Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

[2010] NSWADT 278

CITATION:	Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2010] NSWADT 278
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Patrick Pak Kit Lo RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
FILE NUMBER:	106045
HEARING DATES:	20 October 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	20 October 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	20 October 2010
BEFORE:	Hole M - Judicial Member
LEGISLATION CITED:	Taxation Administration Act 1996
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT D Tam, solicitor RESPONDENT Ms Richardson
ORDERS:	The applicant is ordered to pay the reasonable costs of the respondent in respect of 20 October 2010.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 This is an application before the Tribunal to review a decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue in respect of exemption from land tax based on the principal place of residence of the applicant. A hearing was set for 20 October 2010 and it was necessary to vacate that hearing to permit the applicant to file and serve evidence upon which he relies in a form that could be considered by the Tribunal and could be subject of cross examination or testing by the respondent.

2 As a result of the vacation of the hearing the respondent made an application for costs of the day on the basis that a letter had been forwarded by the respondent’s representative to the applicant on 22 September 2010. The contents of that letter noted that the applicant bears the onus of proof pursuant to Section 100(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 (“Tax Act”) and that it did not appear that there was evidence before the Tribunal of probative value upon which the Tribunal could make a decision. The respondent indicated that it would be prepared to jointly approach the Tribunal to vacate the hearing date of 20 October 2010 to allow a more convenient date to be set that accommodated the applicant’s requirements. The respondent’s representative forwarded the letter dated 22 September 2010 and there was no response to that letter prior to 20 October 2010.

3 In accordance with the provisions of Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and specifically Section 88(1A)(a)(iv) the Judicial Member made an order in respect of costs in favour of the respondent.