The assessment of the applicants to land tax for the 2023 land tax year, made on 10 February 2023 (assessment no. 59297622), is confirmed.

1. On 10 February 2023, the Commissioner of State Revenue ('Commissioner') assessed Paul and Suzanne Malcolm to land tax of $36,900 for the 2023 land tax year ('Joint Assessment') on two investment properties they own jointly in Glen Iris[1] and Mount Martha (collectively, the 'Jointly Owned Properties').

(While not directly the subject of this proceeding, because she has an interest in other properties, Mrs Malcolm was also issued with an individual land tax assessment for the 2023 land tax year.[2])

1. Mr and Mrs Malcolm contend that they have been over-taxed on the basis that section 38 of the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) ('LT Act') - which addresses the assessment of joint owners of land - requires the Commissioner to issue separate land tax assessments in respect of each property they own jointly. This matters because land tax is imposed progressively on the value of land held, with a tax-free threshold (for the first $300,000 of value) and the rate progressively increasing as the value of land increases (with the top rate of 2.55% applying to land valued in excess of $3 million). If separate assessments were issued in respect of the Jointly Owned Properties, the total land tax payable by Mr and Mrs Malcolm would be $21,400. They seek a refund of $15,500, together with interest on the land tax they contend was overpaid.
2. The Commissioner contends that, when the text is read in context (including the historical context) and paying regard to the purpose of the provisions, section 38(2) operates with section 36 to impose land tax on the aggregated value of the Jointly Owned Properties. Accordingly, he submits the Joint Assessment ought to be confirmed.
3. For the reasons which follow, the interpretation of the relevant provisions underlying the Joint Assessment was correct. The assessment must be confirmed.

1. As the dispute between the parties relates to the proper interpretation of the LT Act as it applies to joint owners of land, it is appropriate to set out a brief overview as to relevant principles of statutory interpretation, as well as the provisions of the LT Act which are in issue, their legislative history and previous interpretations.

1. Broadly speaking, the process of statutory interpretation requires attention to be paid to the text, context and purpose of the applicable legislation. As observed in SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, '[t]he starting point for the ascertainment of the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute whilst, at the same time, regard is had to its context and purpose', with the context including the 'statutory, historical or other context' of the provision in question.[3]
2. In Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority, the majority of the High Court observed that legislation is to be construed 'on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals' and 'a court [and similarly the Tribunal] construing a statutory provision must strive to give meaning to every word'.[4]
3. When interpreting Victorian legislation, regard must also be paid to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) ('IL Act') which, among other things, provides that:
   • headings to sections form part of an Act where made or inserted on or after 1 January 2001;[5] and
   • unless the contrary intention appears, in an Act, words in the singular include the plural (and vice versa).[6]

1. Division 2 of the LT Act addresses how land tax is to be assessed.
2. Section 36 is headed '[l]and tax assessed on an aggregated basis' and provides that:

Subject to this Act, a taxpayer is to be assessed for land tax on land for a tax year on the total taxable value of all taxable land of which the taxpayer was the owner at midnight on 31 December immediately preceding that tax year.

1. Section 38 is headed '[a]ssessment of joint owners of land' and, so far as relevant, provides that:

(1) Joint owners of taxable land are to be assessed for land tax ... on land in accordance with this section.

...

(2) ... joint owners of taxable land are to be jointly assessed for land tax on the land as if it were owned by a single person, without regard to -

(a) the separate interest of each joint owner; or

(b) any other land owned by any joint owner (either alone or jointly with someone else).

...

(3) In addition, each joint owner of taxable land is to be separately assessed for land tax on -

(a) the owner's individual interest in the land (as if the owner were the owner of a part of the land in proportion to that interest); and

(b) any other taxable land owned by the owner alone; and

(c) the owner's individual interest in any other taxable land.

...

(4) There is to be deducted from the land tax assessed for a joint owner under subsection (3) an amount (if any) necessary to avoid double taxation, being the lesser of [two formulae set out in the provision].

1. At the hearing, the Commissioner provided further material establishing the legislative history of the joint ownership provisions since the introduction of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic)[7] which reveals that:
   • The land tax regime has long provided for joint assessment of joint owners, with section 45(2) of that Act originally providing:

the joint owners shall be jointly assessed and liable for tax in respect of the land or lands so owned by them jointly or in common ... without regard to their individual interests therein or to any other land or lands owned by any of them either in severalty or jointly or in common with any other person or persons.

• Section 45(2) was substituted in 1998 to 'clarify the assessment and liability of joint owners to land tax'.[8] In his second reading speech, the then Treasurer explained that there was some ambiguity in the original provision and the 'new provision underpins the policy intention which the old provision was also supposed to evidence'.[9]
• Subject to certain changes to deal with absentee land owners and vacant residential land tax (neither of which is relevant to the present matter), section 38 remains in a similar form to the substituted version of section 45.[10]

1. Surprisingly, and despite the LT Act having been in operation for almost 20 years, the only previous decision to consider the operation of section 38 of the LT Act is VCAT's decision in Blumberg v Commissioner of State Revenue ('Blumberg').[11] In that case, Member Dr John Glover observed (my emphasis):[12]

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 ... 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. At the start of the hearing, I drew the parties' attention to a decision of the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal[13] - Zughbi v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue ('Zughbi')[14] - which addresses the joint ownership provisions in the New South Wales land tax legislation.
2. Like section 38 of the LT Act, section 27(2) of the Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) addresses the joint assessment of joint owners. At the time, it provided that:

Joint owners ... shall be jointly assessed and liable in respect of the land (exclusive of the interest of any joint owner so exempt) as if it were owned by one person, without regard to their respective interests therein and without taking into account any land owned by any one of them in severalty or as joint owner with any other person.

1. It can be readily observed that the then wording of section 27(2) bore considerable similarity to section 45 of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) as originally enacted (see [12]).
2. Like the applicants in the present case, Dr Zughbi and his wife owned two investment properties jointly. Mrs Zughbi also owned another property. Under the relevant legislation, land tax was payable on the taxable value of 'all the land owned by any person at midnight on 31 December [of the year preceding the land tax year]'.[15] Land tax was payable at the rate of $100 plus 1.6c for each $1 in excess of the relevant tax threshold ($352,000 for the 2006 land tax year).
3. Dr and Mrs Zughbi contended that they were each entitled to the benefit of the tax threshold, rather than being entitled to one threshold between them as the Chief Commissioner argued.[16] In particular, they suggested that:
   • the law as applied by the Chief Commissioner 'discriminates against those who jointly own more than one investment property';[17] and
   • it was 'illogical, unreasonable and unfair' that they only obtained one threshold for the two properties owned jointly when they would each be entitled to the threshold if they each owned one of those properties.[18]
4. Deputy President Handley affirmed the assessments in issue, observing (my emphasis):[19]

the ordinary meaning of the words in section 27(2) is clear: that joint owners are jointly assessed and liable in respect of jointly [owned] land as if the land were owned by one person. As [counsel for the Chief Commissioner] pointed out, section 8 of the Interpretation Act 1987 states that a reference to a word in the singular incudes a reference to the word in the plural form, and vice-versa. Thus, I agree that the reference in section 27 to 'land' is a reference to all land owned by the joint owners. Moreover, I do not agree with Dr Zughbi's contention that joint owners should be treated as one person in respect of each piece of land they jointly own, thereby being entitled to one tax threshold for each.

1. While acknowledging that this interpretation of section 27(2) resulted in joint owners of two properties 'being treated less favourably than if they had owned the properties separately', the Deputy President observed that the role of the Tribunal was 'to identify the applicable law and apply the law to the facts, about which there [was] no dispute' and '[a]ny change in the law is a matter for Parliament'.[20]
2. In Zughbi, counsel for the Chief Commissioner had identified that section 27 was derived from section 38 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910 (Cth) and referred to one High Court decision concerning the interpretation of that provision - being Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax ('Bailey').[21] That decision sets out section 38(2) of the Commonwealth land tax regime, which then provided that:

joint owners shall be jointly assessed and liable in respect of the land as if it were owned by a single person, without regard to their respective interests therein or to any deductions to which any of them may be entitled under this Act, and without taking into account any land owned by any one of them in severalty or as joint owner with any other person.

1. It can be seen that one difference between the Commonwealth and New South Wales provisions is the requirement in the former to disregard both the respective interests of the joint owners and 'any deductions to which any of [the joint owners] may be entitled under this Act'. This was because, under the Commonwealth regime an owner was provided with a deduction of £5,000 against the value of the land held (rather than any tax free threshold).
2. Bailey was concerned with the individual assessment of the joint owners (i.e. what is now covered by section 38(3) of the LT Act) rather than the joint assessment to be made under section 38(2). However, in another High Court decision dealing with the same provision - Wilson v Federal Commissioner of Land Tax ('Wilson') - Griffiths CJ made some relevant observations as to the scheme of the Commonwealth legislation generally and in its application to joint owners (my emphasis):[22]

The tax imposed under the Land Tax Acts is progressive, that is to say, the rate of tax increases progressively with the value of the land. One deduction of £5,000 is in all cases allowed from the total unimproved value. The general scheme of the Act is that joint owners of land are taxed as if it were owned by a single person. They can therefore only claim a single deduction of £5,000. The result is that the tax payable by - say - five persons who are joint owners of land, is more, and may be a great deal more, than five times the amount of the tax for which each would be liable, if he held one-fifth of the land in severalty. For instance, if the land were worth £25,000 the owners would pay nothing if taxed as owners in severalty, each being entitled to the statutory deduction of £5,000. But as joint owners they are liable jointly to pay a tax upon a value of £20,000.

1. The essence of the applicants' submissions is that the purpose of section 38(2) of the LT Act is to determine the land tax payable on each piece of land that is jointly owned as if owned by one person, rather than 'dilute the assessed land value' by having regard to the proportionate interests of the joint owners in that land. It is suggested that it is only in the second step, i.e. the individual assessment of a joint owner under section 38(3), that the 'combined wealth' of a taxpayer is to be addressed (i.e. by taxing the total value of their ownership interests in multiple properties).
2. It is suggested that this focus on each piece of land is made clear by the reference in section 38(2) to 'the land' (i.e. in the singular) and that land being assessed 'as if it [again, using the singular] were owned by a single person'. Mr Malcolm observed that, by contrast, section 36 applies to the 'total taxable value of all taxable land' which clearly contemplates aggregation.
3. The applicants also contend that the land to be disregarded in determining the land tax on a piece of land (i.e. by operation of section 38(2)(b)) includes other jointly owned land, whether owned by the same or a different group of joint owners. In that respect, it is suggested that the words in brackets are either:
   • to be ignored having regard to the Australian Government Style Manual which suggests that you should 'use brackets for text users can skip over' and the 'Four Corners Rule', which provides that the 'use of brackets legally isolates information enclosed within brackets from the surrounding contract text'; or
   • said to relate to the 'individual' (i.e. any joint owner) rather than the 'collective' (i.e. the joint owners as a group) and, as such, the reference to 'someone else' means anyone other than the individual joint owner (rather than 'someone other than the same combination of landowners').
4. While the applicants accept that section 36 provides for aggregation of landholdings, they submit that the provision is addressed to individual landholders and is made 'subject to' the remainder of the LT Act, including section 38 which addresses joint landholders.
5. The applicants contend that, 'by treating a "particular combination of owners as though they were one person" [the Commissioner] has in fact [imposed land tax] unfairly and incorrectly' (and contrary to the purpose of the provisions as outlined in Blumberg).
6. The 'absurdity' of the Commissioner's position is said to be evidenced by a hypothetical case in which a third party own a 'token share' of one of the properties, in which case there would be a separate joint assessment for each property (and lower cumulative land tax because each property would benefit from the tax free threshold and the progressive rates).
7. Due to the differences between the LT Act and the NSW land tax legislation (e.g. it appears that the NSW land tax rates may not be as progressive as in Victoria), Mr Malcolm submitted that the decision in Zughbi should not be considered to be particularly relevant. Similarly, in further submissions filed by the applicants (with the consent of the Commissioner) after the hearing, the applicants observed that 'jurisdiction and the drafting of [the] relevant Land Tax Act in the case of Bailey [is] different'.[23] However, they contended that some of the observations of the High Court were 'consistent with the arguments put forward' by them.[24]
8. Similarly, because of changes in the legislation over time, Mr Malcolm suggested it was not necessarily correct to suggested that the LT Act was 'reflective of what was intended' by Parliament.
9. Mr Malcolm concluded by suggesting that the Commissioner placed 'overdue reliance' on section 36 'over and above everything else'.

1. Mr Morgan (counsel for the Commissioner) conceded that the applicants' interpretation of the provisions was 'open'. However, he submitted that the Joint Assessment ought to be confirmed on the basis that the proper interpretation of section 38, coupled with section 36, is to impose land tax on the Jointly Owned Properties on an aggregated basis in the same way that land tax applies to an individual who owns multiple properties.
2. In this regard, Mr Morgan contended that the 'clear purpose' of the joint ownership provisions is to ensure that 'the same land tax is charged whether land is owned by an individual or jointly owned by two or more people' and this extends to multiple landholdings being taxed on an aggregated basis.
3. In terms of the text of the provisions, Mr Morgan started with section 36, noting that it expressly refers to aggregation in the heading and, consistent with the IL Act, the heading forms part of the Act. He went on to note that nothing in section 36 limits its operation in respect of jointly owned land and, in fact, because section 36 (but not section 38) identifies when the ownership and value of land is to be assessed (i.e. as at midnight on 31 December preceding the relevant tax year), it is necessary to read the two provisions together.
4. Further, the Commissioner contends that:
   • while section 38(2) refers to 'land' in the singular, this should be taken to refer to 'lands' (i.e. in plural) consistent with the IL Act and given the context does not otherwise require; and
   • section 38(2)(b) therefore operates to exclude lands owned by Mr and Mrs Malcolm jointly.
5. Mr Morgan submitted that, for section 38(2)(b) to have the effect suggested by the applicants, it would be necessary to 'read in' additional words (to the words in the brackets) to the effect 'or jointly with some other joint owner'.
6. While Mr Morgan accepted that the legislation does not expressly refer to land tax being imposed on the aggregated land held by a 'particular combination of joint owners',[25] he submitted that this was what section 38, when read together with section 36, 'in effect does'.
7. Mr Morgan suggested that the Commissioner's interpretation was consistent with the legislative history, particularly noting:
   • the reference to land (in the singular) or lands (in the plural) in section 45 of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) as originally enacted which was 'perfectly clear';
   • the stated purpose of the 1998 amendments to that provision being 'to clarify' the operation of the provision (rather than being designed to effect a fundamental change or alter the tax base); and
   • the use of 'land' (in the singular) in the amended version of that provision extending to the plural in accordance with the rules set out in the IL Act.
8. Mr Morgan accepted that the land tax payable by the applicants is higher than it would be if a third party obtained a token share of one of those properties and that it might be advantageous for parties to structure their ownership of properties in this manner. However, he suggested that it was not appropriate to interpret the provisions by reference to a hypothetical situation.
9. As for the applicants' reliance on the Australian Government Style Manual, Mr Morgan suggested they had misunderstood its operation (i.e. it simply requires a sentence to still make sense if words in brackets are ignored, rather than suggesting the words should be ignored) and in any event, the principles of statutory construction required that 'all words in legislation are given work to do'.
10. Mr Morgan observed that, if the applicants' contentions were accepted, land tax would no longer be a 'progressive tax' (i.e. with more land tax payable the more land that is owned) as it was designed to be, but rather a 'regressive tax' and would produce at least two 'odd consequences' or 'surprising results', namely:
    • because the Glen Iris property is actually comprised of land on two separate titles (see footnote 1), a separate assessment would be required for each title (and for the Mount Martha property), so the applicants would gain a further advantage (e.g. the benefit of a further tax free threshold) 'based on the fortuitous circumstance that the property is held over two titles'; and
    • while they would pay land tax on each property individually while they were both alive, if one passed and the other became the sole owner (under the rules of survivorship), aggregation would then apply and the surviving spouse would face a significantly higher land tax bill.
11. Mr Morgan concluded by suggesting that, because the wording of the joint owner provisions in NSW is 'sufficiently similar' to section 38 of the LT Act, the decision in Zughbi should be regarded as 'highly persuasive'.

1. The Tribunal's role on review of a land tax assessment is to make the correct or preferable decision and, as explained in Motticant Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue:[26]

If only one decision is available on the application of the law to the relevant facts, then that will be the correct decision; however, if the legislation under review provides a discretion, a tribunal must make the decision that is preferable among the possible decisions available.

1. In the present case, there are no facts in dispute. Mr and Mrs Malcolm have been the joint proprietors of the Glen Iris and Mount Martha properties since 1996.[27] Neither property is suggested to be exempt from land tax. Accordingly, they are '[j]oint owners of taxable land' and liable to be assessed in accordance with section 38 of the LT Act.
2. As there was no objection to (or referral concerning) the assessment issued to Mrs Malcolm (see [1]), the review is limited to the Joint Assessment and the only question is whether the Commissioner was correct to assess Mr and Mrs Malcolm to land tax on the Jointly Owned Properties on an aggregated basis or should instead have assessed them separately in relation to each of those properties (possibly with two assessments in respect of the Glen Iris property). That in turn depends on the proper construction of the relevant provisions. This is not a case where there is any discretion vested in the Commissioner or the Tribunal.
3. The process of statutory construction requires the Tribunal to have regard to the text, context and purpose of the legislative provision under consideration (rather than the Australian Government Style Manual or the common law as to the interpretation of contracts). In my view, when appropriate regard is had to these matters, the legislation clearly requires that joint owners of multiple properties are to be assessed on their aggregated landholdings rather than separately in respect of each piece of land they jointly own.
4. Starting with the text, I accept that, on its face, section 38(2) refers to land in the singular. However, in accordance with section 37(c) of the IL Act, that word includes the plural (i.e. lands) 'unless the contrary intention appears'. There is no contrary intention expressed, or otherwise apparent, in section 38. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision in Zughbi to like effect.
5. Further, the requirement in section 38(2) to disregard 'any other land owned by any joint owner (either alone or jointly with someone else)' is consistent with the inclusion in a joint assessment of more than one piece of jointly owned land where the land is owned jointly with the same person, as opposed to 'someone else'.
6. Turning to the immediate context, section 38 is one of a number of provisions in Division 2 of Part 3 of the LT Act. Part 3 concerns the '[a]ssessment of land tax' and Division 2 addresses '[h]ow is land tax assessed'.
7. Section 36 is the first provision in Division 2 and establishes a general principle that land tax is assessed on the total taxable value of all taxable land that a taxpayer owns at midnight on 31 December immediately preceding that tax year. That is, land tax is applied on an 'aggregated basis' as indicated in the section heading, with section 36(3) going on to confirm that, '[f]or the purposes of an assessment, the applicable rate of land tax in Schedule 1 is to be applied to the total taxable value of that land'.
8. Section 36 is immediately followed by section 37, which addresses circumstances in which '[c]ertain taxable land [is] assessed separately'. It is limited to land owned by a charitable institution or charitable trust and leased municipal or public land.
9. While that provision is not applicable to Mr and Mrs Malcolm, it is relevant to note that it requires land tax to be assessed as if 'each parcel of land' within its scope 'were the only land owned by the taxpayer' and '[f]or that purpose, the applicable rate of land tax ... is to be applied separately to the taxable value of each parcel'.
10. No equivalent provisions are included in section 38, which might be expected if it was intended to provide for the separate assessment of each parcel of land held by joint owners.
11. Section 37A addresses a further situation where land is to be assessed separately, namely in the case of vacant residential land (referred to as 'VRT land'). It provides that a taxpayer is to be assessed on such land of which a person was the owner on 31 December immediately preceding the land tax year 'as if that land were the only land owned by the taxpayer'. Relevantly, the rate of vacant residential land tax is a flat rate, without any tax free threshold.[28]
12. I also accept the Commissioner's contention that it is necessary to read section 38 with section 36. This is because section 36 addresses the time at which the assessment is to be made (i.e. at midnight on 31 December immediately preceding the land tax year), while section 38 is silent on the point. By contrast, where the legislation provides for separate assessment (i.e. in sections 37 and 37A), a timing provision is included.
13. The historical context also supports aggregation of jointly held lands. I agree with the Commissioner's submissions that this was clear in the original wording of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) because section 45(2) provided for a joint assessment of land or lands owned by joint owners. The extrinsic material in relation to the 1998 amendments to that provision are consistent with clarification and do not support any departure from that principle.
14. Turning to purpose, while the decision in Wilson related to the joint ownership provisions in the Land Tax Act 1910 (Cth) and there were differences in the land tax regime at the time, in my view, it remains the case that the evident purpose of those provisions is to support the progressive nature of land tax and to do so by only allowing the joint owners to claim the benefits of any concessions once (i.e. by way of deduction, exemption or tax free threshold) once.
15. This purpose is also supported by the history of the Victorian provisions. Relevantly, as enacted:
    • section 7 of the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) included an exemption from land tax where the unimproved value of land or lands did not exceed £3,000, with the exemption tapering off to nil once the value exceeded £6,000; and
    • section 45(2) provided that 'exemptions in accordance with section seven ... shall where applicable be allowed as if the joint estate were owned by a single person'.
16. The interpretation proposed by the applicants would be inimical to that purpose because they would pay considerably less land tax on their jointly owned properties than an individual who owned multiple properties of an equivalent aggregated value.
17. It is, of course, true that on the Commissioner's interpretation the applicants pay more tax than they would if they, either:
    • held one of the properties each, rather than holding them jointly; or
    • continued to hold both properties jointly but allowed a third party to acquire a nominal interest in one of those properties.
18. Nevertheless, as observed in Zughbi, '[a]ny change in the law is a matter for Parliament'. To put it another way, it is beyond the role of the Tribunal in undertaking a review of an assessment of land tax to give effect to some different policy which a taxpayer contends is preferable to the one reflected in the legislation that Parliament has enacted.
19. As the Commissioner's interpretation of section 38 is correct, it follows that the decision to assess Mr and Mrs Malcolm to land tax on the aggregated value of the Jointly Owned Properties was also correct.
20. It follows the Joint Assessment must be confirmed.

[1] It is noted that this property is divided into two land titles for the 'house' and 'balance of land' and is treated as separate land held by the applicants in the statement of lands included in the notice of assessment issued to them: Tribunal Book ('TB'), page 12.

[3] [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362 [14] (Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

[4] [1998] HCA 35; (1998) 194 CLR 355 [70]-[71] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ) (citations omitted).

[7] As explained in Merristock Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VCAT 535 [48], the Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) was part of a general consolidation of Victorian legislation.

[8] Explanatory Memorandum to the Land Tax (Amendment) Bill 1998, 4-5 (cl 7).

[9] Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 23 April 1998, 1177.

[10] For example, compare Land Tax Act 1958 (Vic) (version 90), s 45(2) and LT Act, s 38(2).

[11] [2012] VCAT 243.

[13] A predecessor of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal or NCAT, the New South Wales equivalent of VCAT.

[14] [2009] NSWADT 106.

[15] Land Tax Act 1956 (NSW), s 3AK.

[16] [2009] NSWADT 106 [8].

[21] [1911] HCA 69; (1911) 13 CLR 302.

[22] [1916] HCA 16; (1916) 21 CLR 225, 232.

[23] Applicant's Comments on Additional Materials filed on 14 March 2025, 1.

[25] That concept was employed in the Commissioner's determination disallowing the applicants' objection: TB, tab 4.

[26] [2017] VCAT 1820 [9].

[28] 1% of the taxable value of the land, which a note explains is the capital improved value of the land: LT Act, s 35(3).