Tanaskovic v Commissioner for Act Revenue

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

TANASKOVIC v COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE (Administrative Review) [2018] ACAT 116

AT 51/2018

Catchwords:              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – land tax – penalty tax – section 30 of the Taxation Administration Act 1999 – degree of culpability

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 9, 68

Land Tax Act 2004 ss 7
Taxation Administration Act 1999 ss 4, 14, 30, 31, 34, 100, 107A, 108A, 129 and Sch 1 ss 1.1 and 1.2

Cases cited:Steele v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2010] ACAT 15

Theron v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 33

Tribunal:                    Senior Member Professor T Foley

Date of Orders:  16 November 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision:         16 November 2018

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY               )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL          )          AT 51/2018

BETWEEN:

SAMMIE TANASKOVIC

Applicant

AND:

COMMISSIONER FOR ACT REVENUE

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:             Senior Member Professor T Foley

DATE:  16 November 2018

ORDER

1. The tribunal varies the decision under review so that the amount of penalty tax payable is reduced to 50%.

………………………………..
Senior Member Professor T Foley

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Sammie Tanaskovic (the applicant) has sought review of a decision of 14 May 2018 of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue (the respondent) to disallow an objection to a land tax assessment issued 12 October 2017 pursuant to the Taxation Administration Act 1999 (the Tax Act).

2. Jurisdiction to review the respondent’s decision is conferred on the Tribunal by sections 107A, 108A and Schedule 1 sections 1.1, 1.2 of the Tax Act which is an authorising law for the purposes of section 9 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). This is an application for review by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal pursuant to section 68 of the ACAT Act.

3. In the reasons below, a reference to ‘ACAT’ or ‘tribunal’ refers to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal generally, whereas ‘Tribunal’ refers to the member who heard the application.

The hearing

1. The matter was heard on 3 October 2018. The Tribunal had before it the documents provided by the respondent on which its decision was based (the T Documents), the submissions and statements of facts and contentions of the parties. The applicant was self-represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Wayne Sharwood of counsel instructed by the ACT Government Solicitor.

2. The applicant called evidence, both parties made submissions and responded to questions of the Tribunal.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reserved its decision and indicated it would provide written reasons. These are those reasons.

Background

1. The applicant is a 40 year old man. He acquired a property in Calwell in the ACT (the property) in 2003.

2. Previously, the applicant had rented the property for various periods in 2005-2007 but did not notify the respondent. He was subsequently assessed for land tax including penalty tax set at a rate of 25% in 2008 which sum was paid.[1] The property continued to be rented until April 2009 at which…