NSW Caselaw
CITATION: Newport Park Pty Ltd -v- Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] NSWADT 64 DIVISION: Revenue Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Newport Park Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue FILE NUMBER: 026022 HEARING DATES: 22/10/03 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/22/2002 DATE OF DECISION: 04/03/2003
BEFORE: Verick A - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Land tax exemption - principal place of residence MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED : Land Tax Management Act 1956 Flaracos v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] NSWSC 68 CASES CITED: Commissioner of Land Tax v Christie [1973] 2 NSWLR 526 Council of the City of Newcastle v. Royal Newcastle Hospital [1959] 100 C.L.R. 1 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT M Allars, Barrister ORDERS: The decision of the Chief Commissioner under review is affirmed
Introduction 1 The Applicant seeks a review of an objection decision made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Chief Commissioner) in relation to land tax assessments for the 2001 and 2002 land tax years issued on 27 February 2002. 2 The issues in this matter concern some aspects of the exemption under the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) ("the LTM Act") from land tax, land that is used or occupied as the principal place of residence of the owner of the land. In particular, the matter raises the following two questions for determination: (1) Are the shareholders of the Applicant deemed under s. 21A of the LTM Act for the years in question to be the owners of a property situated at 87 Queens Parade East, Newport in New South Wales? and (2) If they are the owners for purposes of the LTM Act are they entitled to the exemption from land tax under the provisions of s. 10(1)(r) of the LTM Act by virtue of the provisions of s.10T of the LTM Act? Background 3 The Applicant's two shareholders at the relevant time, Patricia and Michael Egan, have submitted the following chronology of events regarding the acquisition and disposal of 87 Queens Parade East, Newport, New South Wales to support the exemption claim : "1. Decision in April 2000 that the house at 20 Neptune Road, Newport was not suited to our need, as it was too small for our extended family.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate