels submission that on the authority of Gyselman, the interpretation of financial resources in sections 98(1)(a) and 117(4) of the Assessment Act, is a question of law. I find the Tribunal misunderstood the task it was required to undertake to establish the true extent of the financial resources available to the appellant. This was an error of law.

36 It follows that the appeal must be allowed on this Ground.

FM Sexton says said

53 I find the Tribunals consideration of the factors in section 117(4) falls short of what is required by the legislation. In particular:

   a. The Tribunal does not consider the proper needs of the children as required by subparagraph (b). Apart from a reference to their orthodontic expenses, the Tribunal does not consider the childrens other expenses.

   b. The Tribunal does not consider the income or earning capacity of the children, apart from noting both children earn an income (subparagraph c)

 c. The Tribunal does not consider the income, earning capacity property or financial resources of the payee beyond referring to her annual income of $45,256 and making an assertion that she cannot earn more. The Tribunal makes no reference to the payees assets, liabilities or overall expenses nor to her capacity to contribute to the childrens expenses (subparagraph d).

   d. The Tribunal adopts its finding that the appellant has $67,056 available to him with no reference to the overall position of his company, including the pattern over 2 financial years of negative equity and a trading loss as set out in the companys financial statements. I do not accept Mr Gouliaditis submission that these matters have been addressed in the paragraphs he refers to. Apart from the companys depreciation expenses, I find no specific reference to the companys other expenses. As earlier noted, I find the Tribunal misunderstood the task it was required to undertake in relation to an assessment of the actual financial resources available to the appellant. (subparagraph d).

   e. The Tribunal does not refer to the actual rate of child support which flows from its decision to enable it to evaluate whether the result is just and equitable.

   f. While the Tribunal does consider the hardship on the payee of the present assessment, the Tribunal does not have regard to any hardship the order would impose on the appellant. (subparagraph g)

   g. The Tribunal does not consider the extent to which the appellant and the payee could contribute to the costs of caring for the children. The Tribunal does not consider the extent of the childrens needs nor the capacity of each parent (and of the children) to meet those needs.

MikeT said

I don't believe that the Collections Handbook is made available to the public. The CSA publication number for the Collections Handbook is CSA4173.10.08. Perhaps a letter or email requesting it could be fruitful.

MikeT said

...However there is an element at the individual level that is quite appalling and not documented, personal short-cuts is what I'll call them, although as explained, perhaps they should have a more encompassing term.

One such example is the procedural requirement to attempt to contact a customer 3 times, after which is this fails actions may be taken (such as the two Joe's "chase them to the grave"). I understand that it is not an uncommon act for those three attempts to be made to the same number and within as few minutes as attempts made. This allows the 3 contact attempts box to be completed, it allows the "In Tray" to be progressed, it allows the worker to improve their stats, it may then allow the worker to get faster promotion, it allows the workers leader to have better stats, it simplifies their job, it increases their chance for promotion, it affords the leader's leader like benefits and so on until we get to it allowing the CSA(CSP) to look as if they are doing their job better to those who they report to, FAHCSIA(DHS) and Ministers etc. As for the person not contacted, well action is taken often without the person being afforded what they should be and it's another nail in the coffin.

Mark, Team Coach Wol Nct 3 on 24/03/2005 @ 16:58 userid was ubjhp said

Pyrs initial concern that CSA were telling lies by stating that we had been unable to contact him by phone. I confirmed with Pyr that there were no phone attempts recorded apart from the letter issued. I also stated that CSA may have forgotten to record phone attempts. Pyr disagreed as 2 of his 3 phone numbers have an answering service and messages should have been left. I explained that CSO is on extended leave so I would be unable to provide feedback or "severly reprimand" CSO as pyr suggested. Advised Pyr his new case officer is Esther.