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

In the appeal brought by the Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue against 6 Doublebar Pty Ltd and 4 Bloodfinch Pty Ltd, the Commissioner challenged the Original Tribunal's decision that the sales of two properties should not be aggregated for the purpose of duty assessment under the Duties Act 1999 (ACT). The Commissioner argued that the Original Tribunal erred in several respects, including by failing to properly apply the burden of proof under section 101(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT), by not considering the Commissioner's submissions on "associated persons", by erroneously applying section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act, and by making an erroneous finding regarding the unencumbered value of the properties.

The Commissioner's first ground of appeal argued that the Original Tribunal failed to properly apply section 101(3) of the TAA (ACT), which places the burden of proof on the taxpayer to show that their objections should be sustained. The appeal court found that section 101(3) did apply to merit review proceedings in the Tribunal, and that the Original Tribunal applied it correctly. The court noted that the burden of proof placed on the taxpayer ensures that they bring forth sufficient evidence to sustain their objection based on the applicable law.

The second ground of appeal argued that the Original Tribunal failed to consider the Commissioner's submissions on "associated persons". The appeal court found that the Original Tribunal had, in fact, considered the Commissioner's arguments and correctly rejected them. The Commissioner's argument that the taxpayers were "associated persons" because Mr Morvillo had a "significant interest" in the taxpayers was rejected as it was not supported by the evidence or the law.

The third ground of appeal argued that the Original Tribunal erroneously applied section 24(1)(c) of the Duties Act by failing to find that the transactions formed one arrangement. The appeal court found that the Commissioner's argument was insufficient as it did not identify any specific error in the Original Tribunal's reasoning. The court noted that a tribunal is not required to refer to all evidence in its reasons and that the Original Tribunal had considered the relevant facts and came to a correct conclusion.

The fourth ground of appeal argued that the Original Tribunal made an erroneous finding as to the unencumbered value of the properties by accepting the taxpayers' valuer's opinion. The appeal court found that the Commissioner did not demonstrate any error in the Tribunal's findings on the valuations.

Ultimately, the appeal court dismissed the Commissioner's appeals, finding no error in the Original Tribunal's decision.