Mohamed v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADT 169

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mohamed v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] NSWADT 169 Hearing dates: 11 and 12 April 2012; final submissions received 4 May 2012 Decision date: 15 August 2012 Jurisdiction: Revenue Division Before: S Frost, Judicial Member Decision: Respondent's decisions, seeking to recover first home owner grant and additional duty, are revoked. Catchwords: First home owner grant - First Home Plus Concession Scheme - residence requirement - property occupied as principal place of residence Legislation Cited: First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 Duties Act 1997 Taxation Administration Act 1996 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shaden Mohamed (Applicant) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Applicant in person Mr A Stafford (Respondent) Mr A Musgrave, Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 116046

Reasons for decision 1REVENUE DIVISION (S FROST, JUDICIAL MEMBER): The Applicant, Shaden Mohamed, purchased a home in the Sydney suburb of Hurstville in 2005. It was her first home. She received a first home owner grant (FHOG) of $7,000. She also received the benefit of a duty reduction under the First Home Plus Concession Scheme provided to first home buyers by the Duties Act 1997. 2There is a residence requirement under both schemes. The requirement is that the home must be occupied as the purchaser's principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months, and that period of occupation must start within 12 months after completion of the purchase. 3Ms Mohamed completed the purchase of the home in October 2005. Therefore, to retain her FHOG and the continuing benefit of the duty reduction, she had to start to occupy the home as her principal place of residence by October 2006. The latest date on which she could finish her six months of continuous qualifying occupation was April 2007. 4But it was very much later than that - in July 2010 - that the Commissioner notified Ms Mohamed that he was commencing an investigation into whether she had complied with the residence requirement. He was not satisfied with what he found in that investigation. In August 2010 he decided that she had not satisfied the residence requirement, and he took action to claw back the FHOG, plus interest, and to have her pay the additional duty. She objected, but the Commissioner disallowed her objection. 5It is now for the Tribunal to decide whether she can retain the FHOG, and whether she is liable to pay the additional duty.