Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue

CITATION:

Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2014] QCAT 457

PARTIES:	Adam Scott (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR010-14

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Allen

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Application to review reassessment of duty – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction where duty not paid before application made.

Taxation Administration Act 2001, s 69
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 47

Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 135
Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 612
Naswari v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 66
Market Square (Queensland) Pty ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 578

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Scott purchased a home unit in 2012 and claimed the first home concession under the Duties Act 2001 (Qld). At the time of purchase the house was rented and Mr Scott intended to move into the property when the tenants vacated. Due to family circumstances this did not occur until a year after purchase of the home. The Commissioner reassessed Mr Scott’s entitlement to the concession and issues an amended assessment requiring him to repay the amount of $5,875 with penalty of $587.50 and unpaid tax interest of $527.34.
Mr Scott’s objection to this reassessment was disallowed. He then applied to the Tribunal on 13 January 2014 to review the decision in accordance with s 69 of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld). It is not disputed that at the time of making his application to review the decision Mr Scott had not paid the whole amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the decision relates[1].
[1]Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld) s 69(1)(b).
There are numerous decisions of this Tribunal which confirm that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the review of decisions of the Commissioner is subject to the payment of the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the decision relates being made before the right to make the application to review arises[2]. The Tribunal notes that the Commissioner’s notice of decision and statement of reasons dated 30 September 2013 states that “Under the TAA, you are only entitled to appeal or apply for review of this decision if you have paid the reassessment and any further accrued UTI in full”.
[2]Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 135, Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 612, Naswari v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 66 and Market Square (Queensland) Pty ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 578.
The Commissioner has made a preliminary application to have the application struck out[3] for want of jurisdiction due to the full amount of tax and late payment interest not having been paid prior to filing of the application to review. The amount outstanding in respect of the assessment as at 28 February 2014 was in accordance with the Commissioner’s certificate[4] $6,784.67 comprising transfer duty $5,875, penalty tax $587.50 and unpaid tax interest $527.34.
[3]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 47.
[4]Annexure A page 6 to the Miscellaneous Application.
Mr Scott by not paying the amount due under the reassessment has not complied with the requirement of s 69(1)(b) of the TA Act. So he does not have a right to make an application to review and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Tribunal is satisfied that as it does not have jurisdiction the application is lacking in substance and will be dismissed in accordance with s 47 of the QCAT Act.
The order of the Tribunal is that the application for review is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue involved the applicant, Scott, who sought a review of the reassessment of duty imposed by the Commissioner of State Revenue. The dispute centred around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear Scott's application for review, particularly given that the duty had not been paid before the application was made. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear Scott's application for review of the reassessment of duty, in light of the fact that the duty had not been paid prior to the application. The court had to consider the statutory framework governing the Tribunal's jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the timing of duty payment and its impact on the Tribunal's ability to hear an application for review.

The court found that under the statutory provisions, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an application for review of a reassessment of duty is contingent upon the duty being paid before the application is made. Since Scott had not paid the duty before lodging the application, the court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the review application. Consequently, the court dismissed Scott's application for review. The court's decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the statutory requirements regarding the timing of duty payment and the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court ordered that the application for review be dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements concerning the payment of duty before seeking a review, to ensure the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established