Dillon v Commissioner of Taxation

[1989] QLC 17

[1989] QLC 17

 

  LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

8th December, 1989

Re:      Appeals (10) against determinations
  of the Valuer-General in the City
  of Rockhampton and the Shire of
  Livingstone

and

Re:Appeals (2) against Land Tax Assessment

No L.T. 068676 for land owned on 30th June, 1986 and 30th June, 1988.

Brian Tone Dillon - Appellant

D E C I S I O N

(Hearing in Rockhampton)

There are ten (10) appeals before the Court against determinations of the Valuer-General of the unimproved value of certain lands in the City of Rockhampton and the Shire of Livingstone.  Details of these appeals are as follows:-

Appeal No.         Shire                  Roll No               Valuer-General               Appellant's
  value  value

V89-151  Rockhampton        699                 $ 28,000  $2,000
V89-152  Rockhampton       5140                $  8,000  $  100
V89-153  Rockhampton      17184               $ 30,000  $  800
V89-154  Rockhampton       8817                $ 11,500  $  100
AV86-216  Livingstone         2335                $ 59,000   Nil
AV86-217  Livingstone         5726                $ 16,000   Nil
AV86-218  Livingstone         4369                $ 42,500   Nil
AV86-244  Livingstone         5326                $171,000   Nil
V86-73              Livingstone         5326                $171,000   Nil
V86-74              Livingstone         5326                $ 52,000   Nil

The appeals against the determinations of the Valuer-General in the City of Rockhampton are made out on grounds that the valuations are contrary to law and a denial of natural justice in that the valuations are for rating purposes only and not for determination of the appellant's invalid and old age pension.  The appeals against the determinations made in respect of land in the Livingstone Shire are based on grounds which, when boiled down, are that the valuations are contrary to law or are excessive and unreasonable.
           The appeals against Land Tax Assessment No L.T. 068676 on land owned on 30th June, 1986 and 30th June, 1988, are based on grounds that the assessments are excessive, unreasonable and contrary to law and on matters which would follow as a consequence if such a finding were made.  In both instances, the appeals were made against a decision of the Commissioner disallowing an objection by the taxpayer.  All appeals were dealt with together. 
Mr Dillon has been before this Court previously and before the Land Appeal Court. In May, 1987, under Appeal Reference V80-116 and Others, the Land Appeal Court set out at length the duties of the Valuer-General to value land under the Valuation of Land Act and the powers and responsibilities which are vested in the Court in the hearing and determination of appeals against decisions of the Valuer-General on objection. I see no point in restating what the Land Appeal Court has said other than to refer to the Court's concluding remarks that -

"The Legislature has not given this Court any investigatory powers under the Valuation of Land Act. If the appellant's case is not strong enough in its own right to establish the values contended for or to disprove the Valuer-General's values, the Court is not empowered of its own volition to probe the fairness or correctness of the Valuer-General's values and by this means arrive at its own estimate of value. "

On 16th March, 1988, the Court, constituted by learned Member Barry, as he then was, handed down a Judgment dealing with an appeal by Mr Dillon against the Land Tax Assessment made on land owned by him at midnight on 30th June, 1985 (A86-101).  The learned Member pointed out, among other things, that the onus of proof rested upon the appellant and he cited a passage from the Judgment of the former learned President of the Court in Benson v. The Commissioner of Land Tax  -20 February, 1987 - A86-88/9.  The passage reads -

"The Land Tax Act places no statutory onus of proof on the appellant but in accordance with normal procedures the onus of proof must rest with him. "  

Under Regulations 29 and 30 of the Land Tax Regulations, an appellant on the hearing of an appeal is restricted to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal or where an appeal follows a decision upon objection to the grounds of objection.  The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute.  See Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary - 7 Edit. 1983.  This is the case here.  The issues or questions in dispute are found nowhere but in the grounds of appeal.  It follows that the burden of proof is upon the appellant.  I agree with the finding stated above. 
           A considerable amount of material was put before the Court by Mr Dillon covering many matters from his lot in the community which is not a happy one to matters more relevant to the passing of new laws by the Legislature or the repeal of existing law than to the application of the relevant law as it stands for the purposes of these proceedings.  The function of this Court has been explained on previous occasions.  The Court has no jurisdiction over Commonwealth legislation and in applying the law within its jurisdiction it is bound by the provisions of the relevant statutes which give it such jurisdiction. 
There was little evidence in all the material that was put before the Court by Mr Dillon which could be related to the matters in dispute. Under the Valuation of Land Act, the test of value is to ascertain what the lands under appeal would fetch in the marketplace in an unimproved condition if sold on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require. I have no doubt that if Mr Dillon addressed this question with the eagerness with which he addresses others, the answers would not be the figures he advanced in the notices of appeal. He mentioned flooding. Among the correspondence he tendered, there is correspondence with the Livingstone Shire and the Rockhampton City Council but there is nothing in all this or in other evidence which either directly or indirectly could be taken as a reflection on the correctness or otherwise of the values determined by the Valuer-General.
           Under the Land Tax Act, as learned Member Barry pointed out, there is no right of appeal against an assessment on grounds that it is excessive.  The assessments under appeal were made in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  The question whether the Act imposes a reasonable or unreasonable burden on the owners of freehold land within the State is not a matter of concern to this Court.  Its task simply put is to administer the provisions of the Act.  The rules established by the Legislature must be taken as the formal commands of the State.  It is the duty of the Court to apply them.         All my searches through the evidence and all my consideration of the submissions made by Mr Dillon have turned up nothing of substance.  I could by no means reach a conclusion that the determinations, the subject of these appeals, were not made according to law or that the appeals should be allowed in whole or in part for other reasons. 
           Accordingly, all appeals against the determinations of the Valuer-General are dismissed and the determinations affirmed. 
           The appeals against Land Tax Assessment No LT 068676 are dismissed.

Member of the Land Court