Dowale and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2212 | Case summary

CHILD SUPPORT - extension of time to object - estimate of adjusted taxable income accepted - ceased employment and provided estimate of zero income - later returned to employment and provided another estimate - no discretion to refuse estimate, objection has no merit and extension application properly refused - decision under review affirmed

On 12 June 2024, Mr Dowale lodged an online estimate of his 2024-25 adjusted taxable income. He estimated that he would earn $83,428. On the same day, Services Australia - Child Support ("Child Support") decided to accept the estimate. Child Support used the estimate to provisionally calculate Mr Dowale's rate of child support payable during 2024-25, subject to a reconciliation once the Australian Taxation Office had assessed his 2024-25 adjusted taxable income.
Mr Dowale had a right to object to Child Support's decision to accept his estimate. To object within time, he needed to do so within 28 days of being notified of Child Support's decision: section 81 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 ("the Registration Act"). Child Support notified him of its decision in a letter dated 12 June 2024. The letter was sent to him electronically. He objected to the decision on 5 August 2024. He also applied for an extension of time in which to object: section 82 of the Registration Act. Child Support decided to refuse the extension of time application. Mr Dowale promptly applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. I heard the matter on 11 July 2025. Mr Dowale gave sworn evidence via MS Teams.
Legally, the matter is straightforward. Mr Dowale had a right to lodge an estimate of income: section 60 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ("the Assessment Act"). He exercised that right. Child Support had a discretion to refuse the estimate, but only if it was likely that the estimate was an underestimate: section 63AA of the Assessment Act. When Mr Dowale lodged his estimate, he declared that the information he was providing was correct. On 5 August 2024, Mr Dowale phoned Child Support and confirmed that his estimate was a fair estimate. During the Tribunal hearing, he once again confirmed that his estimate had been a fair estimate. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Child Support therefore did not have a discretion to refuse Mr Dowale's estimate; it was required by law to accept it. On a preliminary assessment of the evidence, Mr Dowale's objection has no merit. His extension of time application was properly refused.
It was clear during the hearing that Mr Dowale genuinely believed that he had been treated unfairly. I attempted to explore that issue with him during the hearing but I was left with the impression that my observations had not been taken on board. I will try again.
The child support case was registered in 2016. Mr Dowale confirmed that, in broad terms, his rate of child support payable during each financial year was based on his adjusted taxable income for the previous financial year. He considered that to be a generally fair process.
Mr Dowale ceased employment in September 2023. He was not required to provide an estimate of income. He could have proceeded on the basis that the fluctuations in his income and his rate of child support payable would balance out eventually. Instead, he elected to provide an estimate of income of $0. He was assessed on that estimate from September 2023 to May 2024. In May 2024 he informed Child Support that he had returned to employment and he provided another estimate. Overall, he estimated that he earned $15,755 from July to September 2023, $0 from September 2023 to May 2024, and $11,700 from May 2024 to June 2024. It transpired that his 2023-24 adjusted taxable income was $35,884, and Child Support reconciled his estimates for 2023-24. From a child support perspective, those events were unremarkable. Mr Dowale provided estimates of income that reflected his changing capacity to contribute to the children's costs, and the assessment changed accordingly.
From 1 July 2024, Mr Dowale was assessed on his estimate of income of $83,428 per annum, which he confirmed was a fair estimate. That suggests that the assessment continued to be fair. Mr Dowale's concern is that he subsequently discovered that if he had not provided an estimate of income from 1 July 2024, the administrative assessment would have defaulted to using his 2023-24 adjusted taxable income of $35,884. In other words, Mr Dowale was fairly assessed during 2023-24 because the assessment took into account his reduced 2023-24 adjusted taxable income, but he lost the opportunity to also be assessed on his reduced 2023-24 adjusted taxable income during 2024-25. He had a reduced adjusted taxable income during one financial year and he lost the opportunity to be assessed on that reduced taxable income for two financial years. Hopefully those observations address Mr Dowale's genuine but, with respect, mistaken sense of having been treated unfairly.
Finally, if the assessment from July 2024 had been based on Mr Dowale's 2023-24 adjusted taxable income of $35,884 despite the fact that he was actually earning approximately $83,428 per annum, Child Support or the children's mother could have applied to have that unfairness addressed: see generally chapters 5.1 and 5.2.8 of the Child Support Guide.

Dowale and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2212 (22 July 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Dowale and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2212 (22 July 2025)

Legislation Cited (2)