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,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dillon v Commissioner of Taxation

Details

AGLC: Dillon v Commissioner of Taxation [1989] QLC 17
Case: [1989] QLC 17
Decision Date: 8 December 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dillon v Commissioner of Taxation involved multiple appeals by Brian Tone Dillon against the Valuer-General's determinations of unimproved land values in the City of Rockhampton and the Shire of Livingstone, as well as against land tax assessments for land owned on 30th June 1986 and 1988. The primary disputes were centred on the perceived incorrectness and unreasonableness of the valuations made by the Valuer-General, which were deemed excessive by Dillon. Additionally, Dillon contested the land tax assessments, arguing they were also excessive and contrary to law. The appeals were heard in the Land Court in Brisbane.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Valuer-General's determinations were lawful and reasonable, and whether the land tax assessments complied with the relevant legislative provisions. Dillon contended that the valuations were unfair and not based on the correct market value of the properties, while the Commissioner of Taxation defended the Valuer-General's assessments and the land tax assessments made under the Land Tax Act. The court had to consider the burden of proof on Dillon to establish that the valuations were incorrect and that the land tax assessments were excessive.

The court found that the onus of proof rested with Dillon to demonstrate that the Valuer-General's valuations were incorrect. The court noted that it had no investigatory powers and could not substitute its own valuation for that of the Valuer-General unless the appellant provided sufficient evidence to support their claims. The court also highlighted that under the Land Tax Act, there was no right to appeal on the grounds that an assessment was excessive. The court concluded that Dillon had not provided any substantial evidence to challenge the Valuer-General's valuations or the land tax assessments, and therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the determinations were affirmed.

The final orders of the court were that all appeals against the Valuer-General's determinations were dismissed, and the determinations were affirmed. The appeals against Land Tax Assessment No LT 068676 were also dismissed.

Orders