1. The assessment for the 2016 land tax year dated 19 May 2016 (no. 97129308) is varied to exempt from land tax, under sections 22 and 77(3) of the Land Tax Act 2005:

(a) 47% of the land at 28-36 Barton Street, Bell Park 3215 known as Lifestyle Geelong; and

(b) 51% of the land at 150 De Rossi Boulevard, Wollert 3750 known as Lifestyle Lyndarum.

1. The Commissioner of State Revenue is to issue an amended assessment in line with Order 1, and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of section 114(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997.
2. The parties have liberty to apply for further orders or directions if any dispute arises between the parties in relation to the steps taken or required to be taken to give effect to these Orders.

1. Lifestyle Investments 1 Pty Ltd (First Applicant), Lifestyle Investments 2 Pty Ltd and Lifestyle Communities Cranbourne Pty Ltd are members of the Lifestyle Communities group of companies (LC Group) which 'operate "lifestyle" residential communities in Victoria'.[1]
2. On 19 May 2016, the Commissioner issued an assessment (no. 97129308) to the First Applicant imposing land tax of $317,590.43 for the 2016 land tax year (Assessment) in respect of various properties owned by the LC Group, including land located at:
   1. 28-36 Barton Street, Bell Park (Lifestyle Geelong); and
   2. 150 De Rossi Boulevard, Wollert (Lifestyle Lyndarum),

1. In its objection dated 7 July 2016, the First Applicant contended that the Relevant Properties were exempt from land tax under section 77(1) of the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) (LT Act) on the basis that each property was 'used as a registered caravan park' and that the 2016 land tax assessment should be varied to exclude tax assessed in respect of each of those two properties.
2. In his determination made on 25 May 2017, the Commissioner of State Revenue (Commissioner) accepted the submission that Lifestyle Lyndarum was wholly exempt, but only allowed a partial exemption as to 47% for Lifestyle Geelong. However, it appears that no amended assessment has been issued to give effect to this determination.
3. On 23 November 2017, the Commissioner referred this application to the Tribunal at the request of Lifestyle Communities under section 106 of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic) (TA Act).
4. By orders made by the Tribunal on 19 March 2018, the parties were granted leave pursuant to section 109 of the TA Act to amend their grounds (beyond what was contained in the applicants' objection and the respondent's determination) as follows:
   1. the First Applicant was given leave to add as grounds that the Relevant Properties were exempt from land tax under sections 78 and/or 78A of the LT Act; and
   2. the Commissioner was given leave to argue that Lifestyle Lyndarum was only partially exempt under section 77 of the LT Act.
5. Attempts by the parties over an extended period to settle the matter failed, and the matter was finally listed for hearing on 20 May 2019.
6. At the hearing, the only witness was Mr James Kelly who is the Managing Director of the LC Group. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision.
7. For the reasons set out in these reasons, I have determined that:
   1. the exemption, found in section 78A of the LT Act, for land on which a retirement village is to be constructed is not apt to apply to the Relevant Properties; and
   2. only part[2] of each of the Relevant Properties is used as a registered caravan park and entitled to the exemption in section 77(3) of the LT Act to that extent,[3]

and the assessment issued by the Commissioner should be varied accordingly.

1. Section 77 of the LT Act contains the exemption from land tax for caravan parks, and provides:
   • (1) Land is exempt land if the Commissioner determines that it is used as a registered caravan park.

(3) If the Commissioner is satisfied that only a part of land is used as a registered caravan park -

(a) land tax is assessable on the remaining part of the land, unless another exemption applies to that part; and

(b) section 22 applies, if necessary, for that purpose.

"registered caravan park" means a caravan park within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 that is registered in accordance with regulations made under section 515 of that Act.

1. Section 78A of the LT Act contains the exemption from land tax for retirement villages under construction, and provides:

(1) Land is exempt land if the Commissioner is satisfied that any of the following is being constructed on that land -

(2) An exemption under this section will apply in respect of the land until the earlier of -

(a) the date of completion of construction of the residential care facility, supported residential service, residential service or retirement village on the land; or

(b) the expiry of 2 tax years following the date of commencement of construction.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the date of commencement of construction is -

(a) if a building permit for the construction of a residential care facility, supported residential service, residential service or retirement village on the land was issued on or before 31 December 2010 and construction is not completed at that date - 31 December 2010; or

(b) in any other case - the date of issue of the building permit for the construction of the residential care facility, supported residential service, residential service or retirement village on the land.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the date of completion of construction is -

(a) if the building permit for the construction states that an occupancy permit is required - the date of issue of the occupancy permit under the Building Act 1993; or

(b) in any other case - the date of issue of the certificate of final inspection under that Act.

1. Retirement village is defined in section 78(3) of the LT Act in the following terms:

"retirement village" means a complex containing residential premises (whether or not including hostel units) predominantly or exclusively occupied, or available for occupation, by retired persons under -

(a) a residential tenancy agreement or any other lease or licence; or

(c) the ownership of residential premises subject to a right or option of repurchase on conditions restricting the subsequent disposal of the premises -

other than a complex or premises that is or are a residential care facility or supported residential service.

Caravan park exemption under s 77 of the LT Act

1. Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum are two "lifestyle" residential communities owned and operated by the LC Group. The structure of the communities operated by the LC Group are that:[4]

[a] resident buys a home and a share of the community infrastructure and then rents a particular site in the community for it. The home is bought under a 'Home Purchase Agreement'. ... The lease of a particular site occurs under a 'Residential Site Agreement'. Each lease is for 90 years. The residents obviously also get the use of common areas of the community.

1. The 'homes' to which reference is made are 'unregistrable moveable dwellings' as defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, and include carports and garden areas.[5]
2. The residents who live in the communities are 'permanent residents, not tourists like in tourist or camping parks'.[6] Mr Kelly says that the residents are 'overwhelmingly retirees',[7] however he conceded in cross-examination that the communities were open to anyone aged 50 or more, and that the marketing was not limited to retirees.
3. Both Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum were developed on a staged basis.
4. Mr Kelly attached a site plan for Lifestyle Lyndarum to his witness statement.[8] This shows that the entire community was intended to have 155 caravan sites and was to be developed in 3 stages. As at 31 December 2015,[9] stage 1 - which comprised 48 sites and the community infrastructure (a club house, tennis court and lawn bowls field) - was largely completed. Homes had been built on all sites and most had settled and were presumably occupied. Stage 2 comprised 40 sites, of which one was built and 13 were at frame stage. Stage 3, which comprised 67 sites, was still under development.
5. Similarly, Mr Kelly attached a site plan for Lifestyle Geelong to his witness statement.[10] This shows that the entire community was intended to have 165 caravan sites and was to be developed in 3 stages. As at 31 December 2015, stage 1 - which comprised 52 sites and the community infrastructure (a club house, tennis court and lawn bowls field) - was largely completed. Homes had been built on all but nine sites (which were still at frame stage) and 17 had settled (and were likely occupied). Stage 2 (which comprised 62 sites) and stage 3 (which comprised 51 sites) were still under development.
6. In broad terms, the issue in relation to the exemption in section 77 of the LT Act is whether the reference to 'use' refers to current physical use as a caravan park or extends to the whole of a site acquired for and devoted to the purpose of a caravan park, albeit that some areas remain under construction.

1. For the LC Group, it is contended that the Relevant Properties are exempt because each:[11]

had been acquired for a particular purpose, was devoted wholly to that purpose, formed one 'area of land' comprising a caravan park, was registered or ought to have been registered as such, and was operating or functioning as such, notwithstanding that there may have been little or even no immediate physical use by existing residents of sites awaiting new residents.

High Court authority establishes that 'use' - the exemption does not require 'occupation' - is a word 'of wide import', such that where only a part of land is used physically as a hospital or quarry (or for whatever particular purpose), in considering the remaining part, the question will generally be whether the land as a whole has been 'wholly devoted' to the purpose rather than whether there was an 'immediate physical use of every part'.

1. They further submit the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Applewood Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Applewood),[13] which concerned the application of an exemption from land tax to a retirement village under construction, can be distinguished because the relevant provision considered in that case required the land to be both used and occupied as a retirement village.[14]

1. The Commissioner refers to the decision of Nettle JA in Applewood[15] for the proposition that land which is mostly still to be developed is outside the analysis in Newcastle Hospital.[16] In particular, the Commissioner relies on the observation by Nettle JA that:[17]

in a case like the present where the project is still being developed, the land on which the project is being developed is not being used for the purpose for which it will be used once it has been developed.

[n]o relevant distinction can be drawn between an exemption for retirement villages in the [former land tax legislation] and for a caravan park under the [LT Act]. The only relevant distinction is that the [former land tax legislation] uses the expression "use and occupy" and the [LT Act] simply uses "use". That distinction does not assist the Applicants, however, because the evidence is that Stages 2 and 3 of [Lifestyle Geelong] and most of Stage 2 and all of Stage 3 of [Lifestyle Lyndarum] were neither used nor occupied as a caravan park.

1. The issue in this case is a question of statutory construction. It is now trite law that the task of statutory construction must begin with the text, as the text is the surest guide to legislative intention.[19]
2. The exemption in section 77 of the LT Act applies to land 'used as a registered caravan park'. There is no debate that Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum are (and were at the relevant time) registered caravan parks.[20]
3. As observed by Taylor J in Newcastle Hospital, the 'word "used" is, of course, a word of wide import and its meaning in any particular case will depend to a great extent upon the context in which it is employed'.[21]
4. That proposition is not unusual as, in matters of statutory construction, the 'meaning of the statutory text may require consideration of the context, including the general purpose and policy of a provision'.[22]
5. Section 77 of the LT Act, which provides the exemption for caravan parks, is within Part 4 of that Act, dealing generally with exemptions and concessions and, more particularly, in Division 5 of Part 4 dealing with exemptions and concessions relating to accommodation (including rooming houses, residential care facilities, supported residential services, residential services for people with disabilities and retirement villages).
6. Each form of accommodation is specifically defined, usually by reference to some other legislative regime. For instance, in relation to a supported residential service, this is defined by reference to the Supported Residential Services (Private Proprietors) Act 2010. There appears to be some form of common thread in that the accommodation is low cost (eg. in the case of a rooming house) or for people that might have reduced incomes (eg. those with a disability in the case of residential services or retirees in the case of a retirement village). In each case, there are specific requirements for accessing, and limitations in respect of, the applicable exemption, but there is lack of consistency between those requirements and limitations.
7. Section 77 of the LT Act is a re-enactment of the provision formerly contained in section 9(1)(l) of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Former Act), which in turn was introduced in 2005. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that introduced the provision explained that the section:[23]

adds land used as a registered caravan park into those categories of land exempt from land tax. This is backdated to 1 January 2005. This clause also amends the Act to enable the Commissioner to apply the exemption on an apportionate (sic) basis if the Commissioner considers that it is only part of the land to which the exempt use applies.

1. It appears that the introduction of this exemption was formally announced as part of the Victorian budget in 2005.[24]
2. There was some consistency between the exemption for caravan parks introduced by section 9(1)(l) of the Former Act and the exemption for retirement villages (in section 9(1)(j) of the Former Act) in its form for the 2002 land tax year, as considered in Applewood. In this regard, section 9(1)(l) exempted 'land which is used as a registered caravan park', while section 9(1)(j) exempted 'land which is used and occupied as a retirement village and for no other purpose' (emphasis added to highlight differences).
3. In the 2002 land tax year, the context for the exemption for retirement villages included sections 9(2AA) and 9(2AB) of the Former Act. Section 9(2AA) provided that:

Land does not cease to be used and occupied for the purpose of a retirement village merely because any building or improvement on the land is used or occupied for a purpose ancillary to that purpose.

If the Commissioner is satisfied that part only of land is used and occupied as a retirement village and for no other purpose, the unimproved value of the land must be reduced for the purposes of land tax by an amount calculated in accordance with [a formula referable to the portion of the total area that was relevantly used and occupied].

1. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Applewood concerned an assessment that had been overturned by this Tribunal[25] and then restored on appeal by the Supreme Court.[26] Nettle JA gave the lead judgement, with which Chernov and Redlich JJA agreed. In dismissing the appeal, Nettle JA confirmed that the judge was correct (and the Tribunal had erred) in finding that the exemption did not apply to the whole of the land.[27] In particular, Nettle JA said the judge correctly stated that:[28]

s 9(1)(j) must be read in conjunction with s 9(2AB), and the latter provides expressly for the possibility that the whole of a piece of land may be held for the purpose of a retirement village and for no other purpose and yet that only part of the land may be used and occupied as a retirement village at a specified time. Section 9(2AB) does indeed require the sort of compartmentalised approach which the judge adopted, breaking down parcels of land into components and affording exemption only to those components which are used and occupied for the specified purpose at the relevant time.

Comparison of s 9(1)(j) and (2AB) with other exemptions provided for in s 9(1) suggests the draftsman took considerable care to narrow the exemption to land actually used and occupied as a retirement village, as opposed to land which is used or held for the purposes of a retirement village. ... The draftsman has eschewed reference to use for a [specified] purpose, and instead employed the expression "used and occupied as a retirement village" in order to ensure there can be no doubt that the exemption is not engaged unless land is actually used and occupied as a retirement village at the relevant time.

1. It appears that Nettle JA's assessment of the provisions did accord with the Parliament's intent because the legislature amended the retirement village exemption in 2003 (prior to his decision) to overcome an earlier Tribunal decision to like effect as the Tribunal's decision in Applewood. The change removed the reference to "use" from section 9(1)(j) and removed the ancillary purpose provision. The explanatory memorandum for those amendments explained:[30]

Sub-clause (1) substitutes section 9(1)(j) of the Land Tax Act 1958 which contains the exemption from land tax available in respect of land occupied as a retirement village. Section 9(1)(j) will now provides (sic) that land which is occupied, or currently available for occupation, as a retirement village, is exempt from land tax. This amendment is required following the decision in Burwood Terrace Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2002] VCAT 183. In that decision, the Tribunal determined that this exemption was available in respect of the full parcel of land even though not all of that parcel had been developed into retirement village units, was not occupied by residents, and was not even available for occupation as a retirement village. It was only intended that the exemption would be available to the extent a parcel of land is developed into units that are occupied, or completed and available for occupation. Land which is part of the same complex and used for ancillary purposes, is also exempt. The exemption was never intended to apply to the vacant or undeveloped, or uncompleted, portions of the land. The amendment is intended to clarify the scope of this exemption.

Sub-clause (2) substitutes sections 9(2AA) and 9(2AB) to confirm that the land can be apportioned for the purpose of the retirement village exemption. It repeals the formula in old section 9(2AB) and provides that the mechanism for determining the unimproved value of land already in the Act is to be applied for the purposes of this exemption. This ensures consistency of methodology when portions of a parcel of land are valued for land tax purposes.

1. The caravan park exemption, which was introduced in 2005 with effect from 1 January 2005, was inserted after the amendment to section 9(1)(j). It was also after the Tribunal decision, but before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal decisions, in Applewood. It is, perhaps, curious that the Parliament continued to adopt the 'used as' test in light of that history.
2. However, importantly, at the time section 9(1)(l) was inserted into the Former Act, section 9(2AA) (which provided for a partial exemption) was amended to apply to caravan parks as well as retirement villages.
3. When the caravan park exemption was re-enacted as part of the LT Act, the exemption for land that was partly used as a caravan park was maintained in section 77(3).
4. Consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Applewood, the full caravan park exemption in section 77(1) of the LT Act must be read together with the partial exemption found in section 77(3). It is clearly contemplated that there will be circumstances where some part, but not all, of the land which in a broad sense forms part of a 'caravan park' will be 'used as' such.
5. Mr Kotros contended that this would be limited to situations where the use was for something completely different like an office building. However, that is effectively to conflate the observation of Nettle JA in Applewood that:[31]

The fact that there may have been partially completed retirement accommodation on the disputed land no more characterised the disputed land as used and occupied as a retirement village than would a partially completed office block on part of land adjacent to a used and occupied office block characterise the construction site as land used and occupied as an office block.

1. Mr Kotros also sought to distinguish Applewood on the basis that it referred to land 'used and occupied' as a retirement village, as compared to land 'used' as a caravan park. While it may be the case that 'use' is broader than 'occupation' (eg. use might extend to completed caravans that are not yet occupied), this does not grapple with the limitation the partial exemption places on the interpretation of the scope of the full exemption.
2. While the Brickworks and Eaton decisions relied on by the applicants superficially support their contentions, they are distinguishable in that:

1. they were decided in an entirely different statutory context, ie. planning rather than taxation; 2. the language used differs markedly, ie. 'used for the purpose of' as against 'used as'; and

1. they were "all or nothing cases", ie. there were no apportionment provisions like those applying to caravan parks in the present case.
2. For these reasons, I am of the view that:
   1. Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum were not 'used as a registered caravan park' as required for the land to be exempt under section 77(1) of LT Act; but
   2. rather 'only a part of the land' at Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum was 'used as a registered caravan park', such that 'land tax is assessable on the remaining part' (subject to consideration of the exemption claimed under section 78A of the LT Act).
3. In the absence of any contrary submissions, I accept the Commissioner's submissions that the exempt percentage to determine the taxable value of the land under section 22 of the LT Act is:
   1. 47% of the land at Lifestyle Geelong; and
   2. 51% of the land at Lifestyle Lyndarum.
4. I will order that the Commissioner amend the Assessment to reflect these exemptions.

Retirement village construction exemption under s 78A of the LT Act

1. The nature of the residents at Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum is relevant because the definition of retirement village, found in section 78(3) of the LT Act, provides that it 'means a complex containing residential premises ... predominantly or exclusively occupied, or available for occupation, by retired person'.[32]
2. As already noted, the evidence of Mr Kelly is that the residents at Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum are 'overwhelmingly retirees'.[33] In his examination in chief, Mr Kelly says he was able to make this statement because the LC Group conducts a survey of owners, including asking them to tick a box as to whether they are retired or still working. He referred to notes of a conversation he had with his managers suggesting that 94% of residents at Lifestyle Geelong are retired or semi-retired, and 91% of residents at Lifestyle Lyndarum are retired or semi-retired.
3. Mr Morgan, who appeared for the Commissioner, took some exception to that evidence on the basis that:

1. the surveys and data that Mr Kelly referred to appeared to be current information and not surveys or data as at 31 December 2015; 2. there was no printout of the data produced at the hearing;

1. there was no evidence as to how often Mr Kelly visited either site; and

1. the applicants did not call any resident or the site managers.
2. Mr Morgan also pointed to the concession in cross-examination that the communities were open to anyone aged 50 or more, and that the marketing was not limited to retirees.
3. Mr Morgan suggests that the focus of the Lifestyle Communities business was really on 'over 50's downsizers' and, if they happen to be retirees, 'so be it'. As such, Mr Morgan submits that the applicants have not satisfied their onus of proof of showing how many residents are retirees.
4. Mr Kotros concedes that the marketing is 'directed wider' than retirees, but submits the evidence supports that each community is a 'village for retired persons'.
5. It is correct to say that the applicants bear the onus of proof.[34] The standard of proof is the civil standard, ie. the balance of probabilities. [35]
6. Mr Kelly was a convincing witness who understands the business he runs. He articulately explained why it is that the marketing is euphemistic (ie. because people don't want to live in "retirement villages" that are commonly regarded as "god's waiting rooms"). He also explained how LC Group determines whether a resident is working or retired (ie. through the surveys).
7. As such, I accept the evidence given by Mr Kelly and find that the residents at Lifestyle Geelong and Lifestyle Lyndarum were 'predominantly retirees'.

1. The real area of dispute in relation to section 78A of the LT Act is the relationship between section 78A(2) (on the one hand) and sections 78A(3) and 78A(4) (on the other).
2. The Commissioner contends that where section 78A(2) refers to the 'date of commencement of construction' and the 'date of completion of construction', those terms are defined in sections 78A(3) and 78(4) by reference to the building and (if relevant) occupancy permits.
3. Due to the nature of the caravans, the parties agree that building permits are not required for their construction, although there is some evidence that building permits were obtained for the clubhouses and perhaps for the carports attached to the caravans.
4. In any event, the Commissioner says that neither the clubhouse nor the carports are 'residential premises' to which the definition of retirement village directs attention.
5. It follows, in the Commissioner's submission that, as no building permit is required for the construction of the caravans, there is no ability to satisfy the timing requirements and so the construction exemption is unavailable.
6. The applicants say that the provisions should be interpreted consistently with their purpose. They point to the extrinsic material for the construction exemption which indicates that the purpose is to ensure 'an adequate supply of aged and residential care facilities', with the land tax exemption designed to 'encourage private investment to the sector and help improve the accessibility and affordability of such facilities for Victorians who can no longer live at home'.[36] They suggest that this purpose is not facilitated by a narrow construction of the exemption provision.
7. Further, the applicants contend that section 78A(2) does not say that it can 'only' be satisfied if a building permit is granted. In any event, they note that both parcels of land were acquired in June 2014, planning permits were obtained in September 2014, building permits were granted for the club houses in February and September 2015 and occupancy permits were issued in September and December 2015. As such, all they are 'asking is for an exemption for one year', while the provision allows a maximum construction period of two years.
8. The applicants also note that section 78A(3) and (4) may be unworkable if read literally because they refer to 'a'/'the' building permit, which would require a single permit for the whole retirement village whereas building permits are likely to be issued separately for each building within a village.
9. The error in the approach contended for by the applicants is the same as that which was criticised by the Court of Appeal in Applewood, ie. reading one section in isolation of the context of the surrounding provisions. While the intention could, perhaps, have been expressed with greater clarity, it is evident in the structure of the provisions that sections 78A(3) and (4) are intended to define the terms used in section 78A(2), and thereby define the parameters of the construction exemption.
10. I note, in this regard, that the draftsperson was clearly alive to the fact that an occupancy permit may or may not be required and so catered for both situations in section 78A(4), but did not see fit to provide for a situation where a building permit was not required. This may well be because the draftsperson did not envisage a situation where a caravan park could also qualify as a retirement village.
11. It is not necessary to resolve, and undesirable to comment on, the issue raised by applicants as to multiple building permits as it is not the factual scenario in the present case.
12. Insofar as the purpose of the legislation is relevant, the construction exemption does appear to reduce the cost of holding land during the period of construction of certain defined accommodation. However, given that the legislature saw fit to exclude caravan parks from that exemption, there is nothing inherently incongruous with denying an exemption to a caravan park that happens to also be a retirement village.
13. For these reasons, I do not consider that either Lifestyle Geelong or Lifestyle Lyndarum qualify for the exemption under section 78A of the LT Act.

Retirement village exemption under s 78 of the LT Act

1. As a result of the concession properly made by Counsel for the applicants (as referred to in footnote [3]), it is unnecessary for me to consider whether the exemption under section 78 of the LT Act applies. For the record, given that section 78 requires that land 'is occupied, or currently available for occupation, as a retirement village' it is difficult to see a basis on which it could be said that sites that have yet to be developed, and on which no caravan has been constructed, could be regarded as being so occupied or available.

[1] Witness Statement of James Kelly dated 22 May 2018 [1].

[2] Stage 1 of Lifestyle Geelong (which the Commissioner has calculated to represent 47% of the land) and Stage 1 and part of Stage 2 of Lifestyle Lyndarum, represented by sites 27 to 46 (which the Commissioner has calculated to represent 51% of the land). The references to stages and sites are drawn from the plans attached to Mr Kelly's witness statement at K1 for Lifestyle Lyndarum and K3 for Lifestyle Geelong.

[3] Mr Kotros, who appeared for Lifestyle Communities, accepted that if the Tribunal found against Lifestyle Communities in relation to both section 77 and 78A of the LT Act, it necessarily followed that section 78 of the LT Act could not apply.

[4] Witness Statement of Mr Kelly [9].

[9] This date is relevant to the 2016 land tax year as land tax for a given year is determined as at midnight on 31 December of the preceding calendar year: LT Act, s 36(1).

[11] Applicants' Statement of Issues, Facts, Contentions and Orders Sought dated 11 May 2018 (Applicants' Contentions) [28].

[12] Ibid [35], citing Newcastle City Council v Royal Newcastle Hospital [1957] HCA 15; (1957) 96 CLR 493 (Newcastle Hospital) at 515 (upheld by the Privy Council [1959] UKPCHCA 1; (1959) 100 CLR 1); Parramatta City Council v Brickworks Ltd [1972] HCA 21; (1972) 128 CLR 1 (Brickworks) at 21-24; Eaton & Sons Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council [1972] HCA 33; (1972) 129 CLR 270 (Eaton) at 273-5, 278-9, 281-2.

[13] (2006) 64 ATR 291; [2006] VSCA 207.

[15] Respondent's Statement of Legal Contentions dated 21 June 2018 (RSLC) [38], referring to paragraphs [16]-[18] of the decision in Applewood.

[19] Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (NT) 2009 239 CLR 22 at 46-7.

[20] Initially there was some debate in relation to Lifestyle Geelong as the original council approval only referred to stage 1. However, shortly before the hearing, a revised Certificate of registration of a caravan park was issued by the City of Greater Geelong (on 6 May 2019), confirming approval for all 165 sites with 'effect for the period of 25th November 2015 to 31st December 2017'.

[22] Lotus Projects Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) 2017 ATC 20-609 [19].

[23] Explanatory Memorandum to the State Taxation Acts (General Amendment) Bill 2005 at p 21.

[24] Department of Treasury & Finance, 2004-05 Budget Update, Appendix A at p 109.

[25] Re Applewood Residential Developments Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] VCAT 1563; (2004) 57 ATR 42.

[26] Commissioner of State Revenue v Applewood Residential Developments Pty Ltd (2005) 60 ATR 89.

[30] Explanatory Memorandum to the State Taxation Acts (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2003 at pp 9-10

[32] For the purpose of section 78A, 'retirement village' has the same meaning: LT Act, s 78A(6).

[33] Witness Statement of Mr Kelly [7].

[35] Rainn Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Land Tax [2016] VCAT 402 [8].

[36] See, for example, Second reading, State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill (2010) (Vic), Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 6 May 2010 at 1711.