|Date of judgement||8 January 2019|
|Judge(s)||NS Isenberg RFD, Senior Member|
|Court or Tribunal||New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal|
Principal Place of Residence exemption, Land Tax
The Applicant sought a review of the decision by the Chief Commissioner to disallow an exemption from land tax under the principal place of residence exemption contained in section 10(1)(r) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) (“LTM Act”) for the 2011 and 2012 land tax years. The Chief Commissioner had assessed a property (“the Land”) of the Applicant at Empire Bay, New South Wales as liable to land tax under Part 3 of the LTM Act.
In 2007 Ms Lou, who then worked in Sydney, bought a property at Empire Bay on the New South Wales Central Coast, some distance north of Sydney. Ms Lou said she commuted daily to work from the Land. She claimed she was entitled to the principal place of residence exemption under the LTM Act in respect of the Land.
The principal place of residence exemption is contained in cl. 2 of Schedule 1A of the LTM Act. It provides:
2 Principal place of residence exemption
The Tribunal noted [at 32] the failure of the Applicant to provide evidence to support certain claims, notably:
Electricity bills and notices for the Land provided by the Applicant did not relate to either of the relevant six month periods immediately preceding the 2011 and 2012 tax years, and therefore did not evidence her occupation of the Land as her principal place of residence in respect of the land tax years in question: –. Additionally, water bills for the Land provided by the Applicant demonstrated only that there had been some water use on the Land: .
The Chief Commissioner noted that the Applicant’s income tax returns prepared by her accountant for the financial years ended 30 June 2010–2013 had shown her father’s home at Forest Lodge was her “home address”. The Tribunal considered it implausible that a person with the Applicant’s qualifications in accounting would overlook such that her “home address” was the same as the “postal address”.
The Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Land was the Applicant’s principal place of residence for either of the land tax years, and determined the correct and preferable decision was that the Land was not exempt from land tax for any of those years: .
The decisions of the Chief Commissioner under review are affirmed.