Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. This is a review of a decision of Services Australia (Child Support) about a change of assessment in special circumstances, which is a decision about whether to depart from a child support assessment.
2. Mr Caul and Ms Caul have had a child support assessment in place for their child [Child A] since 2018. [Child A] is recorded as being in 100% care of Ms Caul, and Mr Caul is the parent assessed to pay child support to Ms Caul.
3. From 1 September 2022 to 31 July 2023 the assessment had been $19,448 per annum based on Mr Caul's 2021/22 adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $139,230 and Ms Caul's 2021/22 ATI of $64,250. This annual rate reduced significantly from 1 August 2023 to 31 October 2024 when Mr Caul was assessed to pay the minimum annual rate of $493 per annum based on his 2022/23 ATI of $24,923 and Ms Caul's 2022/23 ATI of $70,384.
4. On 23 October 2023 Ms Caul made an application to Child Support for a change of assessment (COA) in special circumstances, also known as a departure application, on the basis that Mr Caul's large drop in taxable income in the last financial year did not adequately reflect his income or financial resources for child support purposes as he was continuing to work in the same industry.
5. On 27 March 2024 Child Support made a decision to depart from the assessment for the period 23 October 2023 to 31 October 2025 so that the ATI of Mr Caul used in the assessment was varied to $89,200. This reflected that Mr Caul had gone from being a salary and wage earner as [an Occupation 1] to establishing his own business as [an Occupation 2] in the same industry, through which he was able to gain some personal financial benefits through tax deductible expenses.
6. On 30 April 2024 Mr Caul objected to this decision on the basis that he believed the assessment should be based on his taxable income. On 13 June 2024 Child Support partly allowed the objection, allowing a higher portion of business expenses to reduce Mr Caul's income, and deciding instead for the period 23 October 2023 until 30 October 2025 to vary the ATI of Mr Caul to $71,641.
7. On 28 September 2024 Mr Caul applied to the Tribunal for review of this objection decision. He was granted an extension of time to apply by the Tribunal. On 27 June 2025 the parties attended a directions hearing with the Tribunal by telephone. The Tribunal directed the additional documents be provided by the parties, including evidence of current earnings, any tax returns not already provided to Child Support, and a completed Statement of Financial Circumstances.
8. The Tribunal and the parties received hearing papers from Child Support numbered 1-503, Mr Caul provided submissions numbered A1-A202 and Ms Caul provided submissions numbered B1-18 which have been exchanged with the parties and considered by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal held a hearing on 12 August 2025 with Mr Caul attending and giving evidence by telephone. The hearing had been rescheduled from an earlier date due to Mr Caul being unavailable. Ms Caul elected not to attend and with the Tribunal's permission made additional submissions numbered B19-B26 which were discussed at hearing and provided to Mr Caul. The Child Support Registrar did not participate in the hearing.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act). Section 89 of the Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to review this decision.
2. Section 98B of the Assessment Act allows a parent to apply for a COA in special circumstances. Section 98C allows Child Support to depart from the usual assessment when an application for such a departure is made, if the Child Support Registrar is satisfied that, in the special circumstances of the case, one or more grounds exist to depart, and that it would be just and equitable regarding the parties and the children and otherwise proper to make a particular departure decision.
3. In addition to the statutory provisions, the Tribunal also had regard to relevant Australian Government policy found in the Child Support Guide (at https://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide). The Federal Court observed in the case of G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229 that it is clear from earlier authorities that in the absence of statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account when conducting reviews of decisions. Where the Tribunal has considered and adopted relevant policy in the Child Support Guide in this case, it is outlined in these reasons.
4. The issues which arise in this case are:
   • Is there a ground to depart from the administrative assessment in the special circumstances of the case?
   • If so, would a departure be just and equitable?
   • If so, would the departure be otherwise proper?

Issue 1: Is there a ground to depart from the administrative assessment in the special circumstances of the case?

1. Special circumstances are not defined by the Assessment Act, but the courts have considered the meaning of the term on many occasions when considering departure applications, or reviews of decisions of the Tribunal's predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). In Gyselman & Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93 (Gyselman), the Full Court of the Family Court stated in respect of the term:

Whilst it is not possible to define with precision the meaning of that term, as a generality it is intended to emphasise that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary. That is, the intention of the Legislature is that the court will not interfere with the administrative formula result in the ordinary run of cases. In Savery's case (at Fam LR 815 FLC 77,897), Kay J, adopting the view in In the Marriage of Philippe (1977) 4 Fam LR 153; [1978] FLC 90-433 at Fam LR 155 FLC 77,202 in a different context said that "special circumstances" were "facts peculiar to the particular case which set it apart from other cases". The approach to the interpretation and application of the particular grounds in s 117(2) must be guided by that qualification. (at [39])

1. The Family Court observed in Carmel-Fevia & Fevia (No.3) [2012] FamCA 631 that 'Special circumstances refers to something quite unusual but that must be measured against and in the context of, the administrative formula otherwise applying'. This means that the Tribunal ought to find that there is something particular to the facts of this case that make it appropriate to depart from the assessment that would otherwise apply.
2. The grounds to depart are outlined at subsection 117(2) of the Assessment Act. Child Support have categorised these into 10 reasons, which can be found summarised in the Child Support Guide at Chapter 5.2. In this matter, Ms Caul applied for a departure under Reason 8A on the basis that the assessment was unfair because of the income, property or financial resources of Mr Caul.
3. Child support assessments are usually based on each parent's ATI in the last relevant year of income (LRYI). The LRYI is the full financial year that finished prior to each child support assessment period. Sometimes the prior taxable income being used in the assessment results in an unjust amount of child support because of the circumstances of the case. Paragraph 117(2)(c) of the Assessment Act provides it is a ground for departure if:

...in the special circumstances of the case, application in relation to the child of the provisions of this Act relating to administrative assessment of child support would result in an unjust and inequitable determination of the level of financial support to be provided by the liable parent for the child: ...(ia) because of the income, property and financial resources of either parent ...

1. The parties' relevant incomes used in the assessment prior to any departure are outlined above at paragraph 3. Ms Caul applied on the basis that Mr Caul's taxable income no longer reflected his financial circumstances because he was able to reduce that income through his business arrangements. Mr Caul's evidence is that from December 2022 he [started operating a business, Business 1], with his first job in February 2023. In 2022/23 his taxable income was $24,923, which included $73,504 plus allowances of $4,800 from his salaried role which ended late 2022, less tax deductions of $5,677, and his business income of $57,046 before $104,756 of expenses were deducted. The business operated with a net loss of $47,710 after expenses. In 2023/24, his total taxable income was $23,283 and his business income was $132,365 before $109,092 expenses were deducted. While a detailed financial audit is not required, the Tribunal will consider whether any personal benefit Mr Caul obtained through his business amounts to a special circumstance in that a child support assessment based on his taxable income would be unjust and inequitable.
2. Policy in the Child Support Guide states the following in respect of self-employment and business expenses:

A business may be able to deduct certain expenses from income for tax purposes and as a result legitimately may have a reduced income or may even run at a loss. These deductible expenses can result in a child support assessment that does not take into account the full financial resources available to the parent. In these cases, assessing child support on the basis of taxable income can result in an unjust and inequitable level of child support.

When considering business expenses and losses in a change of assessment, it will be necessary to examine the full financial position of the business to determine any personal financial resources available to the parent from the business.

• expenses that are partly business and partly private, for example, telephone, home office or motor vehicles
• salary and wages paid to employees
• depreciation of property, plant and equipment
• capital deductions related to primary production, and
• prior year losses and capital losses.

If the tax deductible business expenses provide a personal benefit to the parent, this may make the child support assessment unjust and inequitable. The Registrar will consider whether the parent has a greater financial capacity than is indicated by their taxable income, either as a direct result of the deductions or of having certain personal costs defrayed by being tax deductible.

1. A large deduction in Mr Caul's 2022/23 tax return was depreciation on his vehicle, which he was able to claim in full in his first year of operation to a value of $55,194. This represented a reduction to his taxable income without actually needing to outlay that amount of money, although he did make repayments on his vehicle loan in that time. Interest repayments and repair and maintenance expenses were also incurred and were able to be claimed as deductions, although those deductions represented actual expenses. Mr Caul's depreciation expenses in his second year of operating (2023/24) were significantly reduced at $4,262 and he said they related to other capital purchases to fit out his vehicle with appropriate equipment.
2. At hearing Mr Caul's submission was that while he was able to claim the $55,194 depreciation costs in the first year of operating, as he only got a tax return of $23,248 he did not believe he actually got the $55,194 as a financial benefit. However, the allowable depreciation meant that his taxable income was able to be reduced by the depreciation amount without actually spending that amount. His only actual costs for the vehicle were the loan repayments totalling approximately $22,836, (of which the $6,711 interest payments were also an allowable tax deduction) and separate repair and maintenance expenses of $9,627 (also claimed as deductions). This meant of the $55,194 claimed as depreciation expenses, only $16,125 was actually expended and not able to be fully claimed back in the tax year. This left an actual benefit to Mr Caul of approximately $39,000 in the 2022/23 year.
3. Depreciation claimed in 2023/24 is minimal by comparison, although does not reflect actual expenses and it will be considered together with other business expenses if a departure is determined to be appropriate.

1. In 2022/23 Mr Caul's business expenses aside from depreciation totalled $49,562, and in 2023/24 they totalled $104,830. The Tribunal accepts that many of those were expenses incurred because of the nature of Mr Caul's business that provided little to no personal benefit to Mr Caul. These costs included insuring his work vehicle, paying interest on his work vehicle loan, work vehicle repairs and maintenance (which were detailed by Mr Caul at hearing and are an understandably high cost given the nature of his business), protective clothing, training and licensing for business purposes, repairs and maintenance on his business vehicle and other minor business expenses. Claimed purchases were for a vehicle fridge [and associated equipment]. While fuel is a significant expense at over $15,000 in 2022/23 and $46,000 in the first full year of operation during 2023/24, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Caul that most of this cost was incurred by carrying out [Business 1], and that he does not otherwise travel extensively [due to the requirements of his work]. Mr Caul said that his accountant calculated the fuel based on the logbook and receipts Mr Caul provided to them. He recalls that the first three months of the logbook demonstrated business use of approximately 93%. The Tribunal accepts that the majority of the fuel costs were in respect of necessary business travel. Some other expenses require closer consideration of whether a personal benefit was obtained.
2. Mr Caul's expenses incurred for accommodation in 2022/23 were $2,538 and $4,350 in 2023/24. Mr Caul said this included no holidays. His evidence was that he has no other accommodation expenses as when not [working] he lives with his grandparents, although he sometimes contributes to household bills. The Tribunal accepts the claimed accommodation expenses did not include a personal benefit. His low actual living costs will be considered in the just and equitable considerations if a ground is established.
3. Mr Caul's expenses claimed for meals while running his business were $3,343 in 2022/23 and $10,167 in 2023/24. The Tribunal put to Mr Caul that if the majority of his time is spent travelling and he can claim food as a deduction, he is incurring a personal benefit as he would otherwise have the same need for meals if he was living at home full time. The Tribunal accepts Mr Caul's evidence that the costs can be higher for him as much of his work involves [travelling and being] in remote locations for up to a week at a time, sometimes with little notice, and he needs to purchase food in a different way than if he just lived at home and could purchase food in a regular routine and with the benefit of a regular sized fridge and freezer. Mr Caul said that he did have a fridge in his work vehicle, however, and cooked for himself and avoided eating out as much as possible to keep food costs down. Regarding Ms Caul's submissions that his meal receipts would include alcohol and tobacco expenses, he said that he does not claim those as they are a personal cost, and he gets those on separate receipts from meals and does not provide them to his accountant. The Tribunal finds that Mr Caul receives a personal benefit by virtue of many of his meals being able to be claimed as tax deductions. The amount that is appropriate to include will be considered below.
4. Other potentially personal benefits include Mr Caul's phone expenses, amounting to $1,105 in 2022/23 and $1,600 in 2023/24. Mr Caul agreed at hearing he would otherwise incur this expense personally.
5. Use of Mr Caul's 2022/23 ATI of $24,923 in the assessment results in the minimum annual rate being applied of $493. If an income that added back a portion of Mr Caul's expenses to reflect personal benefits from depreciation ($39,000), food ($2,000) and phone ($1,100) plus 10% of remaining expenses to reflect minimal personal use for fuel, and the benefits gained in not having certain expenses he would otherwise have if he were an employee ($4,500), amounting to $71,500 was used in the assessment for the same period, the annual rate would be approximately $9,600. The Tribunal notes this is almost the exact income found in the decision under review using a comparative assessment of Mr Caul's bank deposits compared to income and expenses claimed over a longer period than the 2022/23 financial year.
6. Using an income in the assessment for Mr Caul of $71,500 amounts to a significant difference in the annual rate, and the Tribunal finds that special circumstances exist because the personal benefit gained by Mr Caul through his business makes the minimum assessment unfair in comparison to his income and financial resources. The ground known as Reason 8A is established. The Tribunal will consider whether a departure from the assessment on this ground would be just and equitable.

Issue 2: Would a departure be just and equitable?

1. Subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act requires that when determining whether to make a particular departure, the decision maker must have regard to listed factors in order to determine whether that departure would be just and equitable as regards the child, the carer entitled to receive child support, and the parent liable to pay child support. These factors are listed as subheadings below.
2. The Full Family Court, in the case of Gyselman, stated that:

some of the matters listed in sub-section [117](4) may overlap with matters already considered under sub-section [117](2) and some of the paragraphs in sub-section (4) may be more significant in one case than they would be in another or of little relevance in a particular case. It is an essential part of the s.117 exercise to carry out the obligation under sub-section (4). However, that does not mean that it is necessary in each case to slavishly go through each of the paragraphs. The extent to which it is necessary to do so will depend upon the facts and conduct of the individual case and the analysis already performed under subsection (2).

1. I have considered each of the matters set out in subsection 117(4) of the Assessment Act but will only refer to those considerations pertinent to the application in these Reasons.

1. Section 3 of the Assessment Act states that parents have the primary duty to maintain their child, and that this duty has priority over all commitments of the parents other than those necessary to enable the parent to support him or herself and any other child the parent has a duty to maintain. Section 4 of the Assessment Act outlines the objects of that Act, including that the level of financial support to be provided by parents for their children is determined according to their capacity to provide financial support, and in accordance with the costs of the children.
2. The Tribunal has considered these principles in coming to a departure decision regarding the duty Mr Caul and Ms Caul have which is to maintain their child.

1. I have considered each parent's listed costs associated with the child as provided to Child Support and the Tribunal and consider that the usual costs of the children provided for in the administrative assessment are appropriate to reflect the proper needs of the child. [Child A] attends a public school and does not have any expenses associated with a special need.

Income, property and financial resources of the child

1. Mr Caul said that [Child A] does some casual work out of school hours and the Tribunal finds there is nothing on the facts relevant to this consideration that would impact any proposed departure.

Income, property and financial resources of the parents

1. Mr Caul's income over 2022/23 and 2023/24 has been addressed above. His 2024/25 tax return had not been completed as of the time of the hearing, although he expected it to be similar to his 2023/24 tax return. His current estimate of his income in his Statement of Financial Circumstances provided to the Tribunal was $3,033 per week, which allowing for 4 weeks of unpaid leave each year, would amount to a gross income of $145,584, however consideration will be given to the reality that his business expenses will continue to use a considerable proportion of that income. The amounts received for his business in his bank accounts in the 11 months to 2 June 2025 showed he had received $128,269 since 1 July 2024, which indicates similar business income to the year prior. The Tribunal also accepts Mr Caul's evidence of the unpredictable nature of the work available to him making it difficult to be precise as to future income calculations. Mr Caul's assets were his work [equipment] which he estimates is worth $145,000, tools and personal belongings amounting to $27,000, superannuation of $149,631 and around $13,000 in the bank (although based on statements before the Tribunal this fluctuates rapidly depending on when he incurs expenses and when he is paid for jobs done).
2. While the Tribunal found that a more accurate reflection of Mr Caul's income in 2022/23 was in the vicinity of $71,500, the 2023/24 years onwards require additional consideration to account for the lack of a large depreciation deduction. For 2023/24 Mr Caul's expenses accounted for around 82% of his income. The ATO published industry standard referenced by Child Support in their objection decision is 60%. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Caul's actual business expenses are likely higher than 60% of his income by virtue of his specific role in [Business 1], however allowing him the full amount including some costs that he would need to cover regardless of his business (such as meals, some fuel, some insurance and phone) is not reflective of his capacity to pay child support. The Tribunal will consider how to balance the income of Mr Caul against his self-support commitments below.
3. Ms Caul declared a current income of around $1,219 per week as [an Occupation 3] in her Statement of Financial Circumstances and provided an update of her employment prior to the hearing to say she had taken on a second job. She has provided recent payslips which show two roles with the same employer, with gross year to date amounts up to 19 June 2025 totalling $85,608 indicating a likely 2024/25 income of around $90,000 less any tax deductions. She continues to be employed with the same employer as previous years and is working full time. She declared assets of $215,000 in her half share of a property, $120,000 in superannuation, $15,100 in savings, a car estimated at $40,000 value and household contents of $20,000. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Caul's taxable incomes will be an accurate reflection of her income for the purposes of the assessment as she has only recently taken on the second job and her taxable income will reflect additional income moving forward.

1. Subsection 117(7B) of the Assessment Act states that decision makers may determine a parent's earning capacity is greater than their ATI used in the assessment if one or more of the following applies:

(i) the parent does not work despite ample opportunity to do so;

(ii) the parent has reduced the number of hours per week of his or her employment or other work below the normal number of hours per week that constitutes full‑time work for the occupation or industry in which the parent is employed or otherwise engaged;

(iii) the parent has changed his or her occupation, industry or working pattern;

and the parent's decision not to work, to reduce the number of hours, or to change his or her occupation, industry or working pattern, is not justified on the basis of the parent's caring responsibilities or the parent's state of health;

and the parent has not demonstrated that it was not a major purpose of that decision to affect the administrative assessment of child support in relation to the child.

1. Ms Caul works full time for the same employer she has worked at for many years, having recently taken on a second role, and there is no indication that she has a higher earning capacity according to the considerations listed in the Assessment Act.
2. Mr Caul has changed his occupation or working pattern, as despite working in the same industry, he has gone from being a salaried [Occupation 1] who often had to [work] at night, to owning [Business 1] which does not require the long shifts and night [work] of his former employment. The first criterion is met.
3. Mr Caul's evidence to Child Support outlined in the objection decision was that he had [been in Occupation 1] his whole life and the hours were taking a toll on him. Mr Caul explained his last employment was with [Employer 1], the shifts were 16-20 hours each and work often commenced at 1am and finished 10pm the next day; he was starting to spend more time sleeping [away from home than at home]. Mr Caul advised that he did a couple of [related jobs] and became interested in [Occupation 2] as an alternative. Whilst [Occupation 2] involves a lot of travel the work is conducted in daylight hours and the shifts were not as long.
4. While there is some indication that the decision to change his employment decision related to his health, there is no medical evidence that has been provided. The second criterion is met. However, based on the evidence provided by Mr Caul about the unsustainable hours and living circumstances of his former employment the Tribunal is satisfied that his decision to change his work to [Occupation 2] so that he could do shorter shifts and less night [work] was not done with the purpose of affecting the child support assessment. The third criterion is not met and so there will not be a departure based on this particular factor.

Self-support commitments (including any other dependants)

1. Mr Caul lists liabilities of his work car loan, of which $86,195 was still owing (with the 7 year loan term continuing until after the assessment ends), and a credit card with $5,000 owing, and a business credit account owing $2,490. He also estimates his weekly tax liability to be around $313. Mr Caul's actual personal expenses are very minimal given his lifestyle, and that he lives with family when not [working] and so does not have any rent or mortgage expenses or associated costs with running a home. Many of his expenses listed in the Statement of Financial Circumstances are accounted for in his business expenses as outlined above (such as fuel, car maintenance, food, insurance and telephone). While Mr Caul said he does contribute to the household expenses that are in his grandparents' names from time to time, he has not listed any expenses for the house in his Statement of Financial Circumstances. The Tribunal considers that Mr Caul has low self-support commitments which will be considered holistically with the other just and equitable factors when arriving at a proposed departure.
2. Ms Caul lists liabilities of $8,500 on a credit card of which $65 is the minimum weekly repayment. Aside from the usual tax liability, she is also contributing $176 per week to her superannuation and $48 to health insurance. Her other listed weekly expenses for herself and the child (not including other adults in the house) amount to $910. She does not have a mortgage or rent to pay, as she ended up selling her house and has put the money towards a new house being built with her partner. Ms Caul stated that she was struggling financially and so took on a second job at her work to assist with meeting her and [Child A's] expenses. While Ms Caul and [Child A] live with Ms Caul's partner, the Assessment Act requires the Tribunal to disregard the income of people who do not have a duty to maintain the child and so the Tribunal disregards Ms Caul's partner's income accordingly.
3. Neither parent has any other children under the age of 18 to support. Mr Caul said that Ms Caul has 2 adult children who do not live at home.

Costs incurred by the carer in providing care for the child

1. Ms Caul said she is working full time and so she is not forfeiting income in order to care for [Child A]. The Tribunal has taken into account the expenses listed by Ms Caul and considers that the usual costs of the child provided for in the formula assessment are sufficient to account for incurred costs for caring for [Child A]. Ms Caul has been incurring the full costs of [Child A's] care for some time due to Mr Caul refusing to make any child support payments.

Proposed departure, and any hardship to the parents or the children caused by making or refusing to make a departure determination

1. Considering the findings above, and in particular those regarding Mr Caul's income and expenses in the 2022/23 year, and separately the 2023/24 year onwards, and balancing these against his low self-support expenses, the Tribunal finds it is just and equitable to depart from the assessment by varying the ATI of Mr Caul. While the Tribunal considered setting an annual rate instead for certainty to the parties, setting only the income of Mr Caul will allow variations in Ms Caul's income to be taken into account, particularly as her income appears to be increasing from previous financial years.

1. Mr Caul has not paid any child support for some time, and his arrears are significant as a result, being of $16,319 at the time of hearing. Mr Caul stated that he would start paying after this review was decided and said he had not been paying as there had been so many changes, he did not know the right rate to pay. At hearing he indicated that $380 per week (referencing a former assessment) might not put him in hardship necessarily, but due to his fluctuating work and some payments he was struggling to meet (including a current fuel bill of over $4,000 and some of his automatic car repayments bouncing due to insufficient funds), he suggested he could pay a rate of $200 per week. The Tribunal notes that this is higher than the rate that resulted from the decision under review, although does not account for a payment arrangement towards the arrears which will be required.

1. The Tribunal finds that on balance an assessment that is based on an ATI for Mr Caul of $71,500 is appropriate as it results in an annual rate that is lower than what he has proposed he is able to pay, which will allow him to increase his payments to also start addressing his arrears without putting him into financial hardship. This departure will also mean that Mr Caul's rate will decrease if the income of Ms Caul increases in future as may occur given her additional income. This departure results in a rate of payment of approximately $185 per week for periods where Ms Caul is assessed on her 2022/23 income of $70,384, and $175 per week for periods where Ms Caul is assessed on her 2023/24 income of $81,631. Once Ms Caul's 2024/25 income is received this will adjust again for the future period.

1. This departure recognises that while Mr Caul's business expenses may be reasonably high, he has minimal living expenses, and so less of his income needs to go towards those expenses than other parents. The child support scheme intends that parents are responsible for meeting the costs of their children once their own basic self-support needs are met, and this responsibility takes priority over other matters. The Tribunal is satisfied that such a departure will not put Mr Caul into hardship, and will ensure that the costs of the child are met, and that Ms Caul will also not be put into financial hardship.

1. The Tribunal finds it is appropriate to commence the departure on the date of Ms Caul's application (23 October 2023). While a departure can be backdated up to 18 months prior, Mr Caul was not on notice about the potential for change prior to that time. The Tribunal notes that Mr Caul could have estimated his income to a lower amount from 1 July 2023 but did not do so.

1. Mr Caul agreed at hearing that aside from his first-year full depreciation claimed as an immediate expense, his expenses should remain a fairly consistent portion of his income, and he anticipates continuing on with his business for years to come. He agreed that it would make sense to give the parties certainty by setting any departure for a longer period to avoid the parties having to go through further applications. As the case will end in 2027, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to set a departure until that time.

1. This decision will impact the arrears through a minimal reduction, as the departure for the period prior to this decision is only slightly lower than that determined by the objections officer.

Issue 3: Would a departure be otherwise proper?

1. Paragraph 98C(1)(b) requires the decision maker to be satisfied it would be otherwise proper to make a particular departure determination. Subsection 117(5) states that when determining whether it is otherwise proper to make a particular determination, the decision maker must have regard to:

(a) the nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (as stated in section 3) and, in particular, the fact that it is the parents of a child themselves who have the primary duty to maintain the child; and

(b) the effect that the making of the order would have on:

(i) any entitlement of the child, or the carer entitled to child support, to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit; or

(ii) the rate of any income tested pension, allowance or benefit payable to the child or the carer entitled to child support.

1. Neither parent receives a government benefit. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed departure is otherwise proper in all the circumstances as it places the duty on the parents to primarily provide for the costs of the child of the case. For a long period of time Ms Caul has been solely meeting those costs and it is the Tribunal's intention that finally resolving the rate of payment through this decision will see Mr Caul have certainty about what he needs to pay so that he can also make an ongoing arrangement to address the arrears that are owed for [Child A's] support.

1. The Tribunal has decided to depart from the assessment by setting Mr Caul's income at an amount that better reflects his income and financial resources and low self-support expenses in meeting [Child A's] costs. This departure will be from the date of Ms Caul's application on 23 October 2023 until the case ends so that the parties have certainty and to avoid further change of assessment applications. However, if the special circumstances of the parties' change in that time, a new application can be made to Child Support prior to the case ending.
2. As the Tribunal has reached a different decision than the objections officer, the decision under review will be set aside and substituted.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that for the period 23 October 2023 until the assessment ends, the adjusted taxable income for Mr Caul is varied to $71,500.