Anderson v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2008] WASAT 11
•25 JANUARY 2008
ANDERSON and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2008] WASAT 11
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 11 | |
| TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:1135/2007 | 17 JANUARY 2008 | |
| Coram: | JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) | 24/01/08 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Decision of Commissioner of State Revenue affirmed Review application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID JEFFREY ANDERSON COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE |
Catchwords: | Stamp duty Penalty Late payment of duty on general conditional contract Misunderstanding as to time for lodgement and time for payment Commissioner's Practice TAA 4.1 |
Legislation: | Stamp Act 1921 (WA), s 6(1), s 8(1), s 8(2), s 10, s 12, s 17(1), s 17A(2), s 17AA(2), s 17BA(1), s 17BA(2), s 17BA(5), s 74(1), s 74(4) Taxation Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 27(1), s 29(1), s 30(1) Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) |
Case References: | Miller and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 336 |
Orders | 1. The decision of the Commissioner refusing the applicant's objection to the imposition of the 5% penalty tax for late payment of duty is affirmed.,2. The applicant's application for review of the Commissioner's decision on the objection is dismissed. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) CITATION : ANDERSON and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2008] WASAT 11 MEMBER : JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) HEARD : 17 JANUARY 2008 DELIVERED : 25 JANUARY 2008 FILE NO/S : CC 1135 of 2007 BETWEEN : DAVID JEFFREY ANDERSON
- Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Stamp duty - Penalty - Late payment of duty on general conditional contract - Misunderstanding as to time for lodgement and time for payment - Commissioner's Practice TAA 4.1
Legislation:
Stamp Act 1921 (WA), s 6(1), s 8(1), s 8(2), s 10, s 12, s 17(1), s 17A(2), s 17AA(2), s 17BA(1), s 17BA(2), s 17BA(5), s 74(1), s 74(4)
Taxation Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 27(1), s 29(1), s 30(1)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)
(Page 2)
Result:
Decision of Commissioner of State Revenue affirmed
Review application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr P James (Representative)
Respondent : Ms J Jones
Solicitors:
Applicant : Mr P James (Representative)
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Miller and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 336
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The applicant bought a property which was the subject of a proposed subdivision in respect of which a certificate of title had not yet issued. The applicant's settlement agent, after meeting one of the Commissioner's officers in relation to another client's property, misconceived the time periods for lodging general conditional contracts and paying the duty assessed on them. The applicant's settlement agent did not arrange for payment of duty within the time allowed. The Commissioner then imposed penalty tax of 5% of the primary duty.
2 The Tribunal closely considered the provisions of the Stamp Act 1921 (WA) and determined that the Commissioner's decision to impose penalty tax of 5% was correct in law.
Issues
3 The primary issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the Commissioner was right to remit penalty tax imposed for the late payment of duty on a general conditional contract to 5% of the amount of primary duty and not to have wholly remitted such penalty tax.
Facts
4 The Stamp Act 1921 (WA) (Stamp Act) provides for the payment of duty on, amongst other instruments, general conditional contracts, subdivision conditional contracts and off-the-plan conditional contracts.
5 A "general conditional contract" is an "eligible conditional contract", completion of which is conditional on the happening of one or more specified events under the Stamp Act as specified in the contract, including:
(a) the obtaining to the satisfaction of a purchaser under the contract of funds or approval to obtain funds to finance the purchase; and
(b) the obtaining by the vendor of the registration of a plan of subdivision: s 8(1)(b) and s 8(1)(j), Stamp Act.
6 Except for the classes of contracts set out in s 6(2) of the Stamp Act, which are not presently relevant, an "eligible conditional contract" is a contract for the sale of property where:
(Page 4)
- (a) completion of the contract is conditional on the happening of an event; and
(b) the parties (and any person related to a party) to the contract do not have control over the happening of the event, except to the extent that the parties are required under the contract to use their best endeavours to secure the happening of the event: s 6(1), Stamp Act.
7 A "subdivision conditional contract" is a "general conditional contract" for the sale of land, completion of which is conditional on the obtaining by the purchaser of approval of relevant authorities to subdivide the land or part of the land: s 12, Stamp Act.
8 An "offtheplan conditional contract" is a "general conditional contract" which includes provision for:
(a) the sale of a strata lot; and
(b) the construction on the strata lot, after the contract is executed, of a building for commercial, residential or mixed use purposes: s 10, Stamp Act.
9 Except for, relevantly, the purposes of the definitions in s 10 and s 12 of the Stamp Act, a reference in the Stamp Act to a "general conditional contract" is to be read as excluding a reference to an "offtheplan conditional contract" or a "subdivision conditional contract": s 8(2), Stamp Act.
10 The person who is or may be liable to pay duty on a general conditional contract must lodge the contract with the Commissioner:
(a) if the contract becomes unconditional within one month after the date on which it was first executed within two months after that execution date; and
(b) in any other case within one month after the date on which the contract becomes unconditional or within 12 months after the date on which the contract was first executed, whichever is the earlier: s 17BA(1) and s 17BA(2), Stamp Act.
11 The duty on an "offtheplan conditional contract" or a "subdivision conditional contract" is payable within two years after the date on which
(Page 5)
- the contract was first executed or one month after the date of the assessment notice, whichever is the later: s 17AA(2), Stamp Act.
12 The person who is or may be liable to pay duty on a contract which is an "offtheplan conditional contract" or a "subdivision conditional contract" must lodge the contract with the Commissioner within two months after the day on which the contract was first executed: s 17BA(5)(c) and s 17BA(5)(d), Stamp Act.
13 It may be seen then that the lodgement requirement in respect of an offtheplan conditional contract or a subdivision conditional contract within two months after the day on which the contract was first executed may be more onerous than the obligation to lodge a general conditional contract either within one month after the date on which the contract becomes unconditional or within 12 months after the date on which it was first executed, whichever is earlier, or if the contract becomes unconditional within one month after the date on which it was first executed, then within two months of that date.
14 However, the obligation created by the Stamp Act to pay duty is more generous in the case of an "offtheplan conditional contract" or a "subdivision conditional contract" within two years after the date on which the contract was first executed or one month after the date of the assessment notice, whichever is the later compared with the obligation to pay duty on a general conditional contract that is, within one month after the date of the assessment notice.
15 The obligation to pay duty on a general conditional contract within one month after the date of the assessment notice in respect of a general conditional contract ultimately arises under s 17A(2) of the Stamp Act.
16 On the sale of land or conveyance or transfer of any other property the purchaser is liable to pay duty on the transfer under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA): s 17(1)(a) and Item 4, Second Schedule, Stamp Act.
17 The contract or agreement for the sale of any estate or interest in any property is charged with the same ad valorem duty to be paid by the purchaser as if it was an actual conveyance on sale of the estate, interest or property contracted or agreed to be sold. Where such duty has been paid the conveyance of transfer concerned shall not be chargeable with duty: s 74(1) and s 74(4), Stamp Act.
18 A general conditional contract is deemed to be an actual conveyance for the purposes of s 74 of the Stamp Act and so can be taken to be an
(Page 6)
- "instrument" specified under Item 4(1) of the Second Schedule and duty is payable within one month of the date of the assessment notice.
19 The provisions concerning the different types of conditional contracts were inserted into the Stamp Act and became effective in early 2004. They were calculated to require close consideration in the development and related industries, including amongst conveyancers and property settlement agents. Amongst other things, the expression "offtheplan" was most commonly understood in the general community prior to 2004 to be a reference to the purchase of a house and land package where the house to be acquired was to be constructed "offtheplan" which the purchaser had agreed to. However, as noted above, the statutory definition in the Stamp Act of an "offtheplan conditional contract" gave the expression a particular meaning in relation to a strata lot on which construction of a building was proposed.
20 The Commissioner obviously recognised the need to educate persons likely to be affected in practice by these new provisions and first published a Fact Sheet dealing with Conditional Contracts under Pt II of the Stamp Act as at 1 July 2004. The fact sheet took the trouble to explain the nature of general conditional contracts, farming land conditional contracts, offtheplan conditional contracts, mining tenement conditional contracts and subdivision conditional contracts. It explained when these various conditional contracts were required to be lodged and explained the type of payment on certain conditional contracts. The fact sheet further noted that a penalty tax applied for the late lodgement of documents and late payment of stamp duty. It also gave contact details for persons to contact the Office of State Revenue.
21 In February 2006, the Commissioner also issued Circular 82 concerning lodgement and payment requirements for certain conditional contracts, noting in the first paragraph:
"It has become apparent that some lodging parties are unsure of when a conditional contract is a general conditional contract, an off-the-plan conditional contract or a subdivision conditional contract.
The purpose of this Circular is to clarify the differences between the abovementioned classes of eligible conditional contracts and to encourage agents to re-examine contracts that they have in their possession and are holding pending lodgement."
(Page 7)
- The circular advised that the Office of State Revenue would be providing customer education sessions and explained the process of booking a place.
22 In this context, in about March 2006, a senior investigations officer of the Office of State Revenue, Mr Tony Ferrone, carried out an investigation into compliance with the provisions relating to "offtheplan conditional contracts" under the Stamp Act in respect of the sale of a proposed strata title property in Rivervale. To this end he met with Mr Peter James of Peter James Settlements, who was also acting for the applicant in respect of the purchase of a property.
23 As Mr James explained in evidence to the Tribunal, he up to that point had been labouring under the impression that he had a longer period 12 months in which to lodge conditional contracts for the assessment of stamp duty. This was the practice he had been following for many years as a settlement agent. Mr Ferrone disabused Mr James of his misunderstanding and in particular explained that "offtheplan conditional contracts" needed to be lodged within two months of execution under s 17BA of the Stamp Act.
24 Mr Ferrone then impounded the documentation relating to the contract concerning the Rivervale apartment, which was considered to be an "offtheplan contract" not lodged in time. He was then advised by Mr James of another contract, in relation to the sale of a Raffles Waterfront apartment, which Mr James thought was probably also an "offtheplan conditional contract". Mr Ferrone then impounded that contract as well.
25 Mr James says that, in his conversation with Mr Ferrone, Mr Ferrone told him that the same lodgement rule applied in respect of the sale of "vacant land" conditional contracts, and that they also needed to be lodged within two months of the date of execution.
26 Mr Ferrone, who gave evidence at the hearing at the Tribunal, does not believe that he gave any such advice concerning vacant land conditional sale contracts. He has no recollection of doing so. He referred to notes that he made at the time of his meetings with Mr James between March and May 2006 which make no mention of him giving any such advice or discussion.
27 In any event, Mr James subsequently considered the various contracts he was then dealing with in his business to ensure that he was compliant with the requirements of the Stamp Act. Amongst other things, Mr James was not only a licensed settlement agent but also an approved
(Page 8)
- person for the purpose of completing on-line stamping under the Stamp Act, pursuant to arrangements made with the Office of State Revenue. Naturally enough Mr James wished to ensure that all of his activities were entirely professional and in accordance with the law.
28 As a result of these considerations, on 20 June 2006, soon after he had completed discussions with Mr Ferrone, Mr James lodged a contract for assessment of stamp duty with the Commissioner of State Revenue in respect of the purchase by the applicant of Lot 869 Kembla Circle, Madeley. The letter was in these terms:
"Please find enclosed Offer for assessment of stamp duty.
The contract represents an "off the plan" sub-division and we have recently been informed that offers for off the plan sales are required to be lodged for assessment of duty within 2 months even though payment of duty is not yet required until issue of Titles or within 2 years of assessment.
We have now been through all contracts held in this office and have put into place a system to prevent the delay in presentation of this type of offer and trust you will allow additional time for presentation of this offer without penalty."
29 The contract referred to in the letter and enclosed with it for assessment of duty was entitled "Contract for Sale of Land by Offer and Acceptance". It was in respect of land situated at and known as Lot 869 Kembla Circle, Madeley, being a portion of land the subject of proposed subdivision in respect of which a certificate of title had not yet issued. It was not a contract in respect of the sale of the proposed strata lot or a contract that involved the construction of a building on it. Nor was it a contract conditional on the purchaser obtaining relevant approvals for subdivision.
30 In short, the contract in question was not an "offtheplan conditional contract" or a "subdivision conditional contact" as defined by the Stamp Act. Accordingly, the reference in the covering letter to an "offtheplan" subdivision was, to say the least, a little misleading.
31 However, the contract in question plainly was a "general conditional contract" as defined, as amongst other special conditions it included a condition that the offer was subject to the seller receiving satisfactory approvals for subdivision from all relevant authorities within 90 days of acceptance of the contract (see special condition 5).
(Page 9)
32 In those circumstances, the applicant or his agent was not required to lodge the contract in question with the Commissioner for an assessment of duty within the two month period following execution, as in the case of an "offtheplan conditional contract", unless the contract became unconditional within one month after the date on which it was first executed. Rather, in all likelihood, the applicant or his agent did not need to lodge the contract for stamping until it became unconditional (and then only within one month) or within 12 months of the date on which the contract was executed.
33 Of course, if the applicant or his agent did not need to lodge the contract in question until near the end of the 12 month period following execution, then an assessment notice would not issue in respect of it and the obligation to pay the duty within one month of the assessment notice would not have arisen for a good 12 months. In this case, the contract in question was executed by acceptance of the offer by the seller on 20 February 2006. In all likelihood, therefore, the general conditional contract in question did not need to be lodged for assessment until February 2007.
34 However, because the contract in question albeit that it was a general conditional contract was lodged under cover of the letter from Mr James of 20 June 2006, a notice of assessment was issued by the Office of State Revenue. On 27 June 2006 the notice of assessment was sent to Peter James Settlements in the amount of $7,720. The due date for the payment of the assessed duty was clearly stated as 27 July 2006, one month later.
35 Mr James did not cause the payment of the assessment notice on or before 27 July 2006. Instead, by letter dated 8 August 2006, he wrote to the Office of State Revenue noting that:
"During a visit to your office in relation to an assessment of duty … we were informed that it is necessary to present Contracts relating to vacant land sub-divisions within two months of acceptance. These would be assessed for duty and a period of 12 [months] granted to effect payment.
It now seems that the Commissioner requires assessment of vacant land sub-division to be paid within 1 month of issue, not 12 months as advised by yourself.
…
(Page 10)
- Previous to your advice it was our usual office practice to present conditional contracts for vacant Sub-Divisional Land within 12 months for assessment. Due to the misunderstanding of your instructions, we now request additional time for payment of up to 11 months from the date of assessment in relation to the enclosed Notices."
36 The letter from Mr James dated 8 August 2006 appears to have been prompted by his receipt of a notice of penalty tax issued on 4 August 2006 in respect of the applicant's purchase. The Commissioner imposed a penalty tax under s 27(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 2003 (WA) (TA Act) in the amount of $386 (being 5% of the primary duty) and issued a late payment penalty tax assessment notice on 4 August 2006.
37 The Commissioner sent a reminder letter dated 4 September 2006 to the applicant requesting the payment of the outstanding amounts for assessed duty and penalty tax (a total of $8,106) by 22 September 2007.
38 By letter dated 5 September 2006, Mr James again wrote to the Commissioner enclosing six notices for penalty tax (including the applicant's) and requesting remission of the fines levied and an extension of time for payment of stamp duty.
39 However, in the letter of 5 September 2006, Mr James set out the circumstances in which he says that he was advised by Mr Ferrone that it was necessary to lodge a conditional contract for vacant land within two months of execution.
40 Mr James' contention was that if he had not been incorrectly advised in this regard by Mr Ferrone, he would not have lodged the general conditional contract until much later, would not have received the initial assessment of duty as early as he did and would not have been obliged to pay, on behalf of the applicant, the required duty. Of course, on this view he would not have incurred any penalty tax.
41 Thus the issue arises in these proceedings whether in deciding to remit penalty tax to 5% of the amount payable, the Commissioner erred. Mr James on behalf of the applicant says that in all the circumstances, taking a more compassionate approach to the confusion which has arisen in his mind and in the industry, he should not be penalised by the penalty tax assessments that arose from the lodgement of the general conditional contracts at a time earlier than actually required under the Stamp Act.
(Page 11)
Findings
42 The Commissioner says the case for the imposition of a penalty for late payment of duty is incontestable.
43 The Commissioner points to the fact that the relevant instrument the contract was lodged on 20 June 2006 for assessment of duty. It was duly assessed and a notice was issued on 27 June 2006 requiring payment within a month. The payment was not made, and, in accordance with the usual policy of the Commissioner, the penalty of 5% of the amount of duty payable was imposed. The Commissioner says there are no reasons to support the reduction of the penalty tax payable to nil.
44 Ordinarily the person in the position of the applicant is liable to pay an amount of penalty tax equal to 20% of the amount outstanding on the due date. However, the Commissioner has the power to remit penalty tax wholly or in part: s 29(1), TA Act.
45 In accordance with s 30(1) of the TA Act, the Commissioner published the 'Commissioner's Practice TAA 4.1 Remission of Penalty Tax for Late Payment Commissioner's Assessments' which provide the Commissioner's practice for remitting penalty tax on the late payment of instruments.
46 TAA 4.1 relevantly provides that:
(a) prior to a penalty tax assessment being made a penalty tax of 20% of the outstanding amount imposed by s 27 of the TA Act will be remitted to 5%; however,
(b) a penalty tax assessment notice will be issued if the stamp duty assessed is not paid within seven days after the due date.
47 Paragraph 3 of TAA 4.1 provides:
"Further remission of the 5% late payment penalty to nil will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, which may include, but are not limited to:
3.1 payment of tax is received on the same day as the penalty tax assessment notice was issued, and a check of the taxpayer's history shows a good payment record;
…
(Page 12)
- 3.7 payment was inadvertently directed to the wrong Authority (eg. Australian Taxation Office, Department of Land Information or another State or Territory revenue office) and such payment was made within the required time."
48 The Commissioner says none of the exceptional circumstances are relevant here.
49 The Tribunal has previously acknowledged the appropriateness of having a policy concerning the remission of penalty, albeit in a different context: see Miller and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 336 at [16], referring to Commissioner's Practice TAA 1.2.
50 In this case, the applicant, through Mr James, says that the advice that Mr James says he received from Mr Ferrone concerning the need to lodge a conditional vacant land contract within two months of execution, which he relied on, has led to the imposition of the penalty tax. Because of that, Mr James contends on behalf of the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances here that should lead to the penalty tax being reduced to nil.
51 In the view of the Tribunal, the position of the applicant, and more particularly Mr James as the responsible settlement agent, whilst unfortunate, does not constitute acceptable grounds for the complete waiver of penalty tax.
52 While it appears from the material before the Tribunal and from Mr James' evidence to the Tribunal, that Mr James laboured under some misunderstanding as to the conditional contract lodging and duty requirements introduced in early 2004, as of the middle of 2006, the Commissioner had earlier issued guidelines and the true position really should have been appreciated by an experienced settlement agent in Mr James' position by that time.
53 Furthermore, even though it may have been the case that Mr James did not need to lodge the applicant's contract for duty as early as he did on 20 June 2006, once he received the assessment he should have seen to its payment. The contract is a general conditional contract. There was never any doubt about that and is no dispute about that. Once the assessment notice was received, Mr James should have seen to its payment. If he had done that, then no question of the penalty tax would have arisen.
(Page 13)
54 Mr James' complaint has always been that he should not have had to pay the duty as early as he did. If he had appreciated the true nature of the contract and understood the Stamp Act requirements, he would not have lodged the contract until much later, at a time when he was in receipt of the funds from his client, the applicant, to meet that required expense.
55 Mr James' actions, once the notice of assessment was received, were all designed to have the time for payment of the duty extended. Unfortunately, the instrument, being the contract, had been lodged and, once in the hands of the Commissioner, was properly assessed for duty.
56 Whilst Mr James gave evidence of some informal practices over the years in the Stamps Office of an assessment officer allowing a settlement agent to keep possession of an instrument that the settlement agent had intended to lodge for duty, because the time for lodgement could in fact be held back until a later date, that is merely an informal practice. In this case the contract was lodged for assessment by Mr James under cover of his letter of 20 June 2006. It was appropriate for the assessment officer in the Office of State Revenue to assess duty and to issue the assessment notice.
57 Mr James points to his covering letter and also to the Stamp Duty document lodgement and assessment form lodged with it which indicates that he thought that the contract was an offtheplan conditional contract. From this Mr James contends that the assessment officer should have read the covering letter and that form and realised that Mr James only intended to lodge the contract for assessment of duty if the assessment officer considered it to be an offtheplan conditional contract.
58 For my part, I think that is asking much too much of an assessment officer whose job it is to receive many hundreds of instruments for stamp duty assessment each day, as part of their ordinary duties. It is unreasonable to expect the assessment officer or some other officer within the Office of State Revenue will undertake the task of determining whether a person who has lodged an instrument for assessment of stamp duty could have, if they so wished, lodged the instrument at a later date and so delayed the payment of duty.
59 The Stamp Act does not require an instrument to be lodged only at the end of a specified period. It is open to a person to lodge an instrument for assessment of stamp duty any time in the period. The Stamp Act however requires that the relevant instrument be lodged by a certain time.
(Page 14)
60 The Commissioner points out that there was a daily average of 650 documents lodged in the year between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007. This certainly supports the Commissioner's contention that it would be administratively onerous for the Commissioner's officers to check that all covering letters to documents reflect a correct understanding of the law and impracticable when assessing instruments in a timely and efficient manner.
61 For my part, the assessment officer, when dealing with the assessment of the contract, does not usually labour under some duty to make further enquiry as to whether a contract is or is not an offtheplan conditional contract, or to consult the person who lodged the instrument for assessment of stamp duty to check on their intentions in requesting assessment of duty.
62 While it is quite clear that Mr James personally laboured under some misapprehensions as to the requirements of the Stamp Act in respect of a contract of the sort in question, that misapprehension does not lead to a finding that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, such that the penalty tax imposed should be reduced to nil.
63 The Tribunal notes that Mr James says that he was actually advised by Mr Ferrone that a vacant land conditional sale contract should also be lodged within a two month period of execution. I am not satisfied on all of the evidence that Mr Ferrone did so advise. By the time Mr Ferrone met with Mr James in the period March to May 2006, the Commissioner's officers had been involved in clarifying with various persons likely to be affected by the relevant Stamp Act provisions just what their obligations were. Mr Ferrone does not believe that he provided any ambiguous or confusing advice. He made no note to the effect that he advised Mr James about vacant land conditional sales.
64 While Mr James believes that he was given such advice, he acknowledges also that it is a possibility he interpreted the advice that he did receive from Mr Ferrone about relevant conditional contracts as applicable to conditional contracts concerning sales of vacant land.
65 In any event, as noted earlier, once the assessment of duty was issued, the applicant's obligation was to pay it. If it had been paid then no penalty tax would have been imposed.
66 The Tribunal is pleased to note, however, that following these events Mr James availed himself of the opportunity to participate in information
(Page 15)
- sessions provided by the Commissioner and clarified for himself exactly what would be required of him in the future.
67 In all of these circumstances the Tribunal considers that whilst, from Mr James' point of view, the imposition of even a 5% penalty tax seems harsh, the law concerning the lodgement of instruments for assessment of duty and the payment of duty is clear: duty was payable on the contract when actually lodged; the duty assessed should have been paid within one month of the notice of assessment; and exceptional grounds do not exist for the remission of the 5% penalty tax imposed by the Commissioner.
68 In these circumstances the Commissioner's decision refusing the objection to his penalty tax decision should be affirmed and the application for review dismissed.
Conclusion and Order
69 For the reasons given above, the following orders should be made:
1. The decision of the Commissioner refusing the applicant's objection to the imposition of the 5% penalty tax for late payment of duty is affirmed.
2. The applicant's application for review of the Commissioner's decision on the objection is dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding [69] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M L BARKER, PRESIDENT
4