Moon v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2014] QCAT 626
•1 December 2014
| CITATION: | Moon v Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] QCAT 626 |
| PARTIES: | Dr Bruce Moon (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR431-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Allen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 1 December 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the Commissioner of State Revenue is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION TO REVIEW – Whether ex-serviceperson entitled to vehicle registration duty exemption in respect of vehicle for which they cannot claim concessional registration Duties Act 2001 ss 377, 390(1)(j) |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Moon purchased a car on 26 August 2013 for $15,708.00. Part of the purchase process was the transfer of the car’s registration to Dr Moon, which is a dutiable transaction and he was required to pay $474.00 in vehicle registration duty[1]. He is an ex-serviceperson and considered that he should have been entitled to an exemption[2] from paying the vehicle registration duty. He objected to the Commissioner against the assessment of duty and following the disallowance of that objection, he has applied to the Tribunal to review the decision.[3]
[1]Duties Act 2001 s 377.
[2]Ibid s 390(1)(j).
[3]Taxation Administration Act 2001 s 69(2)(b) and QCAT Act s 18.
The Tribunal is required to hear and decide a review of a decision of the Commissioner on the same grounds as those of the relevant objection; by way of a reconsideration of the evidence before the Commissioner when the decision was made and make its decision in accordance with the same law that applied when the decision was made.[4] The role of the Commissioner is to assist the Tribunal to make the correct and preferable decision.[5]
[4]Taxation Administration Act 2001 s 71.
[5]QCAT Act ss 20(1), 21(1).
Dr Moon’s grounds for objection was that as an ex-serviceperson he was exempt from the payment of vehicle transfer duty under s 390(1)(j) of the Duties Act 2001 which relevantly states:
(1)Vehicle registration duty is not imposed on an application to … transfer a vehicle…
…
(j)to an ex-serviceperson who, under the Vehicle Registration Act, is entitled to concessional registration fees for the vehicle.
Dr Moon has provided proof accepted by the Commissioner that he qualifies as an ex-serviceperson. He claims that on that basis alone he should receive the exemption as he would be entitled to concessional registration but he is not required to have the car in question concessionally registered. The Commissioner’s practice is that concessional registration must be claimed at the same time the car is assessed for vehicle registration duty before the exemption is allowed.
The Vehicle Registration Act is defined in schedule 1 to the Duties Act 2001 as the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The relevant concession is found in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010, specifically s 123(1) and schedule 1, part 2 item 8 which relevantly states:
The chief executive may grant the registered operator of one motor vehicle registered in the name of a prescribed service person a concessional registration fee.
Dr Moon already had a vehicle registered in his name for which he was claiming concessional registration. Both the car dealer and the Department of Transport advised him that he would not be able to claim the exemption from vehicle registration duty unless he made a claim for concessional registration in respect of the new car. This would have required him to authorise the transfer of concessional registration from the car that he was currently claiming it on to the new car. He declined to do this and was then unable to transfer the registration without the payment of duty. Following which he objected to the assessment of duty.
The Commissioner submitted and the Tribunal accepts that the exemption to duty has two limbs. The first is whether the owner is an ex-serviceperson. There is sufficient proof that Dr Moon is an ex-serviceperson contained in the file being correspondence from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs. The second limb is said to be, is he entitled to concessional registration for the vehicle, which is subject to the application to transfer.
Dr Moon submits that the fact he is an ex-serviceperson is sufficient to show an entitlement to the concession in respect of registration in terms of it being a right he may exercise but he is not required to use it and so is not required to claim concessional registration in respect of the car in question.
The wording of the exemption states that ‘is entitled to concessional registration fees for the vehicle’. Therefore, the test must be applied in respect of the vehicle in question. Is Dr Moon entitled to concessional registration in respect of the vehicle that he purchased?
The Commissioner submits that Dr Moon was not entitled to concessional registration for the vehicle, which was being transferred, as he already owned a vehicle that was entitled to and held concessional registration fees.
Dr Moon admits that he already held concessional registration in respect of another car as mentioned above and that as a result he did not apply for concessional registration for the car in question here.
While Dr Moon is eligible to claim concessional registration due to his status as an ex-serviceperson, that concession may only be granted in respect of one car at any one time. The Tribunal is satisfied that as Dr Moon already held concessional registration in respect of another car he was not entitled to concessional registration in respect of the car in question unless and until he agreed to transfer the concession from the old car to the new car and he chose not to do that.
Dr Moon is not entitled to the exemption from vehicle transfer duty, as he was not entitled to claim concessional registration in respect of the car he was purchasing.
The decision of the Commissioner to disallow Dr Moon’s objection is confirmed.
0
0
0