CITATION: Rayward v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 31 DIVISION: Revenue Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Catherine Joan Rayward RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue FILE NUMBER: 056118 HEARING DATES: 6/12/2005 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/06/2005 DATE OF DECISION: 02/01/2006 BEFORE: Hole M - Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Duties Act - assessment of vendor duty MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Duties Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED : First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 Taxation Administration Act 1996 Calcaro v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] NSWADT 158 CASES CITED: Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Ferrington [2004] NSWADTAP 41 Rayward v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 30 Snow v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 278 APPLICANT In person REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT S Benjamin, Solicitor ORDERS: 1. The application is dismissed. The decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue is affirmed including imposition of interest REASONS FOR DECISION 1 The applicant has lodged applications for review of a determination made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue by letter dated 16 March 2005 in respect of the First Home Owner's Grant (No 053145) and a determination made by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue by letter dated 16 March 2005 in respect of the First Home Plus Scheme (No. 056118). The determinations of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue were made following consideration of an objection by the applicant to the assessments of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. 2 The facts and evidence in this matter are identical to the facts and evidence in 053145. The reasons set out in the decision on that application include the reasons in respect of this application (Rayward v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 30) ORDER 1. The application is dismissed. The decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue is affirmed including imposition of interest. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.