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. Ms Glasco and Mr Stockton are the separated parents of [Child 1]. According to Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support), the most recent opt-in for Child Support to take responsibility for collection of child support from Mr Stockton and payable to Ms Glasco commenced on 23 April 2015.
2. The most recent tax return lodged by Mr Stockton was 2021/22. His adjusted taxable income (ATI) was recorded as $193,271 and used in the administrative assessment from 6 September 2022. Since then, the administrative assessment has been based on estimates and deemed ATIs, as Mr Stockton has failed to lodge any further tax returns.
3. Child Support wrote to both parties on 7 July 2024 in relation to the child support assessments for the child support period commencing on 1 August 2024. The assessment from 1 July 2024 to 31 July 2024 recorded a provisional ATI for Mr Stockton in the amount of $200,229, based on the indexed 2021/22 ATI. From 1 August 2024, the provisional ATI used in the administrative assessment for Mr Stockton was $208,152, based on further indexing of the 2021/22 ATI.
4. On 22 July 2024, Mr Stockton lodged an online declaration in respect of his ATI for 2023/24 in the amount of $151,500. Child Support accepted the declaration and the administrative assessment was then based on a client-determined ATI of $151,500 for the period 1 August 2024 to 20 July 2025. Both parties were advised in writing on the same day.
5. On 1 August 2024, Ms Glasco lodged an objection to the decision of 22 July 2024 to accept Mr Stockton's declaration of $151,500 as an accurate indication of his true ATI. An objections officer disallowed the objection on 2 August 2025. Consequently, Ms Glasco lodged an application with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 5 August 2025 for an independent review of the objections officer's decision.
6. The matter was heard on 18 November 2025. Ms Glasco participated by conference telephone and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on affirmation. She confirmed receipt of documents provided by Child Support numbered 1 to 96 and additional information provided to the Tribunal by Mr Stockton, numbered B1 to B2.
7. The Tribunal attempted to contact Mr Stockton on his nominated phone number. The phone was answered by a man who informed the Tribunal that Mr Stockton was no longer employed by the organisation and they had no current contact details for him.
8. The Tribunal file noted that on 1 October 2025, the Tribunal sent a text message to Mr Stockton on the nominated phone number as advice was received that the hearing papers had been returned to Child Support. Mr Stockton contacted the Tribunal on the same day and updated his postal address. On 28 October 2025, details of the time and place of the hearing were emailed to all parties.
9. The Notice of Hearing stated that the hearing would be held on Tuesday 18 November 2025 at 9.30 am (Queensland time). It also noted that the Tribunal would call each party and specified the respective nominated phone numbers.
10. In response, on 6 November 2025, Mr Stockton provided documents numbered B1 to B2. As such, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to assume that Mr Stockton received notice of the time and place of the hearing, including details of the phone number on which the Tribunal would contact him. The Notice of Hearing also advised Mr Stockton that if he failed to attend the hearing he may cease to be a party to the review.
11. Mr Stockton failed to attend the hearing and made no further contact with the Tribunal. In this case, whereby Mr Stockton provided additional evidence to the Tribunal prior to the hearing, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to remove Mr Stockton as a party to the review. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter.
12. For the reasons given below, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review. As an affirmed decision has no impact on Mr Stockton, the Tribunal was satisfied that in the interests of expediency, it was appropriate to proceed to finalise the decision without seeking any further response from Mr Stockton. The oral evidence of Ms Glasco given at hearing was the same as the evidence recorded in the hearing papers already received by Mr Stockton.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act).
2. The issue which arises in this case is:
   • Should the declaration by Mr Stockton in relation to his 2023/24 ATI have been accepted by Child Support?

1. Ms Glasco submitted that she wants Mr Stockton to lodge his 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25 tax returns so that an accurate assessment of his child support liability can be made. She does not accept Mr Stockton's declaration and considers that Child Support should have requested some form of proof.
2. As discussed at hearing, neither the Tribunal nor Child Support have the authority to demand that Mr Stockton lodges his outstanding tax returns. Subdivision B of Division 7 of the Act sets out the process where a parent has not lodged a tax return for the last relevant year of income and provides for various methods under section 58 to calculate a parent's ATI for a particular year.
3. In circumstances where a parent's taxable income has been assessed for the year before the last relevant year of income, subsection 58(3) of the Act applies. Where a parent's taxable income has been assessed for an earlier year than the year before the last relevant year of income, subsection 58(4) of the Act applies. In both provisions an ATI indexation factor is applied. In subsection 58(4), an alternative ATI in the amount equal to two-thirds of the annualised MTAWE figure in relation to the relevant period may also be applied.
4. This matter is in relation to the ATI applied to the administrative assessment for Mr Stockton from 1 August 2024, which would ordinarily be derived from his 2023/24 tax return. Prior to 1 July 2024, Mr Stockton had lodged an estimate of his ATI for 2022/23 and 2023/24, which had been accepted by Child Support. The reconciliations have not been processed as yet.
5. From 1 July 2024, in accordance with subsection 58(3) of the Act, Mr Stockton's ATI was determined to be $200,229. At commencement of the new child support period on 1 August 2024, in accordance with subsection 58(4) of the Act, Mr Stockton's ATI was to be determined as $208,152. Both parties were advised in writing of these assessments on 7 July 2024.
6. Mr Stockton lodged an online declaration in respect of his 2023/24 ATI on 22 July 2024, which was subsequently accepted by Child Support and applied to the administrative assessment from 1 August 2024. Subsection 58(2) of the Act provides for the Registrar to determine the ATI of a parent for a particular year where a parent's taxable income for the last relevant year of income has not been assessed by the Australian Taxation Office and the Registrar has information or a document, either oral or written, that specifies an amount for the parent's ATI for that year.
7. In this case, the Registrar received a written declaration from Mr Stockton on 22 July 2024 that specified an amount of $151,500 as his ATI for 2023/24. This amount is well above the two-thirds of the annualised MTAWE amount in 2024 of $56,926. The electronic declaration states that Mr Stockton declares that the information provided is complete and correct and that he understands that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. He further states that he has read, understood and accepts the declaration. In accordance with subsection 58(2) of the Act, it was open to the Registrar to accept Mr Stockton's declaration and the Tribunal so finds.
8. The Tribunal pointed out that section 58A of the Act requires that the Registrar must immediately amend an administrative assessment of child support payable by a parent in relation to a child support period if a determination was made under section 58 in relation to a parent's ATI and subsequently ascertains the parent's ATI for the relevant period. Such a reconciliation process occurs regardless of how late the lodgement of a tax return may be and is retrospectively applied, unless one of the limited prescribed circumstances applies.
9. Unfortunately, despite Ms Glasco lodging her objection in a timely manner on 1 August 2024, the objection process did not commence until June 2025. Following contact with Mr Stockton, he advised that his ATI had now increased in respect of 2024/25 to $156,000. According to Child Support records, Child Support subsequently applied the increased ATI to the administrative assessment from August 2025. Mr Stockton provided his payslip for the fortnight ending 16 July 2025 to the Tribunal. It recorded a gross annual salary of $156,070. This review is not in relation to the decision to accept a 2024/25 ATI for Mr Stockton of $156,000.
10. Ms Glasco maintains that Child Support should have investigated the actual income of Mr Stockton, at the very least by contacting his employer. As discussed at hearing, investigation of a parent's income at such a level is reserved for the change of assessment process. Section 58 of the Act and the estimate provisions in Subdivision D of Division 7 of the Act provide a means of determining an ATI in respect of a parent that is not as tedious and time consuming for the parents as a change of assessment. Of course, this is not always appropriate and that is the reason that it is always open to a parent to lodge a change of assessment application. While this process had been discussed with Ms Glasco by Child Support, she chose at the time not to pursue it.
11. Ms Glasco expressed her frustration with the process, in particular the lengthy delay in receiving a final decision in response to her objection. The Tribunal acknowledges the dissatisfaction felt by Ms Glasco when for many years the ATI of Mr Stockton has not been verified. The Tribunal is also cognisant of the impact of such a delay in finalising an objection decision, in particular when the child support assessment is due to end on 21 November 2025.