Sorensen v Commissioner of State Revenue

In the case of Sorensen v Commissioner of State Revenue, the appellants challenged the Queensland Land Court’s determination that their transactions were not exempt from stamp duty. The central issue before the court was whether the lots in question had been used for residential purposes immediately before the transfer from the home unit company to the individual shareholders. The court had to determine the proper interpretation of the phrase “used for residential purposes” in section 133(1)(e) of the Duties Act.

The court examined the submissions from both parties and the reasoning of the Member who initially decided the case. The Member had found that the lots had not been used for residential purposes before the transfer, even though they were intended for residential use. The Member considered several factors, including the lack of physical occupation, the intention of the shareholders, and the nature of the use of the lots. The court held that the Member’s interpretation and application of the statutory language were correct and did not involve any error in law. The court emphasised that the use of the lots for residential purposes had to be established by the time of the transfer, and the Member’s findings were supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the parties submit their views on the costs of the appeal by a specified date. The question of costs would be determined later based on the submissions provided.