Matiushenko v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

The applicant, Matiushenko, applied to the Federal Court of Australia to review assessments made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, regarding surcharge land tax. The assessments were made on the basis that the applicant’s property was not their principal place of residence. The applicant argued that the property was their principal place of residence and therefore exempt from surcharge land tax. The court was required to determine whether the applicant’s property was their principal place of residence and, if so, whether it was exempt from surcharge land tax.

The court found that the applicant’s principal place of residence was not the property in question, but rather another property they owned. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the property in question was their principal place of residence. The court also found that, even if the property in question was the applicant’s principal place of residence, it would not be exempt from surcharge land tax because it was not solely and continuously used and occupied as a residence. The court found that the property was used for both residential and commercial purposes, and therefore not solely and continuously used and occupied as a residence.

The court confirmed the assessments made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. The court found that the assessments were correct and that the applicant was liable for the surcharge land tax. The court dismissed the applicant’s application for review.