1. Pursuant to Section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the name of the Respondent, State Revenue Office, is substituted to the Commissioner of State Revenue.
2. The application is summarily dismissed pursuant to section 75(1)(a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) on the basis that the application is misconceived.

Teresa Bisucci, Deputy President Justine Jacono, Senior Member

Mr L. McCrae, Lawyer, Commissioner for State Revenue

1. Ying Yolanda Liu ('applicant') has brought an application pursuant to section 266(5) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) ('Water Act') seeking review of a decision of the State Revenue Office ('SRO') to refuse to accept an application for the coronavirus land tax relief.
2. Section 266(5) of the Water Act states:

a) The calculation or application of a valuation equalisation factor; or

b) The fixing of different fees imposed under a tariff under section 259(5) that are based on valuation

May apply to the Tribunal for review in accordance with Part III of the Valuation of Land Act 1960.

1. The Commissioner for State Revenue ('Commissioner') makes the following submissions:
   1. the respondent named in the application by the applicant is incorrect;
   2. to the extent there is review sought of a decision to refuse to accept an application for the coronavirus land tax relief, the Commissioner of State Revenue is the appropriate legal entity; and
   3. further, there is no review of a decision to refuse to accept an application for the coronavirus land tax relief.[1]
2. The Commissioner does not administer valuation equalisation factors or fee related tariffs under the Water act.
3. Accordingly, the Commissioner says the application should be summarily dismissed.
4. The Valuer General Victoria ('VGV') attended the practice day hearing to assist the Tribunal.
5. The applicant confirms that she has two issues she wants the Tribunal to determine:
   1. the unfairness of the decision of the Commissioner to refuse to accept her application for the coronavirus land tax relief; and
   2. changes made to land tax in reassessments which she has been issued.

1. Having heard the submissions of the parties, we agree with the Commissioner with respect to the following:
   1. to the extent the application raises matters pertaining to taxation, the correct respondent is the Commissioner. Thus, we will amend the application for review to refer to the Commissioner for State Revenue.[2]
   2. the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider any decision of the Commissioner with respect to any application for the coronavirus land tax relief because:
      1. s 97(2A) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 ('TA Act') states:

(2A) A taxpayer cannot object to an assessment or decision referred to in section 96(1) on any ground relating to Part 9A.

Part 9A of the TA Act relates to emergency tax relief including any coronavirus land tax relief.

No action lies against the State, the Treasurer or the Commissioner in relation to anything arising out of -

(a) the public announcement of tax relief measures; or

(b) the giving of a direction by the Treasurer under section 95B; or

(c) anything done or omitted to be done by or on behalf of the Commissioner to give effect to a direction; or

(d) anything else done or omitted to be done to give effect to this Part.

1. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider any decision to refuse to accept the applicant's application for the coronavirus land tax relief.
2. The applicant has not followed any formal statutory process for objection to land tax assessments pursuant s 96 of the TA Act or Part III of the Valuation of Land Act, 1960 (Vic).
3. Under the TA Act, the process for objection requires such an objection to be in writing to the Commissioner and for a determination on the objection to be made to be made in writing with reasons. If the person who made the objection is not satisfied with the determination of the Commissioner, an application for review can be made with the Tribunal. If the process set out in Part 10 of the TA Act is not followed, the Tribunal cannot consider an application for review. We have no material before us to conclude the applicant followed the statutory process for objecting land tax assessments. Thus, the Tribunal will not consider the application for review to the extent it relies on objections to land tax assessments
4. On that basis, the application for review is summarily dismissed because it is misconceived. For completeness, s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ('VCAT Act') provides:

(1) At any time, the Tribunal may make an order summarily dismissing or striking out all, or any part, of a proceeding that, in its opinion -

(a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

(5) For the purposes of this Act, the question whether or not an application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance or is otherwise an abuse of process is a question of law.

Teresa Bisucci, Deputy President Justine Jacono, Senior Member

[1] See s 95D of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic)

[2] Pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).