Applicant At 2/2025 v Commissioner for Act Revenue (Administrative Review)

Case [2025] ACAT 59

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

APPLICANT AT 2/2025 v COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review) [2025] ACAT 59

AT 2/2025

Catchwords:               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – taxation – conveyance duty – Home Buyers Concession Scheme – whether applicant met the threshold for eligibility – whether applicant’s reportable fringe benefits amount should be included as income in testing eligibility – meaning of “total gross income” – whether examples used in the instrument for the Scheme extend the meaning – whether “exempt income” under Commonwealth tax law includes reportable fringe benefits amount – whether “benefits” in the example extends to tax benefits and advantages – use of statutory provisions by Commonwealth to deem reportable fringe benefits amount income

List of Legislation:     A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth), Schedules 1, 3

ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 68

Duties Act 1999, ss 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 75, 75A, 252, 252AA

Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986 (Cth), ss 3, 5, 6

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (Cth), ss 5B, 5C, 5E, 57A, 66, 135M, 135P, 135Q, 136, 148

Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), s 154-5
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 23L

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), ss 6-5, 6-10, 6-15, 6-20, 6-23, 11-5, 11-15, 50-30, 245-75, 293-10, 995-1

Medicare Levy Act 1986 (Cth), ss 8B, 8C, 8D, 8G

Private Health Insurance Act 2007 (Cth), ss 22.30, 22.35, 22.40

Taxation Administration Act 1999, ss 4, 25, 29, 30, 37, 82, 100, 101, 104, 107, 107A, 108A, 139, Schedules 1, 2

Subordinate

legislation cited:         Taxation Administration (Amounts Payable – Home Buyer Concession Scheme) Determination 2019 (No 3)

Cases cited:Arthur Murray (NSW) Pty ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1965] HCA 58

Commissioner for ACT Revenue v 6 Doublebar; Commissioner for ACT Revenue v 4 Bloodfinch [2025] ACAT 55
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Li v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2024] ACAT 24
Scott v Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 215
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hodgson [1992] FCA 338
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31
South Australia v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 7

Yates v Yates (1913) 33 NZLR 281

Texts/Papers cited:     Macquarie Dictionary Online

Pearce, DC and RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, (2023) 10th ed, Lexis Nexis Butterworth

Tribunal:Senior Member M Hyman

Date of Orders:  1 September 2025

Date of Reasons for Decision:      1 September 2025

Date of Publication:  9 September 2025

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AT 2/2025

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT AT 2/2025

Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member M Hyman

DATE:1 September 2025

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

  1. The decision of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue that the applicant was liable for conveyance duty and penalty tax on the purchase of his home is set aside.

  2. The duty and penalty tax paid by the applicant are remitted.

  3. The application for remission of interest is dismissed for…

Continue reading Applicant At 2/2025 v Commissioner for Act Revenue (Administ...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Applicant At 2/2025 v Commissioner for Act Revenue (Administrative Review) [2025] ACAT 59
Case
[2025] ACAT 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, a resident of the Australian Capital Territory, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner for ACT Revenue. The dispute arose from the Commissioner's assessment that the Applicant was liable for conveyance duty and penalty tax on the purchase of his home. The case was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Commissioner's decision to impose conveyance duty and penalty tax on the Applicant's home purchase was lawful and justified. The Applicant argued that the duty and penalty tax should not apply as the home in question was his principal place of residence. The Commissioner contended that the duty and penalty tax were correctly imposed under the relevant legislation.

In assessing the matter, the Tribunal examined the statutory provisions governing conveyance duty and penalty tax in the ACT. It determined that the legislation imposed duty and penalty tax on the transfer of residential property unless the property was the principal place of residence of the purchaser. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had established that the property in question was his principal place of residence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's decision to impose conveyance duty and penalty tax was erroneous as it failed to exempt the Applicant's home from the duty and penalty tax. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the duty and penalty tax paid by the Applicant. The application for remission of interest was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1.

The decision of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue that the applicant was liable for conveyance duty and penalty tax on the purchase of his home is set aside.

2.

The duty and penalty tax paid by the applicant are remitted.

3.

The application for remission of interest is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.