Saliba v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADT 119

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Saliba v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADT 119 Hearing dates: 20 February 2012 Decision date: 19 June 2012 Jurisdiction: Revenue Division Before: S Frost, Judicial Member Decision: Land tax assessments for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 confirmed. Catchwords: Land tax - primary production - whether "dominant use" of land is for primary production purposes Legislation Cited: Land Tax Management Act 1956 Cases Cited: Ashleigh Developments Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] NSWADT 250 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John and Josephine Saliba (Applicants) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Counsel D Mitchell (Respondent) Robert Richards & Associates (Applicants) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 106080

Reasons for decision 1REVENUE DIVISION (S FROST, JUDICIAL MEMBER)): During the 2006 to 2010 land tax years ("the Relevant Years"), the Applicants, Mr and Mrs Saliba, owned four properties in the north-western area of Sydney. The properties are located at: * 55-61 President Road, Kellyville ("No. 55-61"); * 75-83 President Road, Kellyville ("President Road"); * 10 Foxall Road, Kellyville ("Foxall Road"); and * 169 Maguires Road, Maraylya ("Maraylya"). 2This case concerns land tax exemption claims in respect of two of those properties - President Road and Foxall Road. It does not concern the remaining two properties. This is because the property at No. 55-61 has been accepted as exempt from land tax as Mr and Mrs Saliba's principal place of residence, and the property at Maraylya is rural land which the Commissioner accepts is exempt from land tax because of the primary production activities that were conducted there. 3As far as President Road and Foxall Road are concerned, the Applicants claim exemption because, they say, the properties are used for primary production purposes and all the criteria for exemption are satisfied. The Commissioner disagrees, and has made assessments in respect of both properties for each of the Relevant Years. The Applicants have asked the Tribunal to review the assessments.