Commissioner of State Revenue v De Campo

In the case of Commissioner of State Revenue v De Campo, the Commissioner of State Revenue sought to challenge the decision of the Land Tax Review Board, which had granted an exemption from land tax to the respondent, De Campo. The respondent had three adjoining lots which she claimed were to be treated as a single private residential property under the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 (WA). The central issue before the court was whether these three adjoining lots could be considered as one integrated area that constituted the place of residence, thereby qualifying for the exemption under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and whether the application of the "establishment" and "user" tests involved questions of fact and degree to be determined objectively.

The court was required to examine the construction of section 21(1)(a) of the Act and clause 2(4) of the glossary to determine if the lots were indeed established and used as one integrated area. The respondent argued that the lots should be viewed as a single entity for the purposes of the land tax exemption, while the Commissioner contended that they should be treated as separate properties. The court noted that the determination of whether the lots met the criteria for an exemption involved a factual analysis that required an objective assessment of the establishment and use of the properties. The court held that these were questions of fact and degree that needed to be decided based on the evidence presented.

The court found that the respondent had established that the three lots were used and established as one integrated area, thereby satisfying the requirements for the exemption. The court concluded that the respondent's properties met the criteria for a single private residential property under the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Land Tax Review Board was upheld. The court's reasoning confirmed that the factual determination of the establishment and use of the lots as one integrated area was to be made objectively, and in this case, the respondent had satisfied those requirements.