Percy v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2009] NSWADT 240

CITATION: Percy v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2009] NSWADT 240

DIVISION: Revenue Division

APPLICANT Michael Leonard Percy PARTIES: REPSONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

FILE NUMBER: 096025

HEARING DATES: 11 June 2009

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 24 July 2009

DATE OF DECISION: 17 September 2009

BEFORE: Hole M - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Land tax exemption, lot separated into several parts, principal place of residence

Land Tax Management Act 1956 LEGISLATION CITED : Conveyancing Act 1919 Valuation of Land Act 1916 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Ryan v Commissioner of Land Tax [1982] 1NSWLR 305 CASES CITED: Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Sacco (RD) [2008] NSWADTAP 61 McGrath and anor v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2007] NSWADT 46 Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v McGrath [2008] NSWSC 387

APPLICANT In person REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT A Rider, barrister

ORDERS: The tax assessment issued by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue on 12 September 2008 is confirmed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 Mr and Mrs Perry have been assessed for land tax in respect of a property which was subdivided into 2 lots in 2006. The property being part of the residue lot remaining after 4 subdivisions ("the subject property").

2 The history of the subdivisions is: (a) as at 23 September 2004 there was one (1) lot; (b) on 24 September 2004 the single lot was subdivided into three (3) lots. One of those lots subsequently became road in the shape of an "H". The part of the original lot contained below the cross bar of the "H" became a separate lot and was sold prior to 31 December 2004. The remaining three parts of the original lot became the third lot albeit in three distinct parcels separated from each other by three roads and are referred to in this judgement as "the subject land". These parts of the lot were separately valued by the Valuer General for the two relevant years as separate parcels; (c) the third lot was subject to a further subdivision, the second subdivision, registered after 31 December 2005 whereby two lots were created. One lot, being the area above the crossbar of the "H" referred to in paragraph (b) above, became the subject of a sale to the local council for park. The remaining parts of the third lot were now separated by two roads, a part of a park and land being developed for housing (being the part sold as referred to in paragraph (b) above). These remaining parts of the third lot became one lot comprising two parcels joined by a vinculum. 3 This application has been made by Mr Percy. Mr and Mrs Percy are divorced and there has been a property settlement.