1. Four of the Applicant's objections raise purely procedural matters. We will deal with these together. Other land tax objections concern joint assessment of the PPR exemption for Dickens Street and the permissible period of retrospectivity for making Whites Lane assessments. These will be examined under separate headings.

1. The Applicant's objections outlined at the hearing did not correspond with the Applicant's handwritten objections noted in a Land Tax Objection Form dated 20 November 2009 and his Outline of Legal Contentions dated 5 October 2011. Counsel for the Commissioner did not assert that any consequences should flow from this failure to follow the Tribunal's appellate procedures and the matter will be ignored.

1. Under the heading "Part 10 - Objections, Reviews and Appeals", the Tax Assessment Act 1997 ("the TAA") provides

(1) A taxpayer may lodge a written objection with the Commissioner if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with -

(a) an assessment, other than a compromise assessment; or

1. The scheme of Part 10 of the TAA provides taxpayers with a means of challenging assessments to tax under state legislation. Other liabilities imposed on the Commissioner cannot be referred to the Tribunal under s-s 106(1) of the TAA.

1. Taxation List proceedings before the Tribunal cannot require the Commissioner to perform statutory duties other than appropriate assessments. Recourse must be had to administrative law remedies and/ the State Ombudsman to remedy any failure by the Commissioner to follow non-assessment duties set out in taxing legislation.

1. The Applicant's first two objections were applicable to Dickens Street and Whites Lane lands, which were jointly owned by the applicant and his mother. The 2006-2009 joint assessments of these lands, the Applicant said, should be overturned for the reason that he was not given the chance to request the Commissioner pursuant to paragraph 106(1)(b) of the TAA[1] to refer his objections to the Tribunal or the Supreme Court after more than 90 days had passed from the Commissioner receiving the objections and the objections were not determined.

1. Correctness of relevant land tax assessments was not questioned by the Applicant. In response to the Tribunal's question, the Applicant said that he could not identify any detriment suffered as a consequence of the Commissioner not complying with TAA paragraph 106(1)(b). I find, in the light of paragraph 106(1)(b) extracted above, that the Applicant's objection based in the Commissioner's non-compliance with this enactment does not constitute an "objection" within the scope of ss 96 and 97 of that Act.

1. The Applicant's 4th objection related only to the Whites Lane property assessment. The Investigation was said to be flawed because correspondence sent by the Commissioner to the Applicant included no reference to the Whites Lane property until the date of the Dickens Street and Whites Lane assessments on 8 October 2009. There was no warning, the Applicant said. He asserted that this was a "lack of due process" which undermined the Whites Lane assessment.

1. The burden of what the Applicant asserted in his 4th objection is that the Commissioner should have allowed him an opportunity to be heard and make submissions about a forthcoming Whites Lane assessment. Nothing in the Land Tax Act 2005 or the TAA suggests that the Applicant had such a right.[2] Again, the Applicant could not demonstrate suffering any detriment by reason of the Commissioner's acts.

1. The Applicant's 5th objection also related only to the Whites Lane property assessment. The Commissioner's Determination was said not to justify the imposition of land tax on the White's Lane property or otherwise deal with the Whites Lane property, with the result that the 2006-2009 assessments of Whites Lane should be overturned. To this seeming omission there is a simple answer. The Applicant's 20 November 2009 land tax objection did not relate to the Whites Lane land. Instead, Whites Lane was assessed for the first time. The Applicant did not assert that the assessment was unjustified.

Joint assessment of the Applicant and his mother in respect of Dickens Street

1. When Dickens Street was re-assessed in the light of the Applicant's non-entitlement to a PPR exemption, the 2007 reassessment was in the nature of a Joint Assessment of the Applicant and his mother as registered joint proprietors of the land. The Applicant asserts in application T19 of 2011 that the joint assessment was incorrect as it failed to credit the Applicant's mother with land tax she had paid in a separate assessment for the same year.

1. Various assessments and other documents relative to the affairs of Esther Blumberg were tendered in evidence to support this contention. In reply, Counsel for the Commissioner contended that these materials were irrelevant to the Applicant's land tax liabilities. The Applicant, he said, had misunderstood how joint owners of land are assessed in respect of PPR land.

1. Under s-s 38 (2) of the Land Tax Act 2005, joint owners of taxable land are jointly assessed for all land tax on that land without regard to the separate interests of each owner. Subsection 38(3) then separately assesses each joint owner for his or her proportionate interest in the jointly owned land together with taxable interests in other land. Rights to PPR exemptions reduce s-s 38(3) assessments, as s-s 39(2) provides.[3] Sub-section 38(4) then subtracts from s-s 38(3) assessments an amount related to tax on the taxpayer's interest in the jointly owned land and tax on any other land the taxpayer owns. The combined purpose of ss 38 and 39 of the Act is to aggregate land holdings fairly. Land which a taxpayer owns jointly and which is not exempt is assessed together with a taxpayer's other interests in land.

1. A feature of the joint ownership scheme is that, at the first s-s 38(2) step, each joint owner is assessed as though he or she were solely entitled to the jointly owned land. This was what concerned the Applicant. His contention was that his mother had already paid 2006 land tax on the whole Dickens Street property pursuant to the joint assessment. However, as explained, there were 2 further steps. At the third step, liability of the taxpayer's mother, or any other taxpayer, was irrelevant to the Applicant's 2007 Dickens Street assessment. And the taxpayer did not establish that his 2007 assessment was incorrect.

1. The Applicant's 6th objection was made in respect of both Dickens Street and Whites Lane. Under the heading of "Retrospectivity", the Determination referred to the 5-year limitation on retrospectivity of assessments provided by TAA s-s 9(3).

1. Such reference in the determination contrasted with the Commissioner's Statement of Contentions filed with the Tribunal on 8 November 2011. In the Contentions it was observed that

1. However, the time limit on reassessments that is imposed in certain circumstances by s9(3) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 does not apply to land tax: s 51 of the Land Tax Act 2005. This was pointed out to the applicant by letter dated 24 February 2011 (T-Doc 9) . . .

1. Which is the correct provision, the Applicant asked. Is the Notice of Determination erroneous? There was no substantial dispute that s 51 of the Land Tax Act 2005 excluded TAA s-s 9(3) - and that the Commissioner had followed his stated practice of applying a 5-year retrospectivity period where the "reference date" (in this case, the date of the investigation) occurred after 1 January 2009.[4]

1. This was an opportunistic objection. The Applicant pointed to what he saw as an inconsistency in the Commissioner's justification of the legal bases of the assessments appealed. However no error in the law applied to the Applicant's case has been shown and the objection is without foundation.

(a) a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the Commissioner's determination of the taxpayer's objection; or

(b) 90 days (not including any period of suspension under section 102) have passed since a taxpayer's objection was received by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has not determined the objection -

The taxpayer, in writing, may request the Commissioner to refer the matter to the Tribunal or to treat the objection as an appeal and cause it to be set down for hearing at the next sittings of the Supreme Court.

[2] _S_ee the reasoning of Lush J in Footscray Football Club Ltd v Commissioner of Payroll Tax [1983] VicRp 47; [1983] VR 505 at 510-511, in relation to the comparable scheme of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971.

[3] See Land Tax Act 2005, s-s 39(2).

[4] See Revenue Ruling LTA 007 (December 2008).