The University of Queensland v Commissioner of Land Tax - [2006] QLC 21

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: The University of Queensland v Commissioner of Land Tax [2006] QLC 21

PARTIES:The University of Queensland
(Appellant)
v.
Commissioner of Land Tax
(Respondent)

FILE NO:  A2005/0997
PROCEEDING:  Appeal against disallowance of objection to land tax assessment
DELIVERED ON:                  28 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:                   Brisbane
HEARING DATE:                 21 & 24 April 2006
MEMBER:Mr G.J. Koppenol
ORDER:Appeal dismissed with costs (at [20]).
CATCHWORDS:                  LAND TAX — ASSESSMENT — APPEAL AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF OBJECTION — whether subject land “used” or “vacant” — whether exemption applies

Land Tax Act 1915, ss 13(1)(e), (f), 27

Parramatta City Council v Brickworks Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 1, applied
Rosenblum v Brisbane City Council (1957) 98 CLR 35, applied
Bonnington & Co Pty Ltd v Lynch (1952) 86 CLR 259, applied
Eaton & Sons Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (1972) 129 CLR 270, applied
Royal Sydney Golf Club v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 91 CLR 610, distinguished

COUNSEL: S. Anderson for Appellant

F. Redmond for Respondent

SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth for Appellant
Crown Solicitor for Respondent

Background

This is an appeal under section 27 of the Land Tax Act 1915 (the Act) against the disallowance of an objection to an assessment of land tax. The appellant says that it is exempt from taxation under the Act. That is disputed by the respondent.

The appellant’s claim for exemption is based upon section 13(1)(e) and (f) of the Act. Under those provisions, the exemption would have applied if the land, as at 30 June 2004, was, relevantly:

(a)     used predominantly for:
(i)     an educational purpose; or
(ii)     any other activity that the respondent is satisfied is not primarily the carrying on of a business on a commercial basis, after considering its relationship to the appellant’s purpose and the way in which similar activities are carried on by other persons on a commercial basis (a non-commercial purpose); or

(b)vacant land owned by or held in trust for the appellant if the land is intended to be used for:
(i) an educational purpose; or
(ii)a non-commercial purpose;

within 3 years of acquisition or such extended period as the respondent allows.

The land concerned comprises 1.699ha at 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, adjacent to the Princess Alexandra Hospital. It was gifted to the appellant by the State of Queensland in July 2003, subject to covenants requiring it to be used by 2014 primarily for higher education and research purposes in health and medical areas. The appellant intends to use the land for its Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence (PACE) project to co-locate industry, tertiary education (its School of Pharmacy) and commercial innovation and to facilitate world-class pharmaceutical research and development.

There are currently at least 6 buildings on the land. They were formerly used as the Queensland School for the Deaf. They have not been used for at least 5 years and are currently unoccupied. They will be demolished within the next year and construction of the…

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.

Continue reading The University of Queensland v Commissioner of Land Tax

Details

AGLC: The University of Queensland v Commissioner of Land Tax [2006] QLC 21
Case: [2006] QLC 21
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The University of Queensland sought to appeal against the disallowance of its objection to an assessment of land tax. The appellant argued that it was exempt from taxation under the Land Tax Act 1915. The respondent disputed this, arguing that the land was not used or vacant as at 30 June 2004. The Land Court of Queensland was required to determine whether the land was used predominantly for an educational purpose or any other activity that was not primarily the carrying on of a business on a commercial basis. The court was also required to determine whether the land was vacant land owned by or held in trust for the appellant if the land was intended to be used for an educational purpose or a non-commercial purpose.

The court considered the arguments of both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the appellant's use of the land was not demonstrated as at 30 June 2004, and that the land could not be regarded as vacant land. The court held that the respondent acted correctly in assessing the appellant and disallowing its objection. The court dismissed the appeal with costs. The court found that the point relating to vacant land was not completely unarguable and therefore awarded costs on the standard basis. The orders made were that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders