Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v 6 Doublebar Pty Ltd as trustee for the 6 Doublebar Trust; Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v 4 Bloodfinch Pty Ltd as trustee for the 4...

The Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue appealed from a decision of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal from a reviewable decision. The reviewable decision was a decision by the Commissioner that the sale of two adjoining lots of land in Fyshwick, in the Australian Capital Territory, should be aggregated for duty purposes. The Commissioner’s appeal was dismissed. The Commissioner identified four grounds of appeal. The Commissioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in failing to properly apply section 101(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT) (the TAA (ACT)); failing to consider the Commissioner’s submissions on “associated persons”; erroneously applying section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act 1999 (ACT) (the Duties Act); and making an erroneous finding as to the unencumbered value of the Lyell St properties by erroneously accepting the evidence of the taxpayers’ valuer and erroneously rejecting the evidence of the Commissioner’s valuer. The Commissioner’s grounds of appeal were rejected. The Commissioner’s first ground of appeal was that the Tribunal erred in failing to properly apply section 101(3) of the TAA (ACT). The Commissioner submitted that section 101(3) created a default position that the assessment issued by the Commissioner stood and the taxpayer carried the burden of displacing the presumption. The Commissioner submitted that the burden of proof represented a “gateway” which must be cleared before the Tribunal could re-make the decision under review. The Commissioner submitted that the Tribunal failed to address the gateway first before proceeding to determine what the correct or preferable decision should have been. The appeal against the application of section 101(3) of the TAA (ACT) was rejected. The Tribunal had properly applied section 101(3) of the TAA (ACT). The Commissioner’s second ground of appeal was that the Tribunal had failed to consider the Commissioner’s submissions on “associated persons”. The Commissioner submitted that it had put forward two alternative arguments why the taxpayers were associate persons within the meaning of section 24 of the Duties Act. The Commissioner submitted that the Original Tribunal had failed to consider the second argument. The appeal against the consideration of the Commissioner’s submissions on “associated persons” was rejected. The Tribunal had properly considered the Commissioner’s submissions on “associated persons”. The Commissioner’s third ground of appeal was that the Tribunal had erroneously applied section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act. The Commissioner submitted that the Original Tribunal had failed to find that the dutiable transactions together formed, evidenced, gave effect to or arose from what was, substantially, one arrangement relating to all of the interests in the dutiable property. The Commissioner submitted that the Original Tribunal had failed to refer to all of the evidence in its reasons. The appeal against the application of section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act was rejected. The Tribunal had properly applied section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act. The Commissioner’s fourth ground of appeal was that the Tribunal had made an erroneous finding as to the unencumbered value of the Lyell St properties by erroneously accepting the taxpayers’ valuer’s expert opinion as to the market value of the two properties at the time of the transfers. The appeal against the acceptance of the taxpayers’ valuer’s valuations was rejected. The Commissioner had not identified any error in the Tribunal’s finding as to the unencumbered value of the Lyell St properties. The appeals were dismissed.