Child Support - Meaning of "annual rate"

[Sylvia Else]

I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of subsection
60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm

Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
"income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant part
of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order

(A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable parent;

Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
which requires that the annual rate be varied.

This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be paid.
On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to be paid
is not in fact varying the "annual amount".

Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
onnews:4195cf27$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:

> I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
> subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>
> Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
> posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
> be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
> either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
> "income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
> part of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>
> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
> parent;
>
> Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
> support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
> which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>
> This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
> rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
> quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
> paid. On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to
> be paid is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>
> Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).

Stupid lying lamer ****


Bertie

[Sylvia Else]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
> onnews:4195cf27$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>
>
>>I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>
>>http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>
>>Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
>>be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
>>either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
>>"income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
>>part of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>>
>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>> parent;
>>
>>Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
>>support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
>>which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>
>>This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
>>rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
>>quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
>>paid. On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to
>>be paid is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>
>>Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>
>
> Stupid lying lamer ****

I see that it didn't stop you.

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
onnews:4195da75$0$25117$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
>> onnews:4195cf27$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>>
>>
>>>I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>>subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>
>>>http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>>
>>>Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>>posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
>>>be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
>>>either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
>>>"income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
>>>part of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>>>
>>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>>> parent;
>>>
>>>Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
>>>support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
>>>which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>>
>>>This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
>>>rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
>>>quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
>>>paid. On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to
>>>be paid is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>>
>>>Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>>
>>
>> Stupid lying lamer ****
>
> I see that it didn't stop you.
>

I've had a whole country complaing about me and they couldn't stop me. The
FBI laughed at the guy who tried to stop me. People have traced me to their
own living rooms, borneo, and nearly every other spot on earth and you
think some lame-ass sheila is going to do it?

Think again you stupid ****.


BTW, "I was curious" ?
Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw.

You've already stated that you want to report me to my company.

Well if you ever figure it out, go ahead fjukwit.

My chief pilot and i can have a good laugh at your expense while we're out
doing some aerobatics together.


Stupid ****

Bertie

[Sylvia Else]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
> onnews:4195da75$0$25117$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>
>
>>
>>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
>>>onnews:4195cf27$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>>>subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>>
>>>>http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>>>
>>>>Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>>>posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
>>>>be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
>>>>either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
>>>>"income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
>>>>part of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>>>>
>>>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>>>> parent;
>>>>
>>>>Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
>>>>support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
>>>>which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>>>
>>>>This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
>>>>rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
>>>>quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
>>>>paid. On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to
>>>>be paid is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>>>
>>>>Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>>>
>>>
>>>Stupid lying lamer ****
>>
>>I see that it didn't stop you.
>>
>
>
> I've had a whole country complaing about me and they couldn't stop me. The
> FBI laughed at the guy who tried to stop me. People have traced me to their
> own living rooms, borneo, and nearly every other spot on earth and you
> think some lame-ass sheila is going to do it?
>
> Think again you stupid ****.
>
>
> BTW, "I was curious" ?
> Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw.
>
> You've already stated that you want to report me to my company.
>
> Well if you ever figure it out, go ahead fjukwit.
>
> My chief pilot and i can have a good laugh at your expense while we're out
> doing some aerobatics together.
>
>
> Stupid ****
>
> Bertie
>

Interesting rant, but what has that got to do with statutory construction?

Sylvia.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
onnews:4195e10b$0$7560$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com. au:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
>> onnews:4195da75$0$25117$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> drivveled on and
>>>>onnews:4195cf27$0$24380$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com .au:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>>>>subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>>>>posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order
>>>>>could be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are
>>>>>arguements either way. However, I've also started wondering about
>>>>>the meaning of "income amount order", which is defined in section
>>>>>59. The relevant part of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an
>>>>>order
>>>>>
>>>>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>>>>> parent;
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of
>>>>>child support. This raises the question of whether it meets the
>>>>>definition which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The
>>>>>"annual rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is
>>>>>just a quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount
>>>>>to be paid. On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly
>>>>>amount to be paid is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Stupid lying lamer ****
>>>
>>>I see that it didn't stop you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've had a whole country complaing about me and they couldn't stop
>> me. The FBI laughed at the guy who tried to stop me. People have
>> traced me to their own living rooms, borneo, and nearly every other
>> spot on earth and you think some lame-ass sheila is going to do it?
>>
>> Think again you stupid ****.
>>
>>
>> BTW, "I was curious" ?
>> Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw.
>>
>> You've already stated that you want to report me to my company.
>>
>> Well if you ever figure it out, go ahead fjukwit.
>>
>> My chief pilot and i can have a good laugh at your expense while
>> we're out doing some aerobatics together.
>>
>>
>> Stupid ****
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Interesting rant, but what has that got to do with statutory
> construction?
>

Nothing you stupid misdirecting fjukwit lamer ****


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"~KJPRO~" <KJPRO @ STARBAND.NET> drivveled on and
onnews:6kpld.776$Xp4.183@fe25.usenetserver.com:

> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:4195da75$0$25117$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>
> Why is this posted to hvac??


/What, you're saying you don't care whether a child might live or die?

Heartless swine.


Bertie
>
> But, your question can only be answered after you give your location.
>
> As the guidelines for child support is governed by your State
> Legislation.
>
> ~kjpro~
>
>
>
>

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
> subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>
> Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
> posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
> be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
> either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
> "income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
> part
> of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>
> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
> parent;
>
> Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
> support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
> which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>
> This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
> rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
> quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
> paid.
> On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to be
> paid
> is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>
> Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>
> Sylvia.

Are you suggesting that, because the legislation refers to an annual rate
and the court order refers to a monthly amount, that in itself creates a
problem? If this is your point, I doubt if it will get much traction. The
monthly amount, or monthly rate, can readily be translated into an annual
rate without any difficulty. Some conversions can cause a problem, but it
is unlikely that this one will.

Was this your point?

[Sylvia Else]

Galimatias wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>
>>http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>
>>Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order could
>>be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are arguements
>>either way. However, I've also started wondering about the meaning of
>>"income amount order", which is defined in section 59. The relevant
>>part
>>of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>>
>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>>parent;
>>
>>Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
>>support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
>>which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>
>>This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The "annual
>>rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is just a
>>quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount to be
>>paid.
>>On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to be
>>paid
>>is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>
>>Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that, because the legislation refers to an annual rate
> and the court order refers to a monthly amount, that in itself creates a
> problem? If this is your point, I doubt if it will get much traction. The
> monthly amount, or monthly rate, can readily be translated into an annual
> rate without any difficulty. Some conversions can cause a problem, but it
> is unlikely that this one will.
>
> Was this your point?
>

Not quite. I was of the view that the annual rate of child support was
not necessarily the amount actually to be paid, though I've changed my
view on that now that I've looked further to support my view, in order
to reply to you.

However, the annual rate feeds into section 69

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA001120.htm

The regulations make a specific provision for converting periodic
ammounts in child support agreements into annual amounts

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/19/0/PR000160.htm

It is significant, is it not, that it does not make a similar provision
in respect of court orders?

I'll probably still raise this issue, but I'm not as certain about the
validity of my position as I was.

I've truely come to hate this act, not because of the imposition of a
child support requirement, but simply because it is so unbelievable
convoluted. I think they set trainees loose on drafting ammendments to
it before setting them on the real McCoy - the Income Tax Assessment Act.

For example, there is part 6A, about departures from administrative
assessment.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA001520.htm

When you follow the tortuous path, you find, as the courts have, that
the result of a departure from admininstrative assessment is....another
administrative assessment.

Another quick example I've just pulled out of section 64 is this definition

"real remaining period taxable income of a person who made an election
under section 60 is the amount that would have been the person's taxable
income (as defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for the
remaining period had the remaining period been a year of income."

I cannot fathom the kind of thinking that must go on in the minds of
someone who can come up with that. It's akin to measuring the amount I
would have won on the horses, if, instead of not betting on horses, I'd
bet on a different horse from the one I would have bet on, and the horse
that won was different from the horse that did win - probably in a
different race altogether.

Sylvia.

[Galimatias]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Galimatias wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> I have previously posted regarding the CSA's construction of
>>> subsection 60 (2) of the Child Support Assessment Act.
>>>
>>> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA000940.htm
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly, this is now due to be heard in court. My previous
>>> posting addressed the question of whether an expired court order
>>> could be "in force" for the purposes of this section. There are
>>> arguements either way. However, I've also started wondering about
>>> the meaning of "income amount order", which is defined in section
>>> 59. The relevant part
>>> of this definition is (b)(i)(A), being an order
>>>
>>> (A) varying the annual rate of child support payable by the liable
>>> parent;
>>>
>>> Now, the court order in question specifies a monthly amount of child
>>> support. This raises the question of whether it meets the definition
>>> which requires that the annual rate be varied.
>>>
>>> This is not quite the splitting of hairs that it appears. The
>>> "annual rate" of child support is not the amount to be paid, but is
>>> just a quantity used elsewhere in the act in determining the amount
>>> to be paid.
>>> On my reading, a court order that specifies a monthly amount to be
>>> paid
>>> is not in fact varying the "annual amount".
>>>
>>> Comments? (Preferably useful, but don't let that stop you).
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that, because the legislation refers to an annual
>> rate and the court order refers to a monthly amount, that in itself
>> creates a problem? If this is your point, I doubt if it will get
>> much traction. The monthly amount, or monthly rate, can readily be
>> translated into an annual rate without any difficulty. Some
>> conversions can cause a problem, but it is unlikely that this one
>> will.
>>
>> Was this your point?
>>
>
> Not quite. I was of the view that the annual rate of child support was
> not necessarily the amount actually to be paid, though I've changed my
> view on that now that I've looked further to support my view, in order
> to reply to you.
>
> However, the annual rate feeds into section 69
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA001120.htm
>
> The regulations make a specific provision for converting periodic
> ammounts in child support agreements into annual amounts
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/19/0/PR000160.htm
>
> It is significant, is it not, that it does not make a similar
> provision
> in respect of court orders?

In the context of regulations, the significance may be that you don't apply
the conversion rules contained in the regulations. It may be deliberate
that there is no rule for conversion in the case of court orders. But while
interesting in a broad sense, the explicit non-application of these
regulations to your case means that you put them aside.

> I'll probably still raise this issue, but I'm not as certain about the
> validity of my position as I was.
>
> I've truely come to hate this act, not because of the imposition of a
> child support requirement, but simply because it is so unbelievable
> convoluted. I think they set trainees loose on drafting ammendments to
> it before setting them on the real McCoy - the Income Tax Assessment
> Act.

The history gives tells the story. The proposal came from Brian Howe, when
Minister for Social Security. All logic was that it should have been run by
him and his Department. The Department vigorously resisted taking it, and
it went to the Treasurer and the ATO. They (especially the ATO) didn't want
it (for obvious and sensible reasons), but too bad for the Australian
community. The underlying concept was and still is fine. The
administration and legislation appalling. Since then, it has returned to
the successor to DSS, the Department of Family and Community Services, and
now to the new mega-Department. But all too late, I'm afraid.

Important though the CSA for those involved, it will always be very small
beer when up against the political imperatives of the $billions involved in
tax or social security. Very unfortunate.

> For example, there is part 6A, about departures from administrative
> assessment.
>
> http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/168/0/PA001520.htm
>
> When you follow the tortuous path, you find, as the courts have, that
> the result of a departure from admininstrative assessment
> is....another administrative assessment.
>
> Another quick example I've just pulled out of section 64 is this
> definition
>
> "real remaining period taxable income of a person who made an election
> under section 60 is the amount that would have been the person's
> taxable income (as defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for
> the remaining period had the remaining period been a year of income."
>
> I cannot fathom the kind of thinking that must go on in the minds of
> someone who can come up with that. It's akin to measuring the amount I
> would have won on the horses, if, instead of not betting on horses,
> I'd bet on a different horse from the one I would have bet on, and
> the horse that won was different from the horse that did win -
> probably in a different race altogether.

You don't put your best minds on this stuff as a band-aid exercise. Which
means that you will get ever more of the same. It needs a serious re-think,
but the political downside is now so crudely obvious that neither of the
major political parties will do that. I can't blame them for that, but
heaven help those caught up in the CSA machine.