Find our top tasks, calculators and publications
Quickly pay your liability or fine
Register, manage and pay, and check service availability
Calculate your liability or grant amount
Search our publications, forms, rulings and documents
Clarification and examples to help you comply
Download information packs and register for upcoming events
Our details if you need to reach us
Date of judgement | 5 May 2016 |
Proceeding number | 1510508 |
Judge(s) | Senior Member Walker |
Court or Tribunal | Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal |
Duties – dutiable transaction – concession for non-conforming transfer – whether power to proceed ex parte in absence of Taxpayer
These proceedings concerned the Chief Commissioner’s decision to assess ad valorem duty in respect of a Real Property Act Transfer Form which was executed by the Taxpayer in relation to a purchase of a property at Vaucluse, New South Wales (“the Property”).
By way of summary of the key facts:
The Taxpayer (incorrectly) sought a review of the Chief Commissioner’s decision to disallow the objection rather than the decision to issue the assessment in these proceedings.
The key issue in dispute in this matter was whether the Transfer was eligible for the concession in s.18(3) of the Duties Act 1997 - in particular, whether the requirement in s.18(3)(d)(i) was satisfied. That is, at the time the agreement was entered into, and at the completion or settlement of the agreement, were the purchaser under the agreement (ie Mrs Perry) and the transferee under the Transfer (ie the Taxpayer) related persons?1
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Taxpayer. In such circumstances, the Tribunal assumed that there was not a power to proceed to hear the matter ex parte, and instead decided to hear the matter on the papers.
In respect of the application of the duties concession contained in s.18(3) of the Duties Act 1997, the Tribunal agreed with the Chief Commissioner’s submission by making the following observations:
The Tribunal noted that its observations were premised on the assumption that the Taxpayer would apply to amend the application so as to identify the assessment notice, rather than the objection decision, as the decision under review. As the Taxpayer did not appear at the hearing and make such an application, the decision under review was affirmed on that ground alone.
The decision under review was affirmed.
Perizon Nominees Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] NSWCATAD 84