Azam Mohammed & Sarah Azam v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

The applicants, Azam Mohammed and Sarah Azam, sought to challenge the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue's decision to impose a surcharge land tax on their property, contending that they were not foreign persons and not ordinarily resident in Australia for the relevant tax year. They were residing in Australia on bridging visas, which they argued should exempt them from the surcharge. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal involved the interpretation of the definition of "foreign person" under the relevant tax legislation and whether the applicants' status as holders of bridging visas qualified them for an exemption from the surcharge land tax. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the applicants' temporary visa status meant they were foreign persons and whether they were ordinarily resident in Australia for the tax year in question.

The Tribunal examined the statutory definitions and the applicants' visa status. It held that the applicants, despite being on bridging visas, were still considered foreign persons under the tax legislation because they were not Australian citizens or permanent residents. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the applicants were ordinarily resident in Australia for the relevant tax year, as they had been living in the country for an extended period and had established ties. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Chief Commissioner's decision, confirming that the applicants were liable for the surcharge land tax.

The Tribunal's decision was that the Chief Commissioner's imposition of the surcharge land tax on the applicants' property was justified. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal confirmed the Chief Commissioner's decision under review.