GLDT Pty Ltd as trustee of the George Lemezina Discretionary Trust v Commissioner for Act Revenue; Zina Pty Ltd as trustee of the Michael Lemezina Discretionary Trust v Commissioner for Act Revenue (Administrative..

The case involves GLDT Pty Ltd as trustee of the George Lemezina Discretionary Trust and Zina Pty Ltd as trustee of the Michael Lemezina Discretionary Trust, both applicants, contesting the Commissioner for ACT Revenue's decision to impose landholder duty under the Duties Act 1999. The applicants, who owned all the units in the Lemezina Investment Unit Trust in equal shares, challenged the imposition of duty, penalty tax, and interest amounting to $3,496,172.21, on the grounds that certain transactions entered into on 4 March 2009 were dutiable under the landholder provisions of the Act. The Commissioner disallowed the taxpayers' objections on 22 August 2022, prompting the applicants to file applications for review on 19 September 2022.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the deed of variation executed on 4 March 2009, which altered the rights of the unitholders to give each applicant a 100% beneficial interest in specific properties, constituted a "relevant acquisition" under the landholder provisions of the Duties Act 1999. Specifically, the court had to determine if this variation resulted in each unitholder acquiring a "significant interest" in the landholder that they did not already have, given that each unitholder already had a "significant interest" in the trust before the variation. The applicants argued that their entitlement to a percentage of the property distributed remained materially unchanged by the deed of variation, and thus, no new significant interest was acquired.

The court found in favour of the applicants, setting aside the Commissioner's objection decision and substituting it with a decision to allow the objection against landholder duty and penalties. The court reasoned that the deed of variation did not result in the acquisition of a new "significant interest" in the landholder as the applicants' entitlement to a percentage of the property distributed remained materially unchanged. Therefore, the variation did not constitute a "relevant acquisition" under the Act. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the ACAT filing fee to the applicants, and the Tribunal agreed to provide written reasons at a later date.

In summary, the court allowed the applicants' objections against the imposition of landholder duty and penalties, finding that the deed of variation did not result in the acquisition of a new "significant interest" in the landholder. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the ACAT filing fee to the applicants, and the Tribunal committed to providing written reasons for its decision at a later date.