Stonier v Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] QCAT 155

Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld)

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)

Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld)

Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540

Garwoli v Garwoli [2015] SASC 1

Mischel Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mischel [2013] VSCA 375

Smeaton v Pattison [2002] QSC 431

Victoria v The Commonwealth [1937] HCA 82; (1937) 58 CLR 618

Whitty v Talia (2023) 72 VR 1

Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2; (2019) 266 CLR 428

Wright v Gibbons [1949] HCA 3; (1949) 78 CLR 313

S Spottiswood of Counsel, instructed by the Commissioner of State Revenue

[1] Lynda Elizabeth Stonier ('applicant') applies to the Tribunal to review a decision the Commissioner of State Revenue ('Commissioner') made to disallow her objection to reassessments of Land Tax payable under the Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld) ('Land Tax Act').

[2] On 2 December 2020, the applicant's husband passed away.

[3] Before his passing, the applicant owned three properties with her husband as joint tenants. Two of those properties were located at Watson Street and Enerton Street in Newmarket. The third property was located at Belmore Terrace in Sunshine Beach.

[4] On 3 November 2021, the Commissioner assessed the land the applicant and her husband owed for the 2021-22 financial year on the basis that they were co-owners who each owned half of the relevant properties. The purported land tax owing under that assessment amounted to $6,866.60.

[5] On 20 December 2021, the applicant sold the Watson Street property and purchased a property at Cook Street, Northgate.

[6] On 1 November 2022, the Commissioner assessed the land tax the applicant and the husband owed for the 2022-23 financial year on the basis that they were co-owners who each owned half of the Enerton Street and Belmore Terrance properties. The Commissioner assessed the applicant on the basis that she was the sole owner of the Cook Street property. The purported land tax owing pursuant to that assessment amounted to $8,932.

[7] On 28 April 2023, the Commissioner issued a land tax reassessment for the 2021-22 financial year on the basis that the applicant was the sole owner of the Enerton Street Property, the Watson Street Property and the Belmore Street Property. Notably, the Watson Street Property was exempt land under ss 36 and 41 of the Land Tax Act because it was used as a home. The purported amount of land tax owing pursuant to that reassessment was $17,479.95.

[8] On 2 May 2023, the Commissioner issued a land tax reassessment for the 2022-23 financial year on the basis that the applicant was the sole owner of the Enerton Street Property, the Belmore Terrace Property and the Cook Street Property. The Cook Street Property had by this time replaced the Watson Street Property as the applicant's home and therefore it was exempt land under ss 36 and 41 of the Land Tax Act. The purported land tax owing pursuant to the reassessment for 2022-23 was $20,889.95

[9] It is convenient to collectively label the two land tax reassessments above the ('reassessments').

[10] On 29 June 2023, as provided for under s 63(2)(a) of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld) ('TA Act'), the applicant objected to the reassessments ('objection').

[11] On 9 October 2023, a delegate of the Commissioner disallowed the applicant's objection and confirmed the reassessments.

[12] On 30 November 2023, as provided for under s 69(2)(b) of the TA Act, the applicant exercised her right to review the Commissioner's refusal of her objection.

[13] Land Tax is payable on the taxable value of taxable land each financial year.[1] A liability for land tax for a financial year arises at midnight on 30 June immediately preceding the financial year.[2]

[14] Section 8 of the Land Tax Act provides that the owner of taxable land when a liability arises is liable to pay the tax.

[15] Relevantly, s 10(1)(a) of the Land Tax Act defines the term 'owner' of land to inter alia include 'a person jointly or severally entitled to a freehold estate in the land who is in possession'.

[16] It is a general principle under the Land Tax Act that a taxpayer's liability for land tax must be assessed on the total taxable value of all taxable land owned by the taxpayer when the liability arises.[3] That general principle is subject to ss 20 and 21 of the Land Tax Act, neither of which is relevant to the present review.[4]

[17] Part 4, Division 2 of the Land Tax Act deals with the assessment of co-owners of land. A co-owner of land is taken to own part of the land in proportion to the co-owner's interest in the land, and subject to the general principal the taxable land is aggregated, must be severally assessed.

[18] Importantly, s 22(2) of the Land Tax Act provides that, for the purpose of determining a co-owner's interest in the land, co-owners who hold their interests as joint tenants are taken to hold equal interest in the land.

[19] The rate of land tax imposed on an individual is provided for under schedule 2, part 1 of the Land Tax Act.

[20] The TA Act deals with the Commissioner's obligation to assess land tax and the circumstances under which it reassesses land tax.

[21] Relevantly, under s 17(1) of the TA Act, and subject to ss 21 and 22 of that said Act, the Commissioner may, at any time, make a reassessment of a taxpayer's liability for tax.

[22] Notably, s 22(1) of the TA Act provides that a reassessment increasing a taxpayer's liability (as is the case here) must be made in the limitation period. Schedule 2 of the TA Act defines 'limitation period', for a reassessment, to mean five years after the assessment notice for the original assessment was given. However, the Commissioner may make a reassessment at any time if it reasonably believes there has been a deliberate tax default, or if, within the limitation period, an investigation has been commenced against the taxpayer.

[23] Lastly, Section [4-000] of the Land Title Practice Manual, which the registrar of titles keeps under s 9A of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), relevantly provides:

If, at the time of death, the deceased held a lot or an interest with another or others as 'joint tenants', his/her death effects an immediate vesting of the deceased's lot or interest in the surviving joint tenant/s. This principle is called 'the right of survivorship' and it operates until there is a sole survivor who thereby acquires sole ownership notwithstanding any provision in any will.

[24] Concerning the conduct of the applicant's review, s 71(2) of the TA Act mandates that the grounds on which the application for review is made are limited to the grounds of the relevant objection, unless QCAT otherwise orders.

(a) Hear and decide the review of the decision by way of a reconsideration of the evidence before the commissioner when the decision was made, unless QCAT considers it necessary in the interests of justice to allow new evidence; and

(b) Decide the review of the decision in accordance with the same law that applied to the making of the original decision.

[26] In a document filed in the Tribunal and titled 'Objection to land tax reassessment notices 2021/2022 and 2022/2023', the applicant raises three primary contentions.

[27] Firstly, she objects to the Commissioner deeming the date of a person's death as the point at which ownership of a property is vested in survivors for the purposes of assessing land tax. Instead, she contends that land tax ought to have only accrued from the point in time after she registered her sole ownership of the relevant properties with Titles Queensland.

[28] The applicant professes to providing copies of her husband's death certificate to Titles Queensland on 1 November 2021, 14 October 2022 and 25 November 2022. However, she contends that Titles Queensland did not pass that information on to the Commissioner which resulted in the continued generation of joint assessments.

[29] The applicant claims that when she telephoned the office of the Commissioner and the Australian Taxation Office, both departments told her that 'there was a two-year grace period to finalise the sale of joint assets'. The estate was 'completed' in November 2022 within the purported two-year grace period.

[30] The applicant's second contention is that, when calculating land tax, the Commissioner ought to adopt a position analogous to that adopted by the Australian Taxation Office in respect of Capital Gains Tax. The applicant points out that the Federal website on deceased estates 'Co-ownership and Right of Survivorship' (joint tenants) states that when a joint tenant dies 'The deceased tenant's interest is not an asset of the deceased estate, and the surviving joint tenants are beneficiaries. For CGT purposes, in deceased estates, if you are a joint tenant, you are treated as if you are a tenant in common owning equal shares in the assets'. Pursuant to s 109 of the Australian Constitution, when a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the later shall prevail.

[31] Lastly, the applicant points out that the Commission's website on Deceased Estate and Land Tax (joint tenants) states that 'when someone dies, the land they owned, either solely or jointly, forms part of their deceased estate. The deceased landowner is still considered the owner of the land until administration of the estate is completed'. She points out that the preceding statement is apt to cause confusion.

[32] For the reasons expressed above, the applicant seeks an order from the Tribunal for the Commissioner to refund to her the difference between the amounts stated in the reassessments and those amounts initially stated in the assessments (noting that the applicant has already paid the amount stated in the reassessments).

[33] Essentially, the Commissioner contends that upon the husband's death, his interest in the relevant properties immediately passed to the applicant by the 'right of survivorship'. Accordingly, the Commissioner submits that, pursuant to ss 8 and 10 of the Land Tax Act, the applicant alone was liable to pay land tax, and therefore its reassessments were correct.

[34] The review proceeded to a hearing on 28 August 2025. The applicant largely relied on her written submissions and pressed the arguments raised in them. She did however raise an additional concern that the Commissioner did not provide a notice under s 22(2)(b) of the TA Act when it issued the reassessments

[35] During the hearing the Tribunal raised the applicability of s 23(4) of the Land Tax Act to the applicant's situation. That section provides that a deceased person is taken to be the owner of the land, instead of an estate administrator, in particular circumstances.

[36] Following the hearing, the applicant filed further submissions in the Tribunal on 23 September 2025. In those post hearing submissions, the applicant rails against the fairness of Queensland land tax framework. She did not however raise any unique contentions not already canvassed in her earlier submissions.

[37] Noting that the applicant bears the onus of proof, she has not advanced any legislative provision, or proffered any authority, to support her proposition that she ought only be taxed from the point in time that she registered her sole ownership of the relevant properties with Titles Queensland.

[38] In its post hearing submissions, the Commissioner raised several authorities supporting its contention that upon the death of a joint tenant, ownership of property immediately passes to the surviving joint tenant (the right of survivorship).[6] Upon reviewing those cases, the Tribunal concurs with the legal correctness of the respondent's position. Accordingly, I find that pursuant to the general law right of survivorship, sole ownership of the relevant properties vested in the applicant immediately upon her husband's passing. Corollary to that finding, it follows that pursuant to s 8 of the Land Tax Act, the applicant is solely liable to pay land tax for the relevant properties.

[39] Further, I am not persuaded that s 23 of the Land Tax Act applies to the current case. Because I have found that sole ownership of the relevant properties vested immediately in the applicant upon her husband's death, the properties never passed into the husband's estate. Section 23 of the Land Tax Act was therefore not enlivened.

[40] The applicant's submission about the relevancy of capital gains tax and her related submission about the primacy of Commonwealth Law can be dismissed in short order. I am unable to discern the existence of any direct or indirect inconsistency between Commonwealth or State laws in this case. The application of CGT Tax is governed by the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). CGT is a different form of taxation to land tax. It applied for a different purpose, at a different rate and at a different frequency. The Land Tax Act does not 'alter, impair or detract from' the operation of the law governing CGT.[7] Its operation does not 'undermine the Commonwealth Law'.[8] Nor does the CGT capital gains legislation intend to deal completely, exhaustively or exclusively with the subject of land tax.[9] The subject matter of the two statutes is plainly different. Accordingly, I find that there is no conflict that gives rise to an inconsistency.

[41] Turning now to the applicant's reliance on the statement about deceased estates on the Queensland Revenue Office website. An interpretative statement by the Commission, even when publicly expressed, has no force of law. It does not displace the general law right of survivorship or the combined operation of ss 8 and 10 of the Land Tax Act.

[42] During the hearing the applicant raised a concern that the Commissioner did not provide a notice under s 22(2)(b) when it issued the reassessments. In my view, nothing turns on that omission. The Commissioner was only required to issue the applicant with a notice if it was proceeding under s 22(2) of the TA Act, which permits reassessments to be made outside the five-year limitation period. In this case, the Commissioner issued the original assessments on 3 November 2021 and 1 November 2022. The reassessments were issued on 28 April 2023 and 2 May 2023. Both reassessments comfortably fall within the five-year limitation period.

Application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

[43] The Tribunal must apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HR Act') when reviewing the decisions of a 'public entity'. The Commissioner is a public entity. Section 58 of the HR Act provides that it is unlawful for a public entity to act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights or in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision. A decision is compatible with human rights if it does not limit a human right or limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonably justifiable in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act.

[44] I have carefully considered whether my decision affects or potentially limits one or more of the rights set out at Part 2, Division 2 of the HR Act. I have resolved that no human right is affected.

[45] To conclude, the applicant has failed to persuade me that the Commissioner's reassessments were erroneously made, or otherwise deficient. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal confirms the Decision under review.

[1] Land Tax Act s 6.

[2] Ibid s 7.

[3] Ibid s 19(1).

[4] Ibid s 19(2).

[6] Wright v Gibbons [1949] HCA 3; (1949) 78 CLR 313; Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540; Whitty v Talia (2023) 72 VR 1; Mischel Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mischel [2013] VSCA 375; Smeaton v Pattison [2002] QSC 431; Garwoli v Garwoli [2015] SASC 1.

[7] Victoria v The Commonwealth [1937] HCA 82; (1937) 58 CLR 618, 630 ('The Kakariki').

[8] Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2; (2019) 266 CLR 428, [34] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).