Filmwing Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Act Revenue

Filmwing Pty Ltd brought an appeal against the Commissioner for ACT Revenue regarding the assessment of a lease variation charge. The property in question was Block 5 Section 12 Phillip, which was sold along with neighbouring land to a developer. The neighbouring land was owned by a company related to the owner of the subject block. The developer conducted a feasibility study for the potential uses of the land, which was done without considering the development of the neighbouring property. The issue arose as to whether the sale price of the neighbouring land was relevant in determining the valuation of the after value (V1) of the subject block. The appeal was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The AAT needed to determine whether the sale price of the neighbouring land was relevant in valuing the after value (V1) of the subject block. The AAT also had to consider whether the feasibility study conducted by the developer, which did not take into account the development of the neighbouring property, was sufficient for the purpose of the lease variation charge assessment. The AAT needed to decide whether the Commissioner for ACT Revenue had correctly exercised his discretion in assessing the lease variation charge.

The AAT found that the sale price of the neighbouring land was relevant in valuing the after value (V1) of the subject block. The AAT also found that the feasibility study conducted by the developer, which did not take into account the development of the neighbouring property, was insufficient for the purpose of the lease variation charge assessment. The AAT held that the Commissioner for ACT Revenue had not correctly exercised his discretion in assessing the lease variation charge. The AAT set aside the reconsideration decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons and recommendations. The AAT also ordered the Commissioner for ACT Revenue to pay the costs of the filing fee and hearing fees.

The AAT's decision was that the reconsideration decision of 1 April 2022 was set aside and the matter that was the subject of the decision, namely the determination of the Lease Variation Charge under section 277 of the Planning and Development Act 2007, in respect of the land being Block 5 Section 12 Phillip, was remitted for reconsideration by the respondent in accordance with these reasons and recommendations. The AAT also ordered the Commissioner for ACT Revenue to pay the costs of the filing fee and hearing fees, which totalled $1746.