CITATION: Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2010] NSWADT 278 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT Patrick Pak Kit Lo PARTIES: RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue FILE NUMBER: 106045 HEARING DATES: 20 October 2010 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 20 October 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 20 October 2010 BEFORE: Hole M - Judicial Member LEGISLATION CITED : Taxation Administration Act 1996 APPLICANT D Tam, solicitor REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT Ms Richardson ORDERS: The applicant is ordered to pay the reasonable costs of the respondent in respect of 20 October 2010. REASONS FOR DECISION 1 This is an application before the Tribunal to review a decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue in respect of exemption from land tax based on the principal place of residence of the applicant. A hearing was set for 20 October 2010 and it was necessary to vacate that hearing to permit the applicant to file and serve evidence upon which he relies in a form that could be considered by the Tribunal and could be subject of cross examination or testing by the respondent. 2 As a result of the vacation of the hearing the respondent made an application for costs of the day on the basis that a letter had been forwarded by the respondent's representative to the applicant on 22 September 2010. The contents of that letter noted that the applicant bears the onus of proof pursuant to Section 100(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1996 ("Tax Act") and that it did not appear that there was evidence before the Tribunal of probative value upon which the Tribunal could make a decision. The respondent indicated that it would be prepared to jointly approach the Tribunal to vacate the hearing date of 20 October 2010 to allow a more convenient date to be set that accommodated the applicant's requirements. The respondent's representative forwarded the letter dated 22 September 2010 and there was no response to that letter prior to 20 October 2010. 3 In accordance with the provisions of Section 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 and specifically Section 88(1A)(a)(iv) the Judicial Member made an order in respect of costs in favour of the respondent. 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.