This case involved determining whether a company entered into employment agency contracts with its contractors.
The Tribunal found that neither Racing NSW nor the Trust is an exempt charitable or benevolent body.
This case involves a decision to group two companies via common control, after one went into liquidation.
The case concerned the application of the principles of common intention constructive trusts to the land tax regime.
The Taxpayers sought review of the Chief Commissioner’s decision disallowing an application for the payment of a regional relocation grant.
Sets out the decisions regarding four issues: reasonable care, disclosure before an investigation, remission of penalty, and remission of interest.
Judicial Member Verick determined that the companies were grouped correctly by the Chief Commissioner and the assessments were correct.
Senior Member Isenberg found that the concessions under s. 63(1) of the Duties Act 1997 could not apply to the contract.
The Tribunal concluded that the companies were not carried on independently and without connection for seven reasons.
The payroll tax assessments were correctly based on being a member of a group of commonly controlled businesses.
The Tribunal set aside the Chief Commissioner’s decisions to require repayment of the Grant and to reassess the Stamp Duty Concession.
The Chief Commissioner’s Assessments were set aside, and the Taxpayer was entitled to the primary production exemption for the Relevant Period.
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.
Judicial Member Block determined that both the taxpayer and his de facto used and occupied the Curl Curl property as their PPR, and affirmed the Chief Commissioner’s decision.
The main issue was whether Securecorp’s contracts with Westfield and JLL were employment agency contracts under s. 37 of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW).
The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal did not consider relevant evidence from the taxpayer’s witnesses and this constituted an error of law.
The Appellant applied to the Chief Commissioner for a refund of gaming machine tax paid during the assessment periods from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2015.
The plaintiff sought review of a landholder duty assessment in respect of the acquisition of shares and contended that the “not just and reasonable” landholder duty exemption should be available.
The central issues determined were whether the applicant was a “non-profit organisation” and the extent to which wages paid were exempt from payroll tax.
The Applicant applied for review of a land tax assessment because the dominant use of the land was not for primary production.