Kristoffersen and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services... [2018] AATA 524 | Case summary

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia|2018-03-15

The Applicant further contends that there are errors in the calculations of his FTB Part A and FTB Part B supplements. The payments of these supplements were reduced from the maximum rate owing to the income assessments of the Applicant's wife. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that these reductions were properly made; there is no evidence before me supporting any contention of the Applicant that the Respondent's calculations were incorrect.

The currently configured and propounded substantive application reveals three things:
- (a) The principle expressed in Clause 3(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act[23] is beyond argument;
- (b) The principle expressed in Clause 2(1) of Schedule 3, defining adjusted taxable income to include an individual's tax-free pension or benefit for that year, is beyond argument; and
- (c) The resulting calculations and findings of both the ARO and the SSCSD are incapable of rational challenge.
If the Applicant is incapable of comprehending the above three items, or is otherwise dismissive of their operative reality, then the substantive application is clearly misconceived and ought be dismissed pursuant to s 42B(1)(a) of the AAT Act.

I certify that the preceding 27 (twenty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis

.....................[sgd]...................................................

[1] See Exhibit 3: Respondent's Submissions and Annexures thereto.

[2] That is, assessable income and, as such, liable to income tax.

[3] Exhibit 3: Respondent's Submissions and Annexures thereto, A 12, p 73.

[4] Exhibit 3, Respondent's Submissions and Annexures thereto, A1, p 7.

[5] Filsell and Comcare [2009] AATA 90; Paraponiaris and Secretary, Department of Employment [2015] AATA 895; James and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 523.

[6] See: Dennis Pearce, Administrative Appeals Tribunal (4thed, LexisNexis, 2015) 278-279, [15.14].

[7] James and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 523 at [7], citing Paraponiaris and Secretary, Department of Employment [2015] AATA 895; (2015) 68 AAR 143 at 149-150 (DP Alpins).

[10] Merante and Secretary, Department of Employment [2017] AATA 1178.

[12] See Exhibit 3, Respondent's Submissions and Annexures thereto, A1, pp 4-6.

[21] With whom the learned Member of the SSCSD concurred.

[22] Exhibit 3, Respondent's Submissions and Annexures thereto, A 14, p 81.

[23] It provides that in the case where a person is a member of a couple, the relevant adjusted taxable income is the income of the person who earned the lower amount.

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

Filsell and Comcare [2009] AATA 90

James and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 523

Merante and Secretary, Department of Employment [2017] AATA 1178

Paraponiaris and Secretary, Department of Employment [2015] AATA 895; 68 AAR 143

Kristoffersen and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 524 (15 March 2018)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (16 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (4)