Carrigan v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 1006

Background

This matter concerned 2 land tax assessments issued to the taxpayer for land at Pascoe Vale for the 2018 and 2019 land tax years.

The taxpayer became the registered proprietor of the land on 2 May 2017 under his late father’s will and remained the owner until he transferred it to his daughter in May 2019.

Issues

Whether the land was exempt from land tax pursuant to s57 of the Land Tax Act 2005. That is, did the principal place of residence (PPR) exemption in s54(1) of the Land Tax Act continue after the death of the taxpayer’s father for the purposes of the 2018 and 2019 land tax years?

The taxpayer claimed a representative of the SRO told him he had 3 years from the end of the year in which his father died to sort things out and land tax would not be due for that period.

The taxpayer also claimed a representative of a debt collection agency engaged by the SRO contacted him and agreed with him no tax should be due.

Decision

On 18 October 2024, the Tribunal provided written reasons, deciding the matter in favour of the Commissioner.

It found the PPR exemption in s54(1) of the Land Tax Act did not apply because:

• s57 of the Land Tax Act, which allows for a limited extension of the PPR exemption following a person’s passing, ceased to apply once the land was transferred to the taxpayer in his own right on 2 May 2017
• the taxpayer could not claim the PPR exemption himself because he did not live at the land at the relevant dates.

Further, the Tribunal noted the principle that there is no estoppel by representation against a revenue authority is clear and has consistently been applied at both a federal and state level.

In any event, as a matter of comity and consistency, the Tribunal followed the prior decisions of the Tribunal to the effect that no estoppel by representation lies against the Commissioner in relation to his administration of state taxation laws in the absence of anything to suggest those decisions are plainly wrong.