Hi,

Ths is my first post, and I just wanted to let any one who is intrested know that the new child support formula may seem reasonable however, the same old ideologies are still aplicable to the CSA. Just had a reassesment and they used the benift the new formula provided in order t survive and took it to pay for more demands that the ex re-assesed to place on me.

So if you think the formula may in your circumstance be benifical financial wise, dont count your chickens. The CSA still has the same autocratic approach to deciding what is best.

It is, however, worth noting that the former Qld Regional Registrar, latterly National Compliance Manager, Angela Tillmans, who was responsible for some of the most egregious examples of excesses from the Agency, has now gone to greener pastures.

It seems that despite a budget of $143 million as National Compliance Manager, the use of private investigators for surveillance on ordinary Australians, nasty thuggish threats to make people "fear the next phone call or knock on the door" and a very expensive ad campaign (recently canned by the new Govt) she wasn't able to collect much money from the so-called "deadbeat dads".

So Angela has now moved on to the greener and presumably less arduous pastures of the Cerebral Palsy League, as CEO. I don't know if she has a family or other connection with CP, but her record doesn't bode well for the League. I urge all those with an interest to contact the League's Board to express their concern. Their website has the relevant details.

yes indeed the matter of the Child Support Hoax [just turned 20 years old] takes up considerable space in my book A Bloke's Guide to Family Law http://www.ablokesguide.com

and I have kept abreast [as FREE extracts] as all the abuses you mention come to the surface

or to simply get figures for your own case up to 18 years into future use http://www.csacalc.com

Antiseptic and Divorce Doctor, thanks for the post's. The whole thing with the CSA is that they don't realise or accept that things change upon seperation.

Sure you may be doing well with two incomes comming into the one household, however once seperation occurs, the CSA still thinks that horse riding is a necessity or private school is the only way to educate.

They keep going on with the old phase "what was the intention", yeah fine the intention was to educate the children, private was good,public would be fine as well, however now you find yourself locked into private schools for the rest of the childs schooling life. The CSA does not accept that you dont have they money you once had and insist on forcing you to privately educate the children.

I have reviewed and gone to the SSAT and they all come back the old comment what was the intention when you were married. Nothing else matters, not that you cant afford it, you just have to pay it or build up a debt. That was the reason the CSA had no problem this time saying pay for private education" because the new formula gave me a supposed extra $190 per month, so rather than be able to have the money to help live, you are dictated to to use the money for private education.

I wonder what the government has against its own public school system, or are they just trying to keep as many people as possible in private to allevaite any presure on the public system. I tell you what, it is a good job I never told the ex that I would buy her a car for her 45th birthday otherwise the CSA would say to me the intetion was you would, so you will! So basically the new forumla which I had been waiting for implementation, did nothing to alleviate any financial presure.

Nate23, I find that particular aspect deeply flawed. Imagine the outcry if couples who were still together were not allowed to make changes which might impact on a childs standard of living - taking a sea change, one parent stopping work to further education or taking a lower paying job because they were not coping with the pressures of the higher paying job. There would be a massive outcry.

Kids will be impacted by divorce and seperation, the financial/lifestyle issues may be important but not nearly as significant as the damage done when parents are kept at each others throats or gradually destroyed by an unrealistic system.

A starting place for working out what is reasonable for the government to require is what are the legal obligations on parents in intact families. What proportion of their income are they required by law to spend on their children. Are they allowed to change their childrens schooling arrangements if they believe they can no longer afford a previous approach. Can parents in such families take a lower paying job for work/life balance even if it impacts on their kids.

R0bert

well unfortunately you are playing directly into their hands by "giving" them power they do not have

this seizure of power started with Perryman case in 1992 and accelerated hugely under Howard/Parkinson - it is a long story and all I can say is read the book

as for the COAT you mention, I explain in the book [having dealt with some 4 thousand cases over 10 years] that you simply were dished out Template C, which is bloke pays school fees as well - like I can tell you the exact wording of what you got

the only way to win is to at least make an applic to a court [take no notice that CSA tells you no more courts] and you may well get departed from the whole scheme as many of my clients have done, in order that a court precedent is not set to lift the lid on CSA illegalities

Part of reason Bryant got shunted from boss of FMS to FCA by Howard was that she observed case law on school fees back to 1986 case of Mee & Ferguson [which cases YOU can use mate] so had to be put out of the action, especially following her zap of the CSA in one of my cases called W & C [2002] FMCAfam 166 (17 May 2002)

take a look at Austlii

Divorce Doctor, Thank you for the advie I will look at the cases you cited. It is the private school fees which are the straw that is breaking the camels back, so to speak.

OK, just to fast track the issue for you, Div 4 of Part 7 is departures and Part 6A [the lousy COAT at CSA] was added in 1992 to mimic that

div 5 is for "other maintenance" [or it is done under Fam Law Act] and first question for a court is do you get a CREDIT from the assessment

BUT CSA was never given any power to mimic div 5 - they just TOOK it under the Howard Green Light to do what they want

if you want any direct help [to save 10,000 hours of study] just contact me [eg at http://www.csacalc.com ] and I will try to fit you in at "the surgery"

R0bert: "Imagine the outcry if couples who were still together were not allowed to make changes which might impact on a childs standard of living - taking a sea change, one parent stopping work to further education or taking a lower paying job because they were not coping with the pressures of the higher paying job. There would be a massive outcry."

I too find that a most disgraceful aspect of the CS debacle. It specifically disadvantages one parent in order to maintain the other in a style that they could not otherwise afford. One consequence can be that the paying parent (let's be sensible and say "father") is so financially distressed that he is no longer able to afford to have his children during the agreed "contact" which the CSA takes as reason to increase the impost. It's a vicious cycle fostered by a nasty piece of legislation administered by ideologically-driven incompetents.

In spite of the demise of Tillmans and her jackboots, the Agency will continue to wage its assault on the rights of fathers to have a life after divorce - after all "it's for the children"...

very topical you speak of the total abuse of privacy as just yesterday a case was commenced under the Privacy Act in M before R FM in the FMS [the fam ct has gone abreviation stupid of late so I am just following]

I would say we will now have that case bound for the High Court, "invited" by Kirby J in the Lemar Meat vs ABC case

R FM appears to be stumped by the words of s 65 and has adjourned to collect his thoughts

65 How assessment is to be made
In making an administrative assessment, the Registrar may act on
the basis of the documents and information in his or her
possession, and is not required to conduct any inquiries or
investigations into the matter or to require (whether under this Act
or otherwise) the giving of any information or the production of
any document.

seems this very basic element of the CSScheme from 1989 passed under the radar of Howard/Parkinson et al as they recently totally sanitized the Assessment Act to avoid mass compensation claims against the CSA

stay tuned

here is a shocking case just presented to me at http://www.csacalc.com

the payer will now be paying double that of the old formula

see the new FREE EXTRACT "Parkinson's Curse" at

http://www.ablokesguide.com

read it and weep

hi everyone

I'm a little dismayed over the reaction to the new CSA formula I've read here. I'm a receiving parent however I rarely receive anything from my ex. He's working, changes jobs frequently (seems to me he changes jobs as soon as the CSA get his employment details and attempt to garnishee his wages to get back on track with payments) and only occasionally chooses to see our child. He also has a new partner and child with her.

I pay for everything! School fees, sport, school uniforms, excursions, food, rent, petrol, books, the list goes on and on. I don't get a break very often either. I'm a recent uni graduate with a vocational degree but if I 'chose' to move in order to get a full time job he would be able to restrict my movement so that he can maintain the minimal contact he has. The fact that he moved away from our area when we separated and divorced doesn't seem to come into the picture! I'm restricted to casual work and can't even afford a slightly better car that might give me a better chance of improving my employment prospects.

Get over yourselves. Try seeing things from the other side - we're not all biatches who are taking you for everything you've got. There are deadbeat dads out there - disown them now!

Try contacting Belinda Neal [dissenting] and her partner John De Labotamy.

They have long experience in kicking little girls in the crotch playing soccer and similar tactics with waiters

they should be able to kneecap your deadbeat

DivorceDoctor

What a glib reply to a very common problem. I'm not the only one who has this situation - I know at least 6 other people at uni who've been disadvantaged by their ex's behaviour. I'm not seeking these people out, unlike you it seems, these women are often really embarassed over their inability to afford things like school shoes and new uniforms when their kids need it and go without things themselves to make sure their kids have what they need.

Think about it - what you're doing is blaming the victim (not the Della Bosca-Neal's) and not proposing a co-operative solution that will work for all parties and benefit the kids.

dear retro,

but for the sake of a call to the CSA you have at your service the most abusive Agency that we have ever had in Oz ready to mash yout ex into little bits

EVERYTHING is on YOUR side my lovely in this deal

just get off ars* and call CSA

they have a 007 Licence to Kill [3 fathers a day]

well that may change after my court action this last week under Privacy Act

stay tuned

RetroPastiche,

I am really glad that you posted. There is a very vocal group of posters on OLO who continually highlight the very real inadequacies of the CSA - about which no-one could argue. However, as they are all fathers the perception seems to be that CSA is unfairly biased towards mothers.

In my own case the husand/father was overseas so my only dealing with CSA was to be told that in my case I didn't qualify for help from them. However, amongst my female friends, acquaintances and fellow-students were numerous examples of the inadequacies of the system: women whose (working) husbands paid $5.00 per week child maintenance, many who, as you described, kept ducking and diving to escape completely from their responsibilities. I met a women who was living in a tent with 5 kids while her ex was living comfortably in suburbia with the new wife; another good friend who had to go to a shelter where she was separated from her kids though her husband owns an entire hotel.

For every horrific story of unfairness that is posted here from the male side one can counter with stories from the female side. In vain one tries to be reasonable and point out that the system sucks. Full stop. Both fathers and mothers get shafted. Continually being presented with only one viewpoint here has even led to claims that the whole organisation is a female-run conspiracy! None of the women I have mentioned above are into conspiracy theories but, if they were, an equally valid case could be put for there being a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women and children in poverty.

So your words are valuable as proof of the fact that the whole damn edifice needs not just to be reviewed and have new policies put in place, but completely dismantled and begun again on an equitable footing.

Romany,

'For every horrific story of unfairness that is posted here from the male side one can counter with stories from the female side'

The difference is that the system was originally set up to persecute deadbeat dads and help women in the situations you describe. Men are 'expected' to shirk their responsibilities, and all men in the system are treated under this prejudice. So there's no news in your post, just men being men and not all of them being caught.

But it's not politically correct or popular to explain how some women have taken advantage of a system set up to protect them. That is news, women the virtuous nurturers putting financial gain above their childs relationship with their father, or the victim battlers rorting the system.

Women's horror stories just reinforce the historical assumptions the system is based on, men's horror stories expose flaws in these assumptions and the system.

' fathers the perception seems to be that CSA is unfairly biased towards mothers.
'

For historical reasons, I think this is an accurate assessment.
The system exists based on the prejudice that ALL men need to be forced to contribute to their children after a breakup, and has holes in it based on the prejudice that ALL women will put their children first and not exploit the system for financial gain, and even that any financial gain will be spent on the children anyway. I'd call that biased.

Though with roles of men and women changing, the bias towards the custodial lower paid partner will not be so much more likely to in effect be a bias towards women. When that happens the feminists will decide the system is unfair to women and rally for it to be changed, but when doing so they will be free from suspicion of really just being a deadbeat dad.

Retro, thanks for posting and don't be dismayed by male whining that there also women behaving poorly.

At the end of the day, it is quite immaterial whether the care giver is the mother or the father, it is the child who is disadvantaged when a parent defaults on their financial responsibilities.

Paying men often feel very resentful that they are still 'paying' the ex forgetting that they wouldn't be paying anything if there were no children.

My ex is onto his third marriage and family. Funny how the 'new' family becomes the focus and children from previous relationships are seen as a drain on his finances.

The child support formula should always be in favour of the child, which inevitably means that it will appear to favour the care giving parent. The fact that the vast majority of full-time parenting is done by the mother it would seem that it favours mothers.

Some of the vile comments made by men, who are fathers of children, should remember that once upon a time they freely entered into a sexual relationship with the mother of THEIR child. It is not the child's fault that you stuffed up.

RetroPastiche: "I know at least 6 other people at uni who've been disadvantaged by their ex's behaviour"

After my ex decided that the marriage wsn't pying her enough, she got a divorce and surprise, went back to uni for her third degree, all the while complaining bitterly that I wasn't "supporting" her. Well, guess what, I had already been going to uni when the marriage broke down, but as a "non-custodial parent" I was no longer able to afford to attend after the CSA decided that I wasn't "earning to capacity" and had to be assessed as earning much more "in the best interests of the child", of course...

All the while, "poor Mum", who had been working before the separation, just like me, goes on the pension and gets an additional payment because she's at Uni, as well as a housing commission house. The real kicker? Now she's qualified and is earning a significant wage, she wants the CSA to go away because "she just wants to get ahead" and the CSA might decide she has to pay me. Funny when the boot's on the other foot, isn't it?

As for the kids, I have them half the time and that would never have happened if I had allowed her to simply use me as a cash cow. Frankly, I don't see that you have much to complain about. I bet your ex hasn't been a student supported by the taxpayer for the past several years, just a poor bastard pursued from pillar to post with no chance of ever rebuilding his life if he complies with the unreasonable demands that the CSA put on him. Get over it, recognise you came out on top in the deal, as all women do and stop whinging.

Antiseptic has just confirmed what every girl should be taught. It is what I teach my daughter. Never become financially dependent on a man. You can only have children when you are financially independent in your own right.

Women can only have children when they, themselves, can afford it. Men can whenever the mood strikes and then whinge when they have to bear the consequences.

It is NOT a choice for a woman to be a 'stay-at-home' mother. Mothering alone is not a choice for women.

There are too few men who are capable of separating their issues and anger/hurt with the woman from their children.

Yvonne: "whinge when they have to bear the consequences"

you obviously didn't read what i wrote. the only whinging in my case has been from the ex, who chose to leave the father of her children for financial reasons and has tried her best to avoid the consequences of her own actions by passing them on to me. I, OTOH, tried to "do the right thing" and found that "doing the right thing" simply leads to more and greater demands, so said "it's your bed, you made it, lie in it". Since the possibility of further funding from me has been removed, her actions have been far more reasonable, including coming to sensible care arrangements (50:50) for the children when she had already taken me to Court several times in attempts to reduce my custody, solely for financial reasons.
Who has "the best interests of the child" in mind, Yvonne; the person who wants to be a parent to them together with the other one, or the person who will use every taxpayer-funded means at her disposal to prevent the children having anything to do with the other one?

Yvonne:” Some of the vile comments made by men, who are fathers of children, should remember that once upon a time they freely entered into a sexual relationship with the mother of THEIR child. It is not the child's fault that you stuffed up.”

Of course not. But this type of feminist bile fails to acknowledge not only that mothers can and DO stuff up, and thus disadvantage their own children through no fault of the child, or their other parent, but that they are in fact often encouraged to do so.

The moral hazard of our actions is clearly evident, and it starts at high school - Time wrote that Gloucester High "has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers", providing them with on-site childcare and healthcare facilities.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/seventeen-schoolgirls-pregnant-after-making-pact/2008/06/20/1213770867478.html

Retro-Pastiche and Yvonne both showed their concern regarding children's welfare which, however badly it does so, CSA was established in order to protect. I have yet to hear Antiseptic or the other most vehement deriders of women show concern for their offspring.

Antiseptics entire views on the deficiencies, power balance, shortcomings, violence, cupidity and lack of parenting skills of the entire female sex are couched in terms of his own experiences as are those of of quite a few bitter "ex"es.

I have maintained throughout that the system is not just flawed but fails to do that which it is set up to do. The fact that people like Antiseptic are unwilling, in their personal hurt and bitterness, even to admit this but must continue to try to present a case in which all women are lumped together and all men ditto illustrates an unwillingness to be objective that impedes any chance of arriving at fair outcomes for children. This is a totally unrealistic world view - I would even go so far as to say that such a reductive theory is an indicator of immaturity.

On any of these threads I challenge you guys (as I and others have done innumerable times) to find any statement by the persons you are disagreeing with (i.e. not by some nebulous "feminist group" or "system" or collective "all women")which posits that no women are ever to blame while all men are?

So seventeen troubled teenagers in some obscure American town behaved irresponsibly? How does this advance your case? Many more than 17 fathers in South Africa kill their entire families in one given year. What case does this advance?

Thousands of children in Australia are growing up in disadvantaged homes due to an inadequate and malfunctioning CSA agency. THAT is the point.

Well said Romany.

Antiseptic, whether your wife left the father of her children just for financial reasons, which if true suggests that you made a poor choice for the mother of your children, but probably is only half of the truth, is of no consequence to your children.

Seeker, I know that many feminists, myself included, have never denied that women stuff up, there is ample evidence of this. I'd be the first one to agree that just because a person has a uterus doesn't necessarily make that person a good parent.

I have personal experience of this with my 'second son'.

This really is not about who stuffs up more or less as a parent.

The constant anti-feminist rant when this comes up I think is more an issue of men being enraged that women are not all saintly madonnas willing to put up with any kind of behaviour from their men for the sake of their children.

Those days are long over fellas.

Yvonne:"whether your wife left the father of her children just for financial reasons, which if true suggests that you made a poor choice for the mother of your children, but probably is only half of the truth, is of no consequence to your children."
If she then relies on her status as a "single mother", whilst denying the right of the "single father" to have a role, of course her decision "is of consequence to [her] children". Why should the male parent(especially one who is showing willing to be part of his children's lives) be the only one expected to be disadvantaged by her decision? If I make a decision I expect to have to live with the consequences. Why should she be exempted from that obligation and be allowed to pass it on to the father?

Romany: "

Antiseptics entire views on the deficiencies, power balance, shortcomings, violence, cupidity and lack of parenting skills of the entire female sex are couched in terms of his own experiences"

You're partly correct, in that I believe my own case is an example of where things can go wrong. If she could do it, with no special skills other than those she acquired in the process, then anyone can do it, which means my case is not a "special" one, but approaching the norm. Therefore. I recount it as an illustrative example of the ways in which the system can produce bad outcomes. I make no attempt whatever to suggest that all outcomes are bad, so your stupid comment is shown to be precisely that, stupid.

Romany: "Thousands of children in Australia are growing up in disadvantaged homes due to an inadequate and malfunctioning CSA agency. THAT is the point."

And thousands of women are not working to their capacity in caring for those children, while thousands of men are hounded to work beyond theirs to pay for the women's idleness by a corrupt and incompetent CSA. Perhaps those women should consider their own work ethic instead of riding on the back of their kids to a free lunch?

The OP said:

"Just had a reassesment [sic] and they used the benift the new formula provided in order t survive and took it to pay for more demands that the ex re-assesed to place on me."

OP was simply confirming another case of what I forecast in my book that under Parkinson's Curse, the CSA would EXPAND the Part 6A COAT [with another 1,000 blood sucking lawyers] to trump the Part 5 assessment.

There is a minor setback after our Privacy hearing last week [judgment pending] which will essentially STOP the COAT practices [allegedly under s 161] to get info from ATO/bank/accountant, so the COAT will now rely upon a shi* fight between the PARENTS to get them to APPLY for a COAT [ie RICAT is now a dead parrot]

If you CONSENT to provide info to CSA you lose your right to protection under PAct

so trolling is used by the FLIndustry to stir up the shi*, and I do not think the OP intended that but the rest of you sure helped

OR look at it another way

SPOUSE MAINTENANCE has not changed one bit since 1975 under the FLAct, so why is nobody complaining that certain "deadbeat husbands" done the dirty?

get the picture?

back in 1987 it was same for CHILD MAINTENANCE under FLAct

ie it simply "worked", no Public Service Quango and about one Mee & Ferguson [1986] case per annum for the blood sucking lawyers.

Droogs, the ONLY reason for upsetting a perfectly working child maintenance regime was that there was no money/power for blood sucking lawyers [and Hairy Legged Lesbians looking for Power Jobs]

it is simply KISS

Antiseptic, I think it highly commendable that you are an actively involved father who parents his children.

MY personal experience with the father of my eldest child was that he wanted to have very little to do with his son when the marriage was intact. This disinterest miraculously changed when I left the marriage. He even promised me he would do everything in his power to ensure he would get sole custody and access would only occur at his discretion.

My ex is a medical specialist with enough financial clout to get high quality legal support.

I borrowed money from my mother and with a lawyer of my own decided to call his bluff and suggested that I would prefer to share parenting equally, but if he was going for sole custody I wouldn't fight it. I couldn't afford it.

What happened? Well, over the consequent 15 years, though only living a few streets away he has seen his son on average 6 PART weekends a year. His newly discovered need to parent, dwindled very rapidly. The many times that I would be with his little bag packed at the front of his door for access, only to find out that he hadn't bothered to cancel were numerous.

This man is onto his third family and currently on a four week trip through Europe with his new woman and his 2 step children who he playing daddies with and financially supports. His own two children from his previous relationships are not. They are financial burdens with mothers who are 'emotional basket cases'.

Children and the threat to financially disadvantage them is hard for a custodial parent. You want the best for your child, the thought arises that maybe you were selfish to leave.

That's my experience. A child used to punish the other.

Yvonne: "Children and the threat to financially disadvantage them is hard for a custodial parent. You want the best for your child, the thought arises that maybe you were selfish to leave."

Believe me, it's just as hard for a "non-custodial" parent, which was my status for some years as the mother was determined to protect her own financial interests by limiting the kids' time with me, which had the double effect of reducing me to penury through completely unsustainable CS arrangements. Double win for her, total loss for me and the kids.

I'm really sorry that your child doesn't have an on-going relationship with his father, who sounds like a fair mongrel. There are good and bad parents of both genders. My main beef is that the structures of the State are set up overwhelmingly to advantage "custodial" parents at the expense of the other, in my view on purely ideological and politically expedient, not rational, grounds. A truly rational system would make both parents equally responsible for all aspects of their children's well-being and take away the link between time in care and financial benefit. At present, a custodial parent, especially one who chooses not to work, has significant incentives to limit contact with the other parent and in my own experience at least, does so.

If an assumption of equal care were in place, with a mechanism to penalise those who act as "maternal gatekeepers" as well as those fathers who choose to forego their responsibility we might get closer to a fair system.

Antiseptic, now you are talking.

It has always been my contention that if two adults cannot come to an agreement together as to the care and future plans for their children, as parents are normally expected to do, but need to resort to an outside agency like the family court, then the children need to be separately represented. Robustly represented. Not only legally.

As it is, it is a case of he says, she says, he does, she does. Both parties have their own personal agendas. There are reasons why these people no longer like each other and probably cannot stand the sight of the other.

Where children live, the financial provision and how parenting is shared then needs to be decided by outside agents making the best outcome for the children as the focus.

It has also always been my contention that most of the financial arrangements for children need to be separated from the needs of adults. Whether a parent is then not working is not of concern to the other parent.

The family court, with our adversarial legal system, has no place in determining the future wellbeing of children. It always ends up that the person with the best legal presentation wins.

Children, whether, from separated parents or not, seem to be increasingly connected with a source of income. The baby bonus only highlights this.

If Australia can afford a baby bonus, why not use that money to provide one good meal for each school going child, at school, instead? That would be good for all kids, rich and poor.

Why not use that money to provide school uniforms instead? Or totally free access to any GP or specialist doctor? Why not pay for the resources at school for all children?

Yvonne,

'Never become financially dependent on a man.'
Good Advice! Although I don't think you would even have to tell any boys not to be financially dependent on a woman.

'You can only have children when you are financially independent in your own right.'
This is plainly not true.

'Women can only have children when they, themselves, can afford it.'
Again, plainly not true.

'Men can whenever the mood strikes and then whinge when they have to bear the consequences.'
As can women.

'It is NOT a choice for a woman to be a 'stay-at-home' mother.'
Rubbish. Many women even in this day and age choose to do just that.

'There are too few men who are capable of separating their issues and anger/hurt with the woman from their children.'
No less than women I would assert.

' women are not all saintly madonnas...'
I find that attitude very refreshing! I look forward to the CSA system reflecting this.

gday boys, for me they calculate I have 65% custody which equates to a 75% cost of raising my daughter, fair enough I thought, there was no money changing hands previously, but now
dont know how they come up with it but I now have to pay her!!
the mum has her for 5 nights a fortnight, how in gods name when I have 9 nights.
They made some pretty dumb mathamatical errors in working out my pay so I sent in a please explain, maybe they messed up the other bit too.
Who do you know works on a 15 month finantial year?? why?
cheers guys

best way to answer your question is to put details into the form at

http://www.csacalc.com

but sounds like they have it wrong [intentionally, mind you] as once you hit 65% you no pay. This is just one of their Parkinson's Curse tricks, see http://www.ablokesguide.com for more

the service is free right now and it is "a nonny mouse"

the Part 5 assessment is based on your assess from Tax Office so is last fin year

it is only if YOU do an estimate it has 15 month option