Powles v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

[2006] NSWADT 155

CITATION:	Powles & anor v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 155
DIVISION:	Revenue Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS Brian Adrian Powles and Natalie Marie Powles RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
FILE NUMBER:	056053
HEARING DATES:	23/01/06
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	01/23/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	05/29/2006
BEFORE:	Hole M - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Duties Act 1997
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANTS R A Powles, agent RESPONDENT S Benjamin, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. There is no decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue which permits the Tribunal to determine the matter.

1 The applicants have applied for a review of the decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to refuse to grant the First Home Owner Grant (“the Grant”) Application No 053090 and to refuse to refund the stamp duty paid on a contract where the First Home Plus stamp duty concession should have applied (“the Concession”) Application No 056053..

2 The facts and evidence in this matter are identical to the facts and evidence in 053090. The reasons set out in the decision on that application include the reasons in respect of this application.

3 The applicants requested a refund of the stamp duty paid in their application for the Grant under cover of the letter dated 22 October 2004. This was also referred to in the letter dated 10 December 2004 from the applicants to the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. The correspondence from the Chief Commissioner to the applicants does not refer to consideration of this request or a decision made upon this request.

4 The application of the First Home Plus stamp duty concession is subject to a residence requirement where the applicants must reside in the property for a continuous period of 6 months with that period commencing within 12 months after completion. This requirement may be varied at the discretion of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue.

5 The discretion of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue must be exercised as set out in the decision in Application 053090.

6 The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue has not made a decision in respect of the applicants’ request for a refund of the stamp duty paid on the contract to purchase the subject property exchanged on 30 June 2003.

7 For the reasons as set out in Application 053090, a decision by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to refuse to refund the stamp duty would if made, would be in accordance with the requirements of the Duties Act 1997.

ORDER

1. There is no decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue which permits the Tribunal to determine the matter.