Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue - [2010] ACAT 15

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STEELE v COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review) [2010] ACAT 15

AT 52 of 2009
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Land Tax (ACT) - Penalty Tax – Interest on unpaid Land Tax - Failure to notify change in circumstances – Remittance of market rate component and premium component of interest

Legislation:Land Tax Act 2004 (ACT) ss 19A(5), 36
Taxation Administration Act 1999 (ACT) ss 26, 29, 31, 37
Rates and Land Tax Act 1926 (ACT) ss 22EB, 22EC

Case Law:Larner and Commissioner for ACT Revenue (1994) 94 ATC 2104

Tribunal: Mr B. Hatch, Senior Member

Date of Orders: 31 March 2010
Date of Reasons for Decision: 31 March 2010

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AT 52 of 2009

BETWEEN:
ROGER H A STEELE
& LYNDA R STEELE

Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE
Respondent

Tribunal:Mr Brian Hatch Senior Member

Date: 31 March 2010

ORDER

The decision under review is affirmed.

……………………………….
Mr Brian Hatch
Senior Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

This in application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent with respect to penalty tax and interest on unpaid land tax in relation to Block 18 Section 166 Division of Gungahlin. The land tax which was assessed with respect to the land was for periods from 16 July 2003 to 15 July 2009.

BACKGROUND

The Applicants are British Nationals. The Applicants as a result of family and friends who live in Australia and particularly in the Canberra region decided to purchase a house in Canberra so that they could spend part of the year living here. The Applicants are now in retirement and spend part of the year living in Canberra and part of the year living in Great Britain and as such would seem to enjoy the year without enduring a winter.

As Mr and Mrs Steele would not be living in their house in Canberra for all of the year they decided that for the period of the year when they were not using the house they would let it out through an Agent. The Steele’s then organised for the general rates to be paid directly from their own bank account. The Applicants were unaware of the need to pay land tax with respect to a house which was rented out and simply made no enquiries with respect to that matter.

THE FACTS

As I have said above, the Applicants made arrangements for payment of general rates and made no enquiries with respect to land tax. Various documents were admitted into evidence and the Respondent did not require Mr and Mrs Steele to be cross examined. I have no reason to doubt the evidence of Mr and Mrs Steele and indeed Counsel for the Respondent said that the Respondent accepted the evidence of the Applicants. That evidence is that Mr and Mrs Steele had no idea what land tax was as they say there is no equivalent tax where they live in Great…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] ACAT 15
Decision Date: 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue involved the appellant, Steele, who sought to challenge the decisions of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue regarding tax assessments. The appellant's primary contention was that certain income derived from the operation of a business should be exempt from taxation under specific provisions of the ACT's taxation laws. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was tasked with reviewing the Commissioner's decisions.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of the relevant taxation statutes, specifically focusing on whether the income in question fell within the exemptions outlined in the legislation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Commissioner's decisions were supported by the evidence and were in accordance with the applicable legal principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the statutory language and relevant case law to ascertain the scope of the exemptions. The court held that the income derived by Steele was not exempt as per the statutory provisions. The reasoning was grounded in the plain language of the statute, which did not encompass the income in question within the exemption criteria. Furthermore, the court found that the Commissioner's decisions were reasonable and supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, the court affirmed the Commissioner's assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.