Hacienda Lodge Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Land Tax

[1992] QLC 13

[1992] QLC 13

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

3rd April, 1992

Re: Appeal under Land Tax Act 1915.

Hacienda Lodge Pty Ltd
  v.
  Commissioner of Land Tax

D E C I S I O N

This is an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner of Land Tax. The appellant is a proprietary company. It has the ownership in fee simple of a parcel of land upon which there are constructed eight home units. Unit occupiers acquire their rights to possession by taking shares in the company. This method of acquisition preceded legislation specifically providing for separate title to home units - see Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (previously Building Units Titles Act 1965). In this case the owner has appealed against the assessments made by the respondent for Land Tax for the years 1989/1990. For that purpose ss. 11(1) and 11C have direct relevance; the former provides that -

"Land tax shall be payable by every owner of land upon the taxable value of all land owned by him, and not exempt from taxation under this Act.  "

S. 11C deals with deductions which may be made for home unit companies, one such case being where a unit is exclusively used by a shareholder in the company as the principal place of residence.  Of the eight units upon the subject land, two are so occupied which caused the respondent to grant a concession to the company of 25%.  The appellant has brought the appeal on grounds that the legislation is unfair.  It is submitted that shareholders other than those who are in occupation of a unit as the principal place of residence are disadvantaged in that -

(a)they are liable to Land tax (through the company) notwithstanding that the aggregate value of their land holdings may not reach the threshold upon which liability arises; and

(b)generally not being able to amalgamate this interest with other land interests.

Mr K. McL. Simpson, who is the Executive Director and Secretary of the appellant company appeared on its behalf. He conceded that the assessment which was made having regard to the provisions of the Act and more particularly to s.11C is correct were that section to apply. His submission in essence is that the shareholders/unit holders are not on an equal footing with owners of units covered by the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980. It appears that the Court cannot assist him with this submission. The Act has specific provisions covering the two areas. I cannot ignore the specific provisions of the Act dealing with home unit companies which the appellant company is and deem the shareholders/unit holders to be unit owners for the purposes of those provisions of the Act dealing with units which are governed by the provisions of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980. The subject case falls into the category in which it has been assessed and for that purpose the assessment is not in dispute. Alternatively, Mr Simpson submits that as the company is a non-profit making company, it should be exempt. He also refers to the recent inclusion of retirement villages within the exemption provisions of the Act. However, I can see no weight in these submissions. The provisions of the Act in this regard do not assist. Accordingly, I must dismiss the appeal.
           The appeal is therefore dismissed and the decision of the Commissioner is confirmed.

Acting President of the Land Court