DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2005] WASAT 342
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2005] WASAT 342 | |
| TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:2256/2005 | 2 NOVEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) | 19/12/05 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Commissioner's decision affirmed and matter referred back to the Commissioner for reconsideration according to law | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE |
Catchwords: | Land tax – Notice of assessment – Exemption denied by Commissioner – Consideration of s 29(1) of the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 – Use of land at midnight 30 June in year preceding assessment – Whether land used solely or principally for purpose stated in s 29(1) – Decision of Commissioner affirmed |
Legislation: | Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 19(1)(a) Land Tax Assessment Act 1976 (WA), s 13, s 14, s 15, s 15(1), s 21, s 21(1), Schedule, Pt 1, Schedule cl 12(b), Schedule Pt 1, cl 9(a)(ii) Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 (WA), s 7, s 7(1), s 15, s 15(1), s 15(3)(b), s 29, s 29(1), s 29(3), s 29(4), s 29(4)(b), s 32(5), s 34(6). Land Tax Assessment Bill 2001 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27 Tax Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 37(1), s 37(2), s 40(1) |
Case References: | Browne v Commissioner of State Revenue (2001) 27 SR (WA 249) Eaton & Sons Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (1972) 129 CLR 270 ouncil of the City of Newcastle v Royal Newcastle Hospital (1957) 96 CLR 493; (1959) 100 CLR 1 Parramatta City Council v Brickworks Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 1 Re Australian Football League and Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] VCAT 1882 Rosenblum v Brisbane City Council (1957) 98 CLR 35 Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 KWA v Commissioner of State Revenue 28 SR (WA) 158 Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union (1924) 35 CLR 449 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Australian Football League and Commissioner of State Revenue 57 ATR 306 Winkley v Paton (1943) 60 WN (NSW) 162 |
Orders | The parties agreed that should the Tribunal uphold the Commissioner's contention the appropriate order should be that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for further consideration according to law.,Accordingly, the Tribunal orders:,1. The Commissioner's decision made to disallow the applicant's objection is affirmed.,2. The matter is to be referred back to the Commissioner for reconsideration according to law. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) CITATION : DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2005] WASAT 342 MEMBER : JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT) HEARD : 2 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CC 2256 of 2005 BETWEEN : DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD
- Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Land tax – Notice of assessment –…
Continue reading DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- DIVAL NOMINEES PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2005] WASAT 342
- Case
- [2005] WASAT 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Divall Nominees Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue involved the determination of a land tax assessment by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The dispute arose when the Commissioner of State Revenue denied an exemption for land tax on a property owned by Divall Nominees Pty Ltd. The crux of the matter was whether the land in question was used solely or principally for a purpose that entitled it to an exemption under section 29(1) of the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 as of midnight on 30 June in the year preceding the assessment. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the Commissioner's decision to deny the exemption.
The legal issues before the Tribunal revolved around the interpretation of section 29(1) of the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 and the use of the land in question on the specified date. It was necessary to determine if the land was used solely or principally for one of the purposes that would entitle it to an exemption, and whether the Commissioner's assessment correctly interpreted the statutory provisions. The Tribunal had to consider the relevant legislative framework, the facts of the case, and the evidence presented regarding the use of the land on the specified date.
The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the land was not used solely or principally for a purpose that entitled it to an exemption under section 29(1). The Tribunal carefully examined the evidence and concluded that the Commissioner's interpretation of the statutory provisions was correct and consistent with the legislative intent. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's denial of the land tax exemption. The parties agreed that, in the event the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's contention, the appropriate order would be for the matter to be referred back to the Commissioner for further consideration in accordance with the law.
The legal issues before the Tribunal revolved around the interpretation of section 29(1) of the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002 and the use of the land in question on the specified date. It was necessary to determine if the land was used solely or principally for one of the purposes that would entitle it to an exemption, and whether the Commissioner's assessment correctly interpreted the statutory provisions. The Tribunal had to consider the relevant legislative framework, the facts of the case, and the evidence presented regarding the use of the land on the specified date.
The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the land was not used solely or principally for a purpose that entitled it to an exemption under section 29(1). The Tribunal carefully examined the evidence and concluded that the Commissioner's interpretation of the statutory provisions was correct and consistent with the legislative intent. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's denial of the land tax exemption. The parties agreed that, in the event the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's contention, the appropriate order would be for the matter to be referred back to the Commissioner for further consideration in accordance with the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
The parties agreed that should the Tribunal uphold the Commissioner's contention the appropriate order should be that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for further consideration according to law.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.