Rayek v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 40

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rayek v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2015] NSWCATAD 40 Hearing dates: 2 February 2015 Decision date: 13 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Frost, Senior Member Decision: Assessments of first home owner grant repayment, duties (as amended by the notice of amended reassessment on 14 November 2014) and consequent penalty and interest confirmed. Catchwords: STATE REVENUE – first home owner grant – First Home Plus duty concession – residence requirement – penalty and interest Legislation Cited: First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 Duties Act 1997 Taxation Administration Act 1996 Cases Cited: Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Ferrington (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 41 Philpot v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (RD) [2008] NSWADTAP 18 Knight v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] NSWADT 83 Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Incise Technologies Pty Ltd & Anor (RD) [2004] NSWADTAP 19 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wissam Ibrahim Rayek (Applicant) Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: S Kanagaratnam (Respondent)

Solicitors: W Rayek (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410427

Reasons for decision 1. The applicant received a first home owner grant and stamp duty concessions when he bought his first home in early 2011. 2. The respondent Chief Commissioner has since formed the view that the applicant was not entitled to the grant or to the stamp duty concessions. That is because the Chief Commissioner is not satisfied that the applicant actually occupied the home, as his principal place of residence, within the timeframe allowed by the legislation. If the Chief Commissioner is correct, then the applicant will have to repay the grant and he will also have to pay the extra stamp duty. 3. The essential question for the Tribunal is whether the applicant did in fact occupy the home as his principal place of residence as required. 4. I am not satisfied that he did. My reasons follow.