Raissis v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

In Raissis v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, the appellant challenged the Commissioner's determination that he was liable for land tax on two properties for the 2005–06 land tax year. The dispute centred around whether the appellant was entitled to an exemption from land tax for these properties, as he claimed they were his principal place of residence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether the exemption for principal place of residence applied to the appellant, and if so, whether the requisite degree of permanence required for this exemption had been achieved. The second issue was the onus of proof, specifically whether it lay with the appellant to demonstrate that the exemption applied to the properties in question.

The court found that the exemption for principal place of residence was available only if the owner could demonstrate that the property was their principal place of residence at the relevant time, and this required a degree of permanence. The court concluded that the appellant had failed to prove that he had achieved the requisite degree of permanence for either property during the relevant period. Consequently, the exemption did not apply, and the appellant remained liable for land tax. The court also determined that the onus of proof rested with the appellant to establish the availability of the exemption.

The decision of the Commissioner was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.