Nishaharan v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 35

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nishaharan v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 35 Hearing dates: 28 January 2025 Date of orders: 05 February 2025 Decision date: 05 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S E Frost, Senior Member Decision: The assessment of land tax for the 2024 land tax year is confirmed. Catchwords: TAXES AND DUTIES – Land tax – Exemption – Unoccupied land intended to be the owners' principal place of residence – Whether the owners are entitled to have their actual use and occupation of other land taken into account for the purposes of the principal place of residence exemption Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v White & Anor [2008] NSWADTAP 27 Cornish Investments Pty Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (RD) [2013] NSWADTAP 25 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Siva Nishaharan and Koshala Nishaharan (Applicants) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2024/00295506 Publication restriction: No restriction

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. In 2022 the Applicants purchased a property in Strathfield. They intended to demolish the dilapidated building on the block and build a new residence that would become their family home. 2. At the time, they were living with their two children in a property they owned in Ermington. They put the Ermington property on the market but couldn't immediately attract a buyer; ultimately they were able to sell it in April 2024. In the meantime the Applicants continued to live in the Ermington property. 3. For the 2023 and 2024 land tax years the Chief Commissioner treated the Ermington property as exempt from tax, as the Applicants' principal place of residence. But he assessed the Applicants to land tax payable in respect of the Strathfield property for both tax years. 4. The Applicants objected to the land tax assessments. Before the objections were determined the Applicants conceded the assessment for 2023 was correct but they continued to press the objection with respect to the 2024 year. The objection was disallowed, and the Applicants have now applied to the Tribunal for a review of the assessment. 5. In summary, the Applicants say the Strathfield property is the one that should be exempt from land tax. This is the property they regard as their long-term home. The Ermington property, on the other hand, was only a temporary home that they always intended to leave once they had purchased in Strathfield. If the Chief Commissioner were to accept Strathfield as exempt, then the Applicants' liability would be significantly reduced, perhaps to zero, because the value of the Ermington property (which would then be the taxable property) is much less than the one in Strathfield. 6. I have decided the land tax assessment for the 2024 year is correct. These are my reasons for reaching that conclusion.