• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

……………………………….. Senior Member M. Orlov REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. By seven applications filed on 16 June 2025, the applicants seek merits review of the Commissioner’s decision on 20 May 2025 disallowing objections to land tax, penalty tax and interest assessments in respect to seven units operated as short-stay serviced apartments on residential land in Dickson for various land tax periods between Q2 2014-15 and Q1 2023-24.

2. The applications, which were heard together, initially raised two main issues: first, whether the properties were exempt from land tax in the period prior to 1 July 2018 because they were not “rented residential land” within the meaning of the Land Tax Act 2004 (LTA) and second, after 1 July 2018, when amendments by the Land Tax Amendment Act 2018 came into effect, because they were “occupied” on the first day of each quarter by persons who did not pay “rent”, relying on the exemption in section 11H(1)(b)(ii).

3. At the hearing, the Commissioner conceded the properties were exempt from land tax prior to 1 July 2018 and that the assessments in respect to those periods should be set aside and remitted to the Commissioner for reassessment. In respect to the periods from 1 July 2018, the Commissioner submitted that guests staying in the apartments did not meet the requirement for the properties to be “occupied” in the relevant sense and therefore that the exemption under section 11H does not apply.

4. For the following reasons, I am satisfied the Commissioner’s submission is correct. The properties were exempt from land tax before 1 July 2018 but not after that date, except for certain periods during which either unit 3 or unit 4 was occupied rent-free by family members involved in providing services to guests.

Background 5. In late 2013, the applicants completed construction of a seven-unit residential apartment complex on RZ3 land (urban residential zone) in Dickson. In February 2014, One of a Kind Apartments Pty Ltd as trustee for the Forsyth Family Trust commenced to operate the property as a serviced apartment business known as “One of a Kind Apartments”. On 14 April 2024, the applicants entered into a lease agreement with the corporate trustee to operate the property as a commercial enterprise providing accommodation to the public on an overnight and short-term basis. On 30 April 2024, Units Plan 4108 was registered over the property and Crown Lease 2137/50 commenced.

6. Subsequently, One of a Kind Apartments Pty Ltd operated the properties as short-stay serviced apartments available for booking by guests through the “One of a Kind Apartments” website and other on-line booking platforms. In most cases, guests stayed between one and three nights.

7. The applicants were conversant with their land tax obligations and had been assessed and paid land tax on other properties they owned. However, they considered, acting on legal advice and their own assessment, that the apartments were exempt from land tax because short-stay guests did not enter into a tenancy agreement for payment of rent.

8. The business was registered for GST purposes based on advice – later confirmed by a private ATO ruling – that the services being provided were a taxable supply. Rent paid under a tenancy agreement for residential premises does not attract GST.

9. At different times, either unit 3 or unit 4 was used as an office and manager’s residence by family members providing services to guests. Unit 6 was transferred to another family member on 11 February 2016.

10. On 5 December 2022, the second applicant completed land tax request for information forms in relation to unit 4 in which she advised, among other things, that unit 4 was occupied rent-free by a family member from 1 July 2014 to 1 October 2018 and from 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2022 and provided conflicting information about whether the unit was rented between 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2021.

11. On 20 January 2023, the ACT Revenue Office (ACTRO) sought clarification whether the property was rented between 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2021.

12. The second applicant confirmed the same day that unit 4 had been used exclusively by immediate family since 2014 and that all expenses of the property had been paid by the applicants. On 31 January 2023, the ACTRO advised that based on the second applicant’s responses and their “internal indicators” there did not appear to be a land tax liability for the specified periods.

13. The serviced apartment business ceased to operate in early 2023. Units 3 and 4 were transferred to third parties on 29 January 2024 and 23 February 2024 respectively after which the applicants retained ownership of units 1, 2, 5 and 7.

14. On 16 February 2023, the second applicant contacted the ACTRO advising she was unable to complete the online requests for information in relation to the other six units. The ACTRO advised her that it would send her an email instead to which she was welcome to reply.

15. On 17 February 2023, the ACTRO wrote to the applicants requesting information for each property about the start and end dates of when the properties were rented or vacant, owner occupied or occupied rent-free or for nominal rent, among other things.

16. On 23 February 2023, the applicants provided the ACTRO with information that unit 5 was rented from 19 February 2023. On 1 March 2023, the applicants lodged a land tax declaration stating unit 1 was not their principal place of residence and was rented from 13 February 2023. On 27 April 2023, the applicants provided information that unit 7 was rented from 23 April 2023 and on 16 May 2023, lodged a land tax declaration stating unit 7 was not their principal place of residence and was rented from 23 April 2023.

17. On 3 May 2023, the applicants submitted a letter from Dwyer Lawyers explaining why the applicants considered the properties were not subject to land tax. The ACTRO responded on 17 May 2023, reiterating the earlier request made on 17 February 2023 for information relating to each property.

18. On 31 May 2023, the applicants advised the ACTRO they subscribed to a hotel booking system, Little Hotelier, which managed their bookings and supplied a 31-page spreadsheet recording guest bookings for 2022.

19. On 26 June 2023, the ACTRO requested the spreadsheets for the previous eight years. These were provided the same day.

20. On 24 July 2023, the ACTRO advised the applicants that the spreadsheets did not include records for unit 3 and enquired whether unit 3 was known as “Apartment 4” and, if they were different units, requested the booking records for unit 3.

21. On 31 July 2023, the first applicant responded: We subscribe to a booking platform, Little Hotelier, that controlled all of our short-term bookings. This subscription lapsed earlier this year when we closed our short-term accommodation business. We also notice that there is no mention of unit 3 on the spreadsheets we sent you. We do not know why this is the case. For your records, for the entire duration of our business, either unit 3 or 4 were occupied by family who were onsite to immediately attend to guest’s needs. From February 2014 to December 2020 this was unit 4. From December 2020 until now, this family occupied unit, has been unit 3.

22. On 16 August 2023, the Commissioner issued notices of assessment to the applicants for the following amounts: (a) $20,727.52 for unit 1, comprising land tax for Q2 2014-15 to Q1 2023-24 ($19,221.02), penalty tax at 5% ($855.34) and interest ($651.16); (b) $20,024.42 for unit 2, comprising land tax for Q2 2014-15 to Q1 2023-24 ($18,567.36), penalty tax at 5% ($826.51) and interest ($630.55); (c) $14,517.52 for unit 3, comprising land tax for Q2 2014-15 to Q2 2020-21 ($13,197.46), penalty tax at 5% ($659.84) and interest ($660.22); (d) $9,789.74 for unit 4, comprising land tax for Q3 2020-21 to Q3 2022-23 ($6,390.87), penalty tax at 50% ($2,819.19) and interest ($579.68); (e) $23,289.45 for unit 5, comprising land tax for Q1 2014-15 to Q1 2023-24 ($21,565.04), penalty tax at 5% ($960.90) and interest ($763.51); (f) $2,454.00 for unit 6, comprising land tax for Q2 2014-15 to Q3 2015-15 ($2,123.10), penalty tax at 5% ($106.15) and interest (($224.75); (g) $21,858.16 for unit 7, comprising land tax for Q1 2014-15 to Q1 2023-24 ($20,236.47), penalty at 5% ($902.25) and interest ($719.44).

23. The Commissioner determined the properties were not exempt from land tax before 1 July 2018 because they were “rented residential land” within the meaning of the LTA as in force at the time and, after 1 July 2018, because guests occupying the premises paid “rent”, so that the exemption claimed under section 11H did not apply.

24. The Commissioner contests the applications only in respect to land tax periods after 1 July 2018 when changes to the way land tax is imposed on residential land by the Land Tax Amendment Act 2018 came into effect. The Commissioner concedes new assessments must be issued in respect to the earlier periods, which will happen once the balance of the applications is decided.

The issues

25. The key issue is whether the properties are exempt from land tax from 1 July 2018 under section 11H(1)(b) of the Land Tax Act 2004.

26. If land tax is payable, it is necessary to decide what penalty tax should apply.

27. The decision to impose interest is not reviewable by the ACAT.

Relevant legislation

28. After 1 July 2018, section 9 of the LTA imposed land tax at the appropriate rate for a quarter on each parcel of rateable land that is “residential land” unless the land is exempt under section 10 or 11. Section 10 provides that parcels of land are exempt from land tax if exempted under any of sections 11A to 11I. For present purposes, only section 11H is relevant. 1

29. All land in the ACT is rateable land.

30. The dictionary for the LTA defines “residential land” to mean: (a) rateable land leased for residential purposes only; (b) rateable land leased for residential purposes and other purposes but used for residential purposes only; or (c) a parcel of rateable land included in the common property of a community title scheme under the Community Title Act 2001, if –

1 The dictionary for the LTA defines ‘rateable land’ by reference to the Rates Act 2004, section 4. (i) at least 1 parcel of land in the scheme is residential land under paragraph (a) or (b); and (ii) no parcel of land in the scheme is leased for a commercial purpose.

31. “Residential purposes” is not defined in the LTA or the Legislation Act 2001. However, the expression “leased for residential purposes” clearly refers to a Crown lease of land where the permitted use is as a dwelling – whether a single dwelling or multi-unit housing comprising several single dwellings.

32. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Land Tax Amendment Bill 2018 states: Land Tax is currently imposed under the Land Tax Act 2004 (the Act) on: • rented residential land; or • residential land owned by a corporation or trustee. This Bill changes the way land tax is imposed on residential land. It introduces a ‘principal place of residence’ test as the primary determinant of liability for land tax in place of a ‘rented’ test. Residential land which is an owner’s principal place of residence will be exempt from land tax. Any other residential land will be subject to land tax including properties left vacant by an owner. This acts as a financial incentive for owners to put their properties into the rental market rather than leaving them vacant for long periods of time. Exceptions will be introduced in certain circumstances: for owners moving in or out of a principal place of residence; for deceased estates; and land unfit for occupation. Other exemptions currently within the Act will be retained including the exemption for nil or nominal rent arrangements. A rented test will continue to apply to secondary, self-contained dwellings on a single lease, such as a granny flat, where the other dwelling on the parcel of land is the owner’s principal place of residence.

33. Land is exempt under section 11H(1) if, on the first day of a quarter, a parcel of land is: (a) owned by someone other than a corporation or trustee; and (b) occupied by a person who – (i) is liable only to pay an amount that is not more than the total amount required for rates, repairs, maintenance and insurance in relation to the parcel; or (ii) pays no rent for the parcel. Matters not in dispute

34. The following matters are not in dispute.

35. First, following the subdivision of the original parcel of land on which the units were constructed by registration of a units plan, the land comprising the parcel is 2 taken to continue to be a single parcel of land. However, in applying the LTA to the unit subdivision, a reference to a parcel of land in relation to the assessment 3 or payment of land tax is a reference to a unit.

36. Second, the Crown Lease purpose clause permits the use of the land for the purpose only of a single dwelling or multi-unit housing of not more than seven dwellings.

37. Third, the units plan includes, in clause 3 of Form 4, a covenant by each lessee of each unit to use the unit as a single dwelling only.

38. Fourth, it follows that for land tax purposes, each unit is treated as a parcel of rateable land leased for residential purposes only – namely as a single dwelling.

39. Fifth, after 1 July 2018, each unit was liable to the imposition of land tax at the appropriate rate for a quarter unless the exemption under section 11H(1) applied.

Submissions

40. It was common ground that because the applicants owned the properties at relevant times, the condition in section 11H(1)(a) is met.

41. Where the parties diverged is on the issue whether the condition in section 11H(1)(b)(ii) is met – namely, whether the properties were “occupied by a person who…pays no rent for the parcel”.

42. The applicants’ consistent position has been that paragraph (b)(ii) is met because the provision of short-stay accommodation to guests of One-of-a-Kind Apartments does not give rise to a “residential tenancy agreement” or, since 10 December 2019, a “tenancy agreement” under which guests pay “rent” within the meaning of section 7 of the LTA.

2 LTA, section 26(1) 3 LTA, section 26(2)

43. Between 1 July 2018 and 9 December 2019, “rent” was defined in section 7 as valuable consideration for which a tenant is liable under a “residential tenancy agreement” – as defined in section 6A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 – in relation to the residential tenancy or a period of the residential tenancy. Since 10 December 2019, “rent” is defined as valuable consideration for which a tenant is liable under a “tenancy agreement” in relation to the tenancy or a period of the tenancy, where “tenancy agreement” means: (a) …an agreement under which a person grants to someone else for value a right of occupation of a parcel of land for use as a residence – (i) whether the right of occupation is exclusive or not; and (ii) whether the agreement is express or implied; and (iii) whether the agreement is in writing, is oral, or is partly in writing and partly oral; but (b) does not include an agreement giving a right of occupation only as a boarder or lodger.

44. At the hearing, the Commissioner conceded for the first time that the daily tariff paid by guests for use of a serviced apartment for short-term accommodation does not constitute payment of “rent” but submitted that paragraph (b)(ii) is not met because the premises are not “occupied” in the relevant sense, namely occupied for use as a residence.

45. The Commissioner submitted the exemption in section 11H is not directed to non-rental arrangements where something other than rent is charged.

46. The Commissioner submitted that as the word “occupied” is not defined in the LTA or the Legislation Act 2001 it must take its ordinary meaning. The Commissioner referred to various dictionary definitions of “occupy”, “occupied”, “resident” and “resides”. “Occupy” means to “be resident or established in (a 4 5 place) as its tenant; to tenant” and “reside in; be the tenant of”. “Occupied” means “[t]o live in and use (a place) as its tenant or regular inhabitant; to inhabit; 6 7 to stay or lodge in”. “Resident” is a person “who resides in a place” or “[t]hat

4 Macquarie Dictionary, “occupy” 5 Oxford Australian Dictionary, “occupy” 6 Oxford English Dictionary, “occupied” 7 Macquarie Dictionary, “resident” resides, dwells, or has an abode in a place; living somewhere on a long-term 8 basis” while “resides” means “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; 9 have as one’s abode for a time” or “to have one’s settled or usual home in or at 10 11 a particular place” and “have one’s home, dwell permanently”.

47. The Commissioner relied on Marana Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner 12 of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 307, where the Full Federal Court considered the meaning of “residential premises” in section 40-65 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Act) 1999 (Cth) (GST Act). The issue was whether a motel was a building occupied as a residence, or was intended or capable of being so occupied, within the meaning of “residential premises” in section 195-1 of the GST Act. In finding that it was not, the Full Court concluded that motel accommodation, by its nature, lacked the permanence normally associated with the concept of “residence”. The Court considered the dictionary definitions of “residence”, “reside” and residential” and concluded that the expression “residential premises”: …includes premises which are occupied as a residence, or intended to be, and capable of being so occupied. In that context the word “residence” has the meaning attributed to it by the various dictionary references, involving a degree of permanent or long-term commitment to the occupation of the 13 premises in question.

48. The Commissioner also referred to Revenue Circular GEN011.2 Principal Place of Residence issued 11 September 2023, which states “to occupy ordinarily means to inhabit, live in, or reside at a home” and “[a] home is considered occupied by a person if the person actively uses and lives in the home, with a degree or permanence, to use it as a residence” and sets out factors the ACTRO will consider in determining whether a person has occupied a place of residence. The document is not material that sections 141 and 142 of the Legislation Act 2001

8 Oxford English Dictionary, “resident” 9 Macquarie Dictionary, “resides” 10 Oxford English Dictionary, “reside” 11 Oxford Australian Dictionary, “reside” 12 Followed in Sunchen Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 138 13 (2004) 141 FCR 29 at [57] permits to be considered in working out the meaning of the LTA. Accordingly, I have not had regard to it.

49. The applicants submitted that to be “occupied” for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii) “means to be in use, to be available. To be not occupied means to be 14 vacant and unavailable”. The submission was not supported by any detailed textual or contextual analysis of the legislation.

Consideration

50. “Occupied” is a word that takes its meaning from the context in which it is used. At one end of the scale, it may refer to a transient use of a place or space. Thus, in ordinary parlance it is common to refer to a seat on a bus or a toilet cubicle on a plane which is in use as “occupied”. At the other end of the scale, as the dictionary definitions on which the Commissioner relies show, “occupied” may refer to a permanent or long-term use of a place as a place of residence.

51. It is necessary therefore to consider the legislative context in which the word is used in section 11H(1)(b).

52. The amendments to the LTA that commenced on 1 July 2018 imposed land tax on all residential land that is not used as the owner’s principal place of residence subject to limited exceptions. This was a marked departure from the previous scheme where land tax was imposed only on residential land that was rented or owned by a corporation of trustee. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the evident purpose of the change was to create a financial incentive for owners to rent their properties rather than leave them vacant.

53. All rented residential land is subject to land tax. “Rent” for land tax purposes is valuable consideration for which a tenant is liable under an agreement granting 15 them a right of occupation of land for use as a residence. The exemption in

14 T 45.30-37 15 Between 1 July 2018 and 9 December 2019, ‘rent’ was defined in section 7 of the LTA as valuable consideration for which a tenant is liable under a ‘residential tenancy agreement’, that term taking its meaning from section 6A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. Relevantly, a ‘residential tenancy agreement’ was defined as an agreement giving a tenant a right to occupy stated premises “to use as a home”. Since 10 December 2019, section 7 of the LTA has defined ‘rent’ as valuable consideration for which a tenant is liable under a ‘tenancy agreement’, which in turn is defined as section 11H(1)(b)(i) must be viewed in the context. The section provides an exemption for a parcel that is occupied by a person who is liable to pay only an amount that is no more than the total required to cover the cost of rates, repairs, maintenance and insurance in relation to the parcel.

54. The use of the word “liable” implies the existence of an agreement under which the person is granted a right of occupation of the land for use as a residence in consideration for payment of an amount that is limited to the total necessary to cover the direct costs of ownership of the land.

55. An agreement of that kind meets the requirements of a ‘residential tenancy agreement’ within the meaning of section 7 of the LTA between 1 July 2018 and 10 December 2019 and a ‘tenancy agreement’ after that date. Consideration payable under the agreement is ‘rent’ within the meaning of section 7.

56. The evident purpose of paragraph (b)(i) is to provide an exemption from land tax for a limited category of rented residential land. In that context, the expression “occupied by a person” must mean occupied by a person for use as a home or residence.

57. This informs the meaning of paragraph (b)(ii), which provides an exemption for a parcel of land that is occupied by a person who “pays no rent for the parcel”. The expression “pays no rent” implies the existence of an agreement under which a person occupies a parcel for use as a home or residence without being required to pay any amount as rent.

58. The evident purpose of paragraph (b)(ii) is to provide an exemption from land tax for a limited category of residential land that is neither vacant residential land nor rented residential land.

59. A parcel of land is “occupied by a person” for use as a home or residence when the person inhabits, lives or resides there on a permanent or long-term basis as their place of residence.

an agreement under which a person grants someone else for value a right of occupation of a parcel of land for use as a residence. In that context the expressions “to use as a home” and “for use as a residence” have the same meaning.

60. The applicants’ use of a multi-housing apartment complex constructed on residential land as short-stay serviced apartments was a “commercial accommodation use” and not a “residential use”– as defined in the Territory Plan 2008 (repealed) Part 13 – of residential land which was zoned RZ3 (Urban Residential Zone). “Commercial accommodation use” included “serviced apartment”, which was defined as an apartment that is used as a “commercial accommodation unit”. “Commercial accommodation unit” was defined as a room or suite of rooms made available on a commercial basis for short-term accommodation and may comprise a dwelling but not a room or suite of rooms within a dwelling. At all relevant times, the use of land as a “serviced apartment” was a prohibited development in all residential zones (RZ1 – RZ5) and was a permissible development only in some commercial zones (CZ1, CZ2, CZ3 and CZ6).

61. I am unable to find any textual or contextual support for giving the word “occupied” the limited meaning for which the applicants contend. Doing so would confer an unintended benefit on the applicants in the form of an exemption from land tax resulting from the unlawful use of residential land for a commercial accommodation purpose. If the short-stay serviced apartment business had been conducted lawfully on land appropriately zoned for commercial accommodation use, land tax would not have been imposed but the applicants would have been liable to pay substantially higher rates.

62. I am satisfied therefore that the exemption under section 11H(1)(b)(ii) does not apply to the units generally. The Commissioner has determined that an exemption under section 11H applies for certain periods when either unit 3 or unit 4 was occupied by family members living rent-free while assisting in the running of the business. I see no reason to disturb that finding.

Penalty tax

63. Section 31 of the Tax Administration Act 1999 (TAA) imposes penalty tax in relation to a tax default of 25% of the amount of tax unpaid.

64. Section 32 provides for penalty tax to be reduced by 80% if, before the taxpayer is informed that an investigation is to be carried out, the taxpayer discloses to the Commissioner in writing sufficient information to enable the nature and extent of the tax default to be determined.

65. The Commissioner applied the 80% reduction in penalty tax under section 32 in relation to units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The reduction was appropriate having regard to the voluntary disclosures the applicants made in their dealings with the ACTRO.

66. The Commissioner increased the amount of penalty tax payable in relation to unit 4 for Q3 2020-21 to Q2 2022-23 to 50% pursuant to the discretion conferred by section 31(2)(a)(iii) of the TAA, on the basis that the applicants advised the Commissioner that unit 4 was occupied rent-free from 2014 to 2023, which the Commissioner considered to be the provision of information under a tax law that was incorrect, incomplete or misleading.

67. The advice the applicants provided the Commissioner about unit 4 on 5 December 2022 and 20 January 2023 was incorrect. So much is clear. The correct information was given on 31 July 2023, when the applicants advised that unit 4 was used by family members rent free from February 2014 to December 2020 after which unit 3 was used for that purpose. The reason for the confusion and the apparent lack of records relating to unit 3 was explained at the hearing. The first applicant referred to the booking records for unit 4 and said: MR FORSYTH: So all of these [records], this is courtesy of the Little Hotelier, this is their booking software, they manage it, we pay a subscription. And for us, on our website, on all of our booking platforms, there were six suites, never unit one, two, three, five, six, seven. It was always--- SENIOR MEMBER: Delhi here (sic) or whatever. MR FORSYTH: Exactly. Ourselves, we always thought in those terms and you can see the booking channel itself essentially registered that. The clients, when they arrived, that’s pretty well what they knew. When we moved the --- suite that we were occupying from number 4 to number 3, we informed Little Hotelier that number 4 was now Kyoto. So prior to about January 1, 2021, on the Little Hotelier, number 3 was Kyoto. Kyoto was number 3. After that, number 4 became Kyoto. And so what we see is that all the way back to 2018, this is what AI and computers do. Unit 4, or Kyoto, 16 became unit 4.

16 T60.8-48

68. The discretion to increase the amount of penalty tax under section 31(2) is enlivened only if the Commissioner is satisfied that the tax default – i.e. the failure to pay, in accordance with a tax law, the whole or part of the tax the taxpayer is liable to pay – was caused wholly or partly by the taxpayer (or a person acting on their behalf) providing information required under a tax law that is incorrect, incomplete or misleading.

69. The information relating to unit 4 the applicants provided to the ACTRO on 5 December 2022 and 20 January 2023 was undoubtedly incorrect. But I fail to see how the information could be said to have caused the tax defaults which occurred when the applicants failed to pay land tax due on unit 4 for each quarter from Q3 2020-21 to Q2 2022-23 – i.e. for quarters commencing 1 January 2021 to and including 1 October 2022. The tax defaults had already occurred when the incorrect information was given.

70. In my view, the factual circumstances necessary to enliven the discretion to increase the penalty tax rate to 50% for Q3 2020-21 to Q2 2022-23 are not present, in which case the default rate of 25% should apply.

71. The tax default in relation to Q3 2022-23, which commenced on 1 January 2023, is in a different category. I am satisfied that the default was caused partly by the provision of incorrect information to the Commissioner in December 2022 and January 2023.

72. The question then is whether the discretion to increase the penalty tax payable for that quarter to 50% should be exercised.

73. Viewed in the context of the applicants’ voluntary disclosures to the Commissioner in relation to the other units, I am satisfied the incorrect information given to the Commissioner about unit 4 resulted from inadvertence rather than because of any conscious intention to misrepresent the facts. While this does not excuse the tax defaults, I am not persuaded that considerations of general or specific deterrence justify increasing the penalty rate to 50% in the present circumstances. I am satisfied that the preferable decision in those circumstances is to leave the penalty tax rate at 25%.

74. In my view there are no grounds for remission of all or any part of the penalty tax under section 37 of the TAA. None were suggested.

The correct or preferable decisions

75. The Commissioner’s decision to disallow the objections to the assessment of land tax and penalty tax in respect to the quarters predating 1 July 2018 should be set aside and substituted by a decision is to allow the objections.

76. The decision to disallow the objections to the assessment of land tax and penalty tax for units 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in respect to quarters commencing from 1 July 2018 is correct and should be confirmed.

77. The decision to disallow the objections to the assessment of land tax and penalty tax for unit 4 should be varied by substituting a decision to impose penalty tax at 25% for the Commissioner’s decision to increase the amount of penalty tax from 25 % to 50%.

78. Although the applicants have had a degree of success resulting from the Commissioner’s concession in relation to assessments predating Q1 2018-19, they have been unsuccessful in relation to the periods commencing from 1 July 2018, other than a reduction in penalty tax for unit 4. In those circumstances, I am satisfied the Commissioner should not be ordered to pay the applicants the filing fees for the applications, except for AT 70/2025 relating to unit 6 in which the applicants were wholly successful.

79. Orders will be framed accordingly in each matter.

……………………………….. Senior Member M Orlov Date of hearing: 26 September 2025 Applicants: In person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Wells Solicitors for the Respondent: ACT Government Solicitor