JONES & ORS and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2006] WASAT 131
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2006] WASAT 131 | |
| TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:2514/2005 | 3 NOVEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | JUDGE J ECKERT (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) | 25/05/06 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed Commissioner's decision affirmed No order as to costs | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RONALD ARTHUR JONES DOREEN BETTY JONES SHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE |
Catchwords: | Stamp duty Consolidation of lots held by different proprietors Creation of a super lot Subdivision Proportions held Stamp Act 1921 (WA) s 75AC Whether "exchange of property" Whether exemption applies Beneficial interest Scheme |
Legislation: | Stamp Act 1921 (WA), s 73AA(1), s 73AA(1)(a), s 73AA(1)(b), s 73AA(1)(c), s 73AA(1)(d), s 73AA(1)(e), s 73AA(1)(f), s 73AA(1)(f)(i), s 73AA(1)(f)(ii), s 73AA(1)(f)(iii), s 73AA(2), s 75AC, Schedule 2 4(1), 6 Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 17(1) Taxation Administration Act 2003 (WA) |
Case References: | Ashington Holdings Pty Ltd v Wipema Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1998] NSWSC 414 Comptroller of Stamps v Yellowco Five Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 529 Grimwade v FCT (1949) 78 CLR 199 Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 Sportscorp Australia Pty Ltd and Others v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] NSWSC 1029 Nil |
Orders | 1. The application is dismissed.,2. There is no order as to costs. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 2003 (WA) CITATION : JONES & ORS and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2006] WASAT 131 MEMBER : JUDGE J ECKERT (DEPUTY PRESIDENT) HEARD : 3 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2006 FILE NO/S : CC 2514 of 2005 BETWEEN : RONALD ARTHUR JONES
- DOREEN BETTY JONES
SHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
Applicants
AND
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Stamp duty Consolidation of lots held by different proprietors Creation of a super lot Subdivision Proportions held Stamp Act 1921 (WA) s 75AC Whether "exchange of property" Whether exemption applies Beneficial interest Scheme
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Stamp Act 1921 (WA), s 73AA(1), s 73AA(1)(a), s 73AA(1)(b), s 73AA(1)(c), s 73AA(1)(d), s 73AA(1)(e), s 73AA(1)(f), s 73AA(1)(f)(i), s 73AA(1)(f)(ii), s 73AA(1)(f)(iii), s 73AA(2), s 75AC, Schedule 2 4(1), 6
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 17(1)
Taxation Administration Act 2003 (WA)
Result:
Application dismissed
Commissioner's decision affirmed
No order as to costs
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : Ms Julie Jones
Solicitors:
Applicants : Self-represented
Respondent : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Ashington Holdings Pty Ltd v Wipema Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1998] NSWSC 414
Comptroller of Stamps v Yellowco Five Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 529
Grimwade v FCT (1949) 78 CLR 199
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Sportscorp Australia Pty Ltd and Others v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2004]…
Details
- AGLC
- Jones and ORS and Commissioner Of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 131
- Case
- [2006] WASAT 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Jones and Others versus the Commissioner of State Revenue, the dispute arose in the context of stamp duty obligations under the Stamp Act 1921 (WA) in Western Australia. The applicants, Jones and others, sought a review of the decision by the Commissioner of State Revenue to charge stamp duty on the consolidation of land lots held by different proprietors, arguing that the consolidation did not constitute an exchange of property, thus qualifying for an exemption under section 75AC of the Act.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the consolidation of land lots held by different proprietors into a single "super lot" constituted an exchange of property. This question necessitated a detailed examination of the statutory language and the underlying purpose of the exemption provision in section 75AC of the Act. The court had to determine if the consolidation constituted a transfer or exchange of property between parties, which would trigger the stamp duty obligation, or if it constituted a scheme that merely reorganized the beneficial interests in the land without transferring ownership.
The court, after reviewing the statutory text and relevant case law, concluded that the consolidation of the lots into a super lot constituted an exchange of property. The consolidation resulted in the creation of a new legal entity, the super lot, which was distinct from the original lots held by the applicants. The court found that this reorganisation constituted an exchange as it involved the transfer of the beneficial interests in the land from the original lots to the new super lot. Consequently, the exemption under section 75AC did not apply. The application for review was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the consolidation of land lots held by different proprietors into a single "super lot" constituted an exchange of property. This question necessitated a detailed examination of the statutory language and the underlying purpose of the exemption provision in section 75AC of the Act. The court had to determine if the consolidation constituted a transfer or exchange of property between parties, which would trigger the stamp duty obligation, or if it constituted a scheme that merely reorganized the beneficial interests in the land without transferring ownership.
The court, after reviewing the statutory text and relevant case law, concluded that the consolidation of the lots into a super lot constituted an exchange of property. The consolidation resulted in the creation of a new legal entity, the super lot, which was distinct from the original lots held by the applicants. The court found that this reorganisation constituted an exchange as it involved the transfer of the beneficial interests in the land from the original lots to the new super lot. Consequently, the exemption under section 75AC did not apply. The application for review was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs.
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.