The continuing relevance of the Respondent's letter dated 18 July 1997
- The first recurrent strand is that since:
1. the Respondents recognised in a letter to the Applicants dated 18 July 1997 that their use of the Land was such as to entitle it to an exemption from land tax as land used for primary production (at the time, under old section 10(1)(p)), and
2. it continues to be used in the same way,
3. so it should continue to be so entitled.
- The letter dated 18 July 1997 sent to Mr Giammarco by the Office of State Revenue is reproduced on page 13 of the Applicants' Reply Submissions dated 8 March 2019. This letter:
1. Refers to a property described as Lot 2, Kangaroo Valley Rd, Kangaroo Valley (which I assume for present purposes is identical with the Property), and
2. States that "…It is advised that after reviewing the circumstances outlined in previous correspondence to this office, it is advised that an exemption under section 10(1)p [sic] of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 is to apply to the above mentioned property".
- The letter confirms the applicability to the Land of an exemption provided for under old section 10(1)(p). It does not establish that, as the Applicants appear to believe, the then use of the Land is one which confers on the Land in perpetuity an immutable status as satisfying whatever tests must be met in order to qualify for whatever exemption is from time to time allowed under the LTMA in relation to land used for primary production. Rather, the scope and applicability of the letter follow from the terms of the exempting provision to which it applies, and when - as in fact occurred - the legislative provision giving rise to the exemption was repealed and replaced, it followed that the letter necessarily ceased to have any continuing direct relevance in determining the future application to the Land of any exemption for land used in primary production. The factual considerations as to the use of the land which underlay the original issue of the letter may well continue to be relevant, but the letter itself does not.
- As is clear from the brief legislative history set out above under the heading Legislative Background, the exemption to which the letter of 18 July 1997 refers:
1. ceased to be applicable to exempt land from taxation under the LTMA with effect from and including the land tax year beginning 1 January 2006; but
2. continued to apply in relation to the land tax year beginning on 1 January 2005 and earlier land tax years.
- Several conclusions follow:
1. First, that the tests which the Land would have to satisfy in order to qualify for the primary production exemption from land tax on and from 1 January 2006 were different from those which it had to satisfy before that date;
2. Secondly, the conclusion in the 1997 letter, that the Land satisfied the tests for exemption under old section 10(1)(p), was of no direct relevance in determining whether it satisfied the tests applicable on and from 1 January 2006 under section 10AA; and
3. Thirdly, contrary to the Applicants' view, the legislative change made by the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Act 2005 to the regime for exempting land used for primary production was not retrospective in nature; it operated prospectively in and from the land tax year beginning on 1 January 2006 while respecting and preserving the exemptions applicable before that tax year.
- That the Respondent continued for some years to treat the Land as exempt land used for primary production is clear from his letter to the Applicants dated 22 November 2017.
- Equally clear, however, is that:
1. under section 9 of the TAA the Respondent is authorised to reassess the tax liabilities of a taxpayer in respect of the preceding 5 years:
"9 Reassessment
(1) The Chief Commissioner may make one or more reassessments of a tax liability of a taxpayer.
(2) A reassessment of a tax liability is to be made in accordance with the legal interpretations and assessment practices generally applied by the Chief Commissioner in relation to matters of that kind at the time the tax liability arose except to the extent that any departure from those interpretations and practices is required by a change in the law (whether legislative or non-legislative) made after that time.
(3) The Chief Commissioner cannot make a reassessment of a tax liability more than 5 years after the initial assessment of the liability …";
1. the assessment issued by the Respondent on 28 April 2016 which reversed the primary production exemption allowed in respect of the Land for the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 land tax years was issued in exercise of the authority conferred on the Respondent under that section;
2. by having regard to the tests set out in section 10AA of the LTMA, which had been in force since its commencement on 7 December 2005 the Respondent acted consistently with the requirements of section 9(2) of the TAA.
- The Respondent's acceptance on 9 February 2015 of Mr Giammarco's representation, that the exemption recognised on 18 July 1997 should still determine the application to the Land of a primary production exemption, does not alter this conclusion. This is for two reasons:
1. First, the provisions of section 9 of the TAA are clear, that the Respondents may issue reassessments of taxation liabilities, and
2. Secondly, as explained in the next paragraph, even if the Respondent's decision on 9 February 2015 was either (or both) legally in error or inconsistent with the subsequent 2016 decisions, the Respondent was not thereby prevented, as the Applicants appear to be arguing, from issuing the assessments comprised in the 2016 and 2017 decisions.
- It is a well-established principle that officers charged with the administration of revenue statutes must administer them in accordance with their terms, and that they are not required to perpetuate prior errors or inconsistencies of approach in subsequent cases:
1. In BBLT Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of the Office of State Revenue [2003] NSWSC 1003 at [111] Gzell J summarised as follows the law concerning the imposition of estoppels or similar restraints based on their previous conduct on officers responsible for the administration of revenue statutes:
" … with few exceptions the courts have concluded that estoppel does not lie against a fiscal authority on the basis that the authority cannot be prevented from carrying out the public duties cast upon it by the legislation (Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Wade [1951] HCA 66; (1951) 84 CLR 105, AGC (Investments) Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 91 ATC 4180, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia & New Zealand Savings Bank Ltd [1994] HCA 58; (1994) 181 CLR 466, Bellinz v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 615; (1998) 84 FCR 154, Oamington Pty Ltd (Receiver & Manager Appointed) v Commissioner of Land Tax 98 ATC 5051)". and
1. In Bellinz v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1998] FCA 615 the Federal Court of Australia goes beyond the doctrine of estoppel, to consider whether the departure in a particular case by the Federal Commissioner of Taxation from previous informal practice was unfair or discriminatory in nature. The Court there said, at page 167, that:
" …where the Commissioner is charged to administer the law … and one might say bound to do so in accordance with the language used in the statute as passed by Parliament, it is difficult to see how the Commissioner can properly be said to have acted unfairly, even if there is an element of discrimination, where he has acted in accordance with the law itself".
- The Respondent was therefore correct when he made the 2016 and 2017 decisions in declining to treat the 1997 letter as determinant of the application to the Land of the exemption provided for in section 10AA of the LTMA.