Formal Decision. The Director of the [Superfund & Emergency Management Division], EPA Region __, will issue a formal decision resolving the dispute (“Formal Decision”) based on the statements of position and any replies and supplemental statements of position. The Formal Decision is binding on Respondents.
Formal Decision. The Director of the [Superfund & Emergency Management Division], EPA Region __, will issue a formal decision resolving the dispute (“Formal Decision”) based on the statements of position and any replies and supplemental statements of position. The Formal Decision is binding on Purchaser and shall be incorporated into and become an enforceable part of this Settlement. [Escrow Account. For disputes regarding a Future Response Costs billing, Purchaser shall: (a) establish, in a duly chartered bank or trust company, an interest-bearing escrow account that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”); (b) remit to that escrow account funds equal to the amount of the contested Future Response Costs; and (c) send to EPA copies of the correspondence and of the payment documentation (e.g., the check) that established and funded the escrow account, including the name of the bank, the bank account number, and a bank statement showing the initial balance in the account. EPA may, in its unreviewable discretion, waive the requirement to establish the escrow account. Purchaser shall cause the escrow agent to pay the amounts due to EPA under ¶ 54, if any, by the deadline for such payment in ¶ 54. Purchaser is responsible for any balance due under ¶ 54 after the payment by the escrow agent.] The initiation of dispute resolution procedures under this Section does not extend, postpone, or affect in any way any requirement of this Settlement, except as EPA agrees. Stipulated penalties with respect to the disputed matter will continue to accrue, but payment is stayed pending resolution of the dispute, as provided in ¶ 68.
Formal Decision. The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Director-General with a direction that the income of Xxx Xxxxxx did not include the income of Xx Xxxxxx for the purposes of calculation at the rate of her age pension. XXXXX and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY (No. V 84/104) Decided: 30 November 1984 by X.X. Xxxxx. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx had been granted unem ployment benefit in October 1976, special benefit in May 1979 and invalid pension in August 1983. Shortly before the decision to xxxxx Xxxxx an invalid pension was implemen xxx, the DSS decided that she was living with a man, B, as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally mar ried to him. Accordingly, the rate of her special benefit (and, later, her invalid pension) was reduced to take account of B’s income. Xxxxx asked the AAT to review that decision. After the hearing of the appli cation for review but before the AAT’s decision was handed down Xxxxx died. The legislation At the time of the decision under review, s. 114(1) of the Social Security Act pro vided for the rate of special benefit paid to a person to be reduced by reference to the person’s income. Section 114(3) pro vided that the income of a married per son should include the income of that
Formal Decision. The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Director-General with a direction that the income of Xxx Xxxxxx did not include the income of Xx Xxxxxx for the purposes of calculation at the rate of her age pension. XXXXX and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY (No. V 84/104) Decided: 30 November 1984 by X.X. Xxxxx. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx had been granted unem ployment benefit in October 1976, special benefit in May 1979 and invalid pension in August 1983. Shortly before the decision to xxxxx Xxxxx an invalid pension was implemen xxx, the DSS decided that she was living with a man, B, as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally mar ried to him. Accordingly, the rate of her special benefit (and, later, her invalid pension) was reduced to take account of B’s income. Xxxxx asked the AAT to review that decision. After the hearing of the appli cation for review but before the AAT’s decision was handed down Xxxxx died. The legislation At the time of the decision under review, s. 114(1) of the Social Security Act pro vided for the rate of special benefit paid to a person to be reduced by reference to the person’s income. Section 114(3) pro vided that the income of a married per son should include the income of that SO C IA L SECURITY REPORTER A A T D EC IS IO N S 273 person’s spouse which, according to s. 106(1), included persons living together on a bom fide domestic basis as man and wife although not legally married. Corresponding provisions dealing with the rate of invalid pension were found at the relevant time in ss.28(2), 29(2) and 18 of the Social Security Act. The evidence Evidence was given to the AAT that Xxxxx and B had shared accommodation in 8 flats between 1976 and June 1984, when they had begun to live separately. At different times during that period, Xxxxx had made contradictory statements about hef relationship with B: on some occasions she had admitted that she was living in a de facto relationship with B, on other occasions she claimed that they were living totally separate lives and at other times she had claimed that they were no longer sharing accommodation. (The AAT observed that these contradic tions might have been due to Xxxxx’ medical condition: there was evidence that she suffered from a mental disorder for which she was taking heavy medica tion.) It appeared from the evidence that Xxxxx and B had shared a limited social life, that initially (at least) there had been a sexual relationship...
