• Skip to content
  • Skip to navigation
Revenue NSW logo
  • About us
  • Help centre
  • News
  • Login
  • Contact us
  • Home
  • Taxes, duties, levies and royalties Expand this menu
    Return to previous menu Taxes, duties, levies and royalties
    • Make a payment
    • Payroll tax
    • Land tax
    • Transfer duty
    • More options
  • Fines and fees Expand this menu
    Return to previous menu Fines and fees
    • Pay your fine
    • Request a review
    • Nominate someone else
    • Overdue fines and fees
    • More options
  • Grants and schemes Expand this menu
    Return to previous menu Grants and schemes
    • First home owner grant
    • First home buyer assistance
    • HomeBuilder
    • Previous schemes
    • More options
  • Unclaimed money Expand this menu
    Return to previous menu Unclaimed money
    • Search for unclaimed money
    • Make a claim
    • Lodge unclaimed money
    • More options
  • About us
  • Help centre
  • News
  • Login
  • Contact us
alert icon

Read more about HomeBuilder and other relief measures to help customers impacted by COVID-19.

Help centre
  • About

    Find our top tasks, calculators and publications

  • Make a payment

    Quickly pay your liability or fine

  • Online services

    Register, manage and pay, and check service availability

  • Calculators

    Calculate your liability or grant amount

  • Resources

    Search our publications, forms, rulings and documents

  • Legislation and rulings

    Clarification and examples to help you comply

  • Seminars and webinars

    Download information packs and register for upcoming events

  • Contact us

    Our details if you need to reach us

  • Home
  • Help centre
  • Resources
  • [2019] NSWCATAD 77
Listen

Giammarco and Giammarco v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] NSWCATAD 77

Date of judgement 1 May 2019
Proceeding number 2018/322990
Judge(s) AR Boxall, Senior Member
Court or TribunalNSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Legislation cited

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, ss 58, 63

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, ss 36, 41

Land Tax Management Act 1956, ss 10(1)(p), 10AA, Part 17

State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Act 2005, Schedule 4

Taxation Administration Act 1996 ss 9, 96, 99, 100, Part 10

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, s127I, Part 7A

Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Act 2006, Schedule 2

Cases cited

AGC (Investments) Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 91 ATC 4180

B&L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2008) 74 NSWLR 481

BBLT Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of the Office of State Revenue [2003] NSWSC 1003

Bellinz v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 615; (1998) 84 FCR 154

Chand v Rail Corporation of New South Wales No 3 [2010] NSWADTAP 11

Daoud v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWCATAD 53

DW Tolson Management Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] NSWCATAD 113

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia & New Zealand Savings Bank Ltd [1994] HCA 58; (1994) 181 CLR 466,

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade [1951] HCA 66; (1951) 84 CLR 105

Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30, 93 ALR 479

Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516

Jackson v Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22

Molyneux v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADTAP 53

Nanschild v Pratt [2011] NSWCA 85

Oamington Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) v Commissioner of Land Tax 98 ATC 5051

Opera Australia Ltd v Carr [1999] NSWADTAP 6

Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61

Background

The Applicants own a Land located in Kangaroo Valley NSW (“the Land”), which they bought in 1985.

In 1997 the Chief Commissioner approved a primary production exemption under s. 10(1)(p) (“Old PPL Exemption”) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (“LTMA”) in respect of the Land.

In 2006 amendments were made to the LTMA which replaced s.10(1)(p) with new primary production exemption provisions in section 10AA (“New PPL Exemption”). Further amendments made to the LTMA in 2006 introduced a new sub-section 10(1)(p), providing an exemption for land that was the subject of a “biobanking agreement” (“Biobanking Exemption”).

Between 2006 and 2015, the Chief Commissioner issued land tax assessments in respect of the Land on the basis that it was exempt because it was used for a business of primary production.

Following a review of the use of the land, on 28 April 2016 the Chief Commissioner determined that the land was not entitled to exemption under the New PPL Exemption, and issued assessments for the 2012 to 2016 land tax years.

The Applicants lodged an objection on 29 July 2016, which was disallowed by Revenue NSW on 10 January 2017.

The Applicants sought a review of the assessments on the basis that the nature and character of the Land had not changed since the Old PPL Exemption was granted in 1997. They further argued that the Biobanking Exemption set out in s.10(1)(p) of the LTMA applied.

Decision

(a) Application made out of time

The Tribunal allowed the application in relation to the 2017 decisions to proceed, despite the lateness with which it was made, as it would better serve the principles set out in s. 36 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, together with the interests of justice referred to in Daoud v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [10].

The Tribunal also allowed the application to proceed in relation to the 2016 decisions, as to reject it would risk unfairness to the Applicants [14].

(b) Applicability of the 1997 grant of exemption

The Tribunal decided that

  1. the tests which the Land would have to satisfy in order to qualify for the exemption on and from 1 January 2006 were different from those which it had to satisfy before that date;
  2. the 1997 grant of the Old PPL Exemption was of no direct relevance in determining whether it satisfied the tests applicable under the New PPL Exemption; and
  3. The legislative change made by the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Act 2005 to the regime for exempting land used for primary production was not retrospective in nature; it operated prospectively in and from the land tax year beginning on 1 January 2006 while respecting and preserving the exemptions applicable before that tax year.

(c) Reassessments for the 2012 to 2015 tax years under s. 9 of the TAA

In respect of the reassessment of the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Assessments, the Tribunal held that the Chief Commissioner was authorised to reassess tax liabilities under s. 9 of the TAA [39].

The Chief Commissioner’s acceptance on 9 February 2015 of the Applicants’ representation, that the exemption recognised on 18 July 1997 still applied did not alter the Chief Commissioner’s authority to reassess the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Assessments. [40]-[41]

(d) Unfairness and natural justice

The Tribunal held that the Crown, as a legislative body, may make new laws and vary existing ones, and persons subject to the laws of NSW are bound by those laws. The Applicants being unaware of the changes made to the LTMA neither detracted from the Chief Commissioner’s obligation to apply the law as so varied, nor conferred on the Applicants any right to be shielded from its application [44]-[45].

The Tribunal rejected the Applicants’ arguments that in issuing the assessments under review the Chief Commissioner denied them natural justice, as they had provided no evidence that the Chief Commissioner failed to receive and consider the Applicants’ views, to communicate with them in the way required by law, or to comply with the TAA and the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 [49]-[51].

(e) Exemption under s. 10AA of the LTMA

The Tribunal rejected the Applicants’ argument that the Land was “land used for primary production” for the purposes of s. 10AA as none of the practices described in the Applicants’ submissions came within the activities specified in s. 10AA(3) of the LMTA [56].

(f) Biobanking agreement exemption

The Tribunal rejected the Applicants’ claim that the Land or any part of it at any relevant time came within the Biobanking Exemption under s. 10(1)(p) as there was no biobanking agreement in place covering the Land at any relevant time [60].

Orders

The Tribunal made the following orders:

  1. The time for the Applicants to lodge their request to review the Chief Commissioner’s decisions was extended to 5:00pm on 19 October 2018
  2. The decisions under review were confirmed.

Link to decision

Giammarco and Giammarco v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2019] NSWCATAD 77

  • Previous
    [2019] NSWCATOD 11
  • Back to top
  • Next
    [2019] NSWCATAD 64
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Email
  • Download or print PDF
  • Taxes, duties, levies and royalties
  • Fines and fees
  • Grants and schemes
  • Unclaimed money
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility
  • Sitemap
  • nsw.gov.au
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn