Zhu v Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2025] VCAT 926

1. The reassessments of the applicant to land tax for the 2022 and 2023 land tax years, made by the respondent on 31 May 2023, are confirmed.
2. The reassessment of the applicant to vacant residential land tax for the 2023 land tax year, made by the respondent on 31 May 2023, is confirmed.

1. By referral made on 11 June 2024, the applicant Ms Youwei Zhu seeks review of the following assessments made by the Commissioner of State Revenue ('Commissioner') concerning a property she owns in Forest Hill ('Relevant Property'):
   • the reassessment of land tax for the 2022 land tax year (no. 64545674) made on 31 May 2023 in the sum of $2,550;
   • the reassessment of land tax for the 2023 land tax year (no. 64545690) made on 31 May 2023 in the sum of $3,695; and
   • reassessment of vacant residential land tax for the 2023 land tax year (no. 64546612) made on 31 May 2023 in the sum of $13,900.

1. At the heart of this dispute is an issue as to when Ms Zhu began to use and occupy the Relevant Property as her principal place of residence, as that issue is relevant to each of the Assessments.
2. Ms Zhu became the registered proprietor of the Relevant Property on 7 December 2021. At the time, Ms Zhu and her late husband were living with their adult daughter at her home in Nunawading, which Ms Zhu says was only a two minute drive away.
3. While there is some evidence of limited use of utilities at the Relevant Property around that time, and I have little doubt that, subjectively, Ms Zhu regarded that property as her principal place of residence from that time, the objective evidence suggests that she and her late husband continued to reside at their daughter's home until in or around March 2023 when they hired a van and moved their household effects to the Relevant Property. For the reasons which follow, I have found that it was only from that time that Ms Zhu commenced to use and occupy the Relevant Property as her principal place of residence.
4. Land tax, including vacant residential land tax (or 'VRLT'), is imposed under the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) ('LT Act').
5. VRLT applies to residential land that has not been used and occupied as a person's principal place of residence for at least six months in the year preceding the land tax year (i.e. at least six months in the 2022 calendar year for the 2023 land tax year).
6. Land tax applies to all Victorian land, other than exempt land, that a person owns at midnight on 31 December of the calendar year preceding the land tax year (i.e. 31 December 2022 for the 2023 land tax year). An exemption is available for land that is used and occupied as a person's principal place of residence. However, to qualify for that exemption, it is generally necessary that the use and occupation take place between 1 July and 31 December of the preceding year (i.e. between 1 July and 31 December 2022 for the 2023 land tax year). While there is an extension of that exemption during a period of temporary absence, to qualify for that extension, it is necessary to demonstrate that the property was the person's principal place of residence for at least six months prior to the temporary absence.
7. Based on my finding that Ms Zhu's use of the Relevant Property as her principal place of residence did not commence until in or around March 2023, it follows that VRLT applies and the Relevant Property is not exempt from land tax. For these reasons, the Assessments must be confirmed.

Outline of the relevant legislative framework

1. The LT Act imposes land tax in respect of each year on all taxable land in Victoria, with the owner of taxable land being liable to pay land tax.[1]
2. A taxpayer is to be assessed for land tax on the total taxable land of which he or she was the owner at midnight on 31 December immediately preceding that year.[2]
3. Taxable land is defined in the Act to mean all land that is not exempt land.[3] The exemption for land used as a person's principal place of residence is found in section 54 of the LT Act that, so far as relevant, reads as follows:

(1) Subject to this Division, the following land is exempt land -

(a) land owned by a natural person ... that is used and occupied as the principal place of residence of that person;

(2) Subject to sections 55, ... subsection (1)(a), (b) ... only applies if the land has been used and occupied as the principal place of residence of the owner, vested beneficiary ...

(a) since 1 July in the year preceding the tax year ...

1. Where land is acquired after 1 July of a given year, the strictness of section 54(2) is ameliorated by sections 55 and 55A which, broadly speaking, allow the principal place of residence exemption to be claimed where the property is used and occupied as a person's principal place of residence for a period of at least six months commencing in the year of acquisition or in the following year.
2. Under section 56, land is also 'taken to be' used and occupied as a person's principal place of residence during a period of temporary absence. However, it is necessary that the land was exempt under section 54 immediately before the period of absence and that it had been used and occupied as the owner's principal place of residence 'for a period of at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the owner's absence'[4].
3. VRLT is imposed under section 34A. However, unlike ordinary land tax, VRLT only applies to a subset of land in Victoria, being residential land which is vacant and, until the 2025 land tax year, located within one of the identified inner and middle Melbourne municipalities (which include the City of Whitehorse covering Forest Hill).[5]
4. The question of whether the land is 'vacant' is to be determined under section 34C. That section provides that land is vacant 'if it has not been used and occupied for a period (whether continuous or aggregate) of greater than 6 months in the year preceding the tax year' by the owner or a permitted occupant as their principal place of residence (or under a lease or short-term letting arrangement).
5. The LT Act does not define the expression 'principal place of residence'. However, in Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Ferrington,[6] the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel identified a number of common principles ('Ferrington Principles') in determining a person's principal place of residence as follows:[7]

First, the words "principal place of residence" should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear...

Secondly, consideration of whether a person has been residing or occupying premises as their principal place of residence is to be assessed objectively, in the light of the circumstances relating to the actual occupation of the dwelling...

Thirdly, the intention of the person concerned, gauged objectively, is relevant but not determinative of the issue...

Fourthly, to occupy a home as his or her place of principal residence a person's occupation must have a degree of permanence to it: a connection to a place of residence of a transient, temporary, contingent or passing nature is not sufficient, nor is occupation for some other purpose...

Fifthly, the short length of a person's residence, while relevant, is not determinative of the issue...

Sixthly, the reason for a person's departure from the home must be both reasonable and adequately explained when considered objectively in the light of their personal circumstances...

1. In essence, the place of residence of a person is 'the place where he [or she] eats, drinks and sleeps'.[8] However, as observed in Afi v Commissioner of State Revenue ('Afi'):[9]

The residence requirement is often misunderstood. The cases demonstrate that some people mistakenly see it as requiring only that they sleep at the house occasionally, with the only item of furniture being a bed, while carrying out all the usual activities of a householder - cooking, eating meals, showering, and washing clothes - elsewhere.

The residence requirement requires more than an occasional, limited or temporary presence. And the requirement must be met within the time limits provided for in the [relevant Act].

1. Although the Ferrington Principles were developed in the context of the first home-owners grant in New South Wales, those principles have also been applied in many VCAT decisions, including in relation to the exemption from land tax under section 54 of the LT Act.[10] Recently, VCAT has observed that, because 'similar concepts are employed elsewhere in the LT Act and in other [state tax] legislation', the decisions concerning such legislation 'are helpful in understanding section 34C'.[11]
2. Importantly, a taxpayer bears the onus of proving their case.[12]
3. In Sarros v Commissioner of State Revenue,[13] Senior Member ('SM') Willey helpfully lists factors which have been identified as relevant to determining whether a property has been used as a person's principal place of residence, which include:[14]
   • the time spent at the residence, as compared to at other places;
   • the use of an address as a person's official address (e.g. for electoral and income tax purposes and for their driver's licence) and mailing address (e.g. for utility bills);
   • the nature of any insurance held;
   • the consumption of utilities;
   • where clothing, furniture and possessions are kept; and
   • where family members reside.
4. No one factor will be determinative but, as SM Willey goes on to observe, 'objective evidence carries the greatest weight'.[15]
5. Utility consumption can be particularly important because, as SM Wentworth observed in Afi, it 'tells us to what extent someone has carried out the usual activities of a householder such as cooking, using appliances, turning on lights at night, using the bathroom, watering the garden and so on'.[16]
6. Senior Member Wentworth went on to note that the Tribunal has held 'for example, that zero water usage means that an applicant cannot have been living in the property at all because it indicates that they did not use the toilet or wash their hands, let alone shower at the property'.[17] To like effect, in Carvalho v Commissioner of State Revenue,[18] I rejected the evidence of a couple who suggested that they had used no water over a three month period because, among other things, they showered at a neighbourhood pool or facility. While not recorded in the reasons, the applicants had given evidence that they did not need to use the toilet much at night and, when they did, they used the garden. I observed that it was 'simply not credible to suggest that they could live in a property as their [principal place of residence] without using any water even to flush a toilet or wash their hands or boil a kettle of water'.[19]
7. In Afi, SMva Wentworth also highlighted the relevance of 'average daily use' estimates provided by utility companies observing that, although the Tribunal 'take[s] into account that everyone uses utilities differently and lifestyles vary', the estimates 'provide helpful guidance as to what one would expect in the case of a person genuinely living in the property'.[20]

Chronology of events leading up to Assessment and subsequently

1. To understand the evidence as to the use of the Relevant Property by Ms Zhu and her late husband, it is necessary to set out a brief chronology of the events leading up to the issue of the Assessments and subsequently.
2. On 24 March 2023, the Commissioner's delegate sent an email to Ms Zhu (using her daughter's email address) and attaching a letter indicating that the Relevant Property had been selected for investigation 'to determine compliance with the [LT Act]'.[21] The delegate observed that 'records indicate that this property may have been vacant for more than six months in the 2022 calendar year, and you may therefore be liable for the VRLT'. The letter required Ms Zhu to provide certain information including 'the dates the property has been used as [Ms Zhu's] principal place of residence ... during the period from purchase to current'.
3. By email dated 14 May 2023 ('May 2023 Correspondence'), Ms Zhu provided her response. She stated that:

(a) the Relevant Property was acquired using proceeds from sale of her previous home[22] and funds from her daughter's mortgage, and was the only property she owns and her 'PPR' (i.e. principal place of residence);

(b) 'before [she] bought the Relevant Property, [her] husband and [her] stayed at [their] daughter's place';

(c) as a result of suspected pericarditis following her first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination on 16 October 2021, she did not 'have the ability to move house to [the Relevant Property]'. However, she and her late husband 'move[d] some personal belongings and what [she and her] husband [needed as] daily use items to that house on each [weekend]';

(d) she and her husband would 'stay there for the weekends' and 'did mowing the lawn [and] watering the plants'. However, '[d]uring other days', she stayed at her daughter's place 'because they look[ed] after [her] and [would] take [her] to see doctors for checks'; and

(e) she and her husband were 'both weak and not healthy' and only 'fully moved over' to the Relevant Property in March 2023, but contended that because they stayed at the property on weekends it was 'not vacant during [the] year of 2022'.

1. The Assessments were issued on 31 May 2023. On 30 June 2023, Ms Zhu filed an objection to the Commissioner's original assessments of land tax and VRLT ('Objection').[23] In that Objection, Ms Zhu elaborated on aspects of the account provided in the May 2023 Correspondence. In particular, she stated that:

(a) she recontracted pericarditis in November 2022 as a result of becoming infected with COVID-19 and, as a result, 'during the above period' (which appears to refer to the period from October 2021 to June 2023), she could 'only gradually slowly pack up and gradually move [her] items into [the Relevant Property], [but] not fully move into the property';

(b) '[b]ecause the toilet system is very loud at [her] daughter's place' and prevented her from sleeping, she would sleep at the Relevant Property and, for that purpose '[o]n weekdays around 10pm, [her] daughter sent [her to the Relevant Property] to sleep, [and on] the next day around 7am in the morning [her daughter] will pick [her husband and her] up and bring [them] to her place';

(c) in 2022, 'the total time [she] spent and slept in [the Relevant Property] should be more than 180 days'; and

(d) 'because during 2021-2022, [she] mostly slept in [the Relevant Property], and stayed there on weekends, [although they] didn't fully move over, the property should be consider[ed] as [her] principal place of residence'.

1. The matter was referred to the Tribunal in June 2024, following the Commissioner's determination to disallow the objection (other than to remit penalty tax which had originally been imposed).[24]
2. On 23 October 2024, Ms Zhu filed and served her written submissions in this proceeding ('Contentions').[25] Those submissions are largely consistent with her May 2023 Correspondence and the Objection, save that she explains:

(a) it was only after receiving the Commissioner's letter in March 2023 that she and her husband began 'rushing [and] packing up and asked [a] removalist to move over [their household items to the Relevant Property]'.[26] Ms Zhu provided an invoice for the rental of a moving van as evidence of the move (although it appears to be for dates in March 2023 that slightly precede the Commissioner's letter);[27]

(b) due to her pericarditis, she would 'stay at [her] daughter's place during daytime so [her daughter could] provide personal support to [her] and take [her] to see doctors'. However, she and her late husband 'who look[ed] after [her] during [the] night' would stay at the Relevant Property 'at night and on weekends' with her husband doing 'gardening and watering'

(c) her husband was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer shortly after the move and passed away in July 2023; and

(d) since her husband passed, Ms Zhu has 'struggled to do housework due to [her] health condition' and it 'usually takes 2-3 hours for [her] to prepare [he] own meal' and she often '[falls] asleep on the chair with [an] unfinished dinner'.

1. At the hearing, it became apparent that Ms Zhu cannot read English. Through an interpreter, she clarified that the May 2023 Correspondence, the Objection and the Contentions (which were in English) had been written by her daughter, based on her instructions. Nevertheless, she said she trusted her daughter and confirmed that, to the best of her knowledge, those statements were true and correct.

1. Ms Zhu has provided the following documentary material:
   • Energy Australia gas accounts for the Relevant Property, addressed to Ms Zhu at her daughter's address, for the period from 7 December 2021 to 5 October 2022.[28]
   • A letter from Dr Peter Yang, from Burwood HealthCare, dated 19 April 2023 confirming that she suffered from 'cardiac symptoms resembling those of pericarditis' following a Pfizer vaccination in October 2021 and that, while 'slightly improved in [the] past few months', this has resulted in her being 'physically restrained' and unable to 'complete task[s] like relocating her residence'.[29]
   • Medical details relating to her late husband, including confirmation of his Stage 4 lung cancer,[30] as well as his death certificate.[31]
   • A confirmation of the rental of a moving van from Thrifty for the period from 19 to 20 March 2023.[32]
2. At the hearing, Ms Zhu also handed up a small number of additional documents that she wished to rely upon,[33] namely:
   • A certificate of currency from Allianz for 'home insurance' in respect of the Relevant Property, effective from 7 December 2021.
   • Two Lumo Energy electricity accounts for the Relevant Property, addressed to Ms Zhu at that address, for 31 May to 29 June 2022 and 30 September to 30 October 2022.
   • Two Yarra Valley water accounts for the Relevant Property, addressed to Ms Zhu at that address, for 25 January to 22 July 2022.
3. The Commissioner produced the following documents as attachments to his contentions:[34]
   • Information from Yarra Valley Water as to average household water usage.[35]
   • Information provided by Yarra Valley Water to the Commissioner on 13 June 2024 as to water usage at the Relevant Property between October 2021 and April 2024.[36]
   • A CSIRO report dated 4 December 2018, entitled 'Energise Insight', as to average household electricity usage.[37]
   • Information provided by Lumo Energy to the Commissioner in relation to electricity usage and charges for the Relevant Property between January 2022 and September 2023.[38]
   • A report entitled 'Residential energy consumption benchmarks', prepared by Frontier Economics for the Australian Energy Regulator and dated 9 December 2020 as to average gas usage.[39]
4. At the hearing, Mr Hartley (counsel for the Commissioner) handed up a document summarising the information as to utility usage as an 'aide memoire' as follows:
   • Gas usage: There was zero gas usage at the Relevant Property over a four month period from August to November 2022.[40] Further, gas usage as a percentage of Frontier Economics average Victorian household seasonal gas usage between December 2021 to July 2022 varied from a low of 5% (in June and July 2022) to 35% (in February 2022).
   • Water usage: There was zero water usage at the Relevant Property over a six month period from May to October 2022 and limited use (between six to eight per cent of the Yarra Valley Water benchmark) for November 2022 to January 2023. Water usage as a percentage of the benchmark between December 2021 to April 2022 varied from 23.4% (in February 2022) to 81.9% (in December 2021 and January 2022). The percentage then jumped to 96.3% of the benchmark (in March and April 2023) and further to 196.3% (in May and June 2023).
   • Electricity usage: There has been electricity usage at the property throughout the period from December 2021 to June 2023. However, the usage dropped from 29.8% (in December 2021) to between 5 to 10% of the CSIRO benchmark between January 2022 and November 2022 (and briefly increased to 38.8% in December 2022). The percentage jumped to 117% of the benchmark in April 2023 and exceeded 280% of the benchmark in May and June 2023.

1. At the hearing, Ms Zhu gave evidence and was subject to cross-examination. It should be noted that, on many occasions, Ms Zhu responded to simple questions in cross-examination with extended responses that went well beyond what she had said in the May 2023 Correspondence, her Objection and the Contentions.
2. For example, when asked if she recognised the correspondence from the Commissioner notifying her of its investigation in March 2023 (see [26]), Ms Zhu replied that:
   • She had been surprised to receive the letter because she had never been told about VRLT. When they learnt of VRLT, she and her husband moved their 'major household items within 10 days or so'. However, prior to that (in January 2022), they had already moved a small table, chair and bed into the Relevant Property.
   • Now that she 'knew more about land tax', she considered it was her principal place of residence from the time of acquisition, suggesting that she and her husband had painted the rooms, changed the locks and repaired the kitchen sink and bathroom.
   • Her husband lived at the Relevant Property 'nearly every day' (because he could not sleep at their daughter's house due to the loud toilet), while she slept there some days. However, she did not live at the property between March and September 2022 because she had had a fall at her daughter's house. When it was put to her that she had lived mainly at her daughter's house until March 2023, Ms Zhu said that she returned to sleeping at the Relevant Property 'almost every night' from September 2022.
3. Ms Zhu also took that opportunity to try and explain the zero or low utility usage. Her evidence was that:
   • She and her husband spend the daytime at their daughter's house to save money, because they had to survive on a small pension from China and so lived in 'quite a frugal way'. She suggested 'every family is different' and 'different circumstances requires different analysis'.
   • During the day, her husband looked after their grandchild at their daughter's place and sometimes he would also cook meals. This childcare work was 'compensated by her daughter paying bills' (i.e. for the utility usage of her and her husband during the day). It was a 'normal thing' that she would eat and shower at her daughter's house.
   • While her husband would go to the Relevant Property at the end of the day to 'live and rest', and stay overnight, she suggested he did not need to go to the toilet or otherwise use the bathroom.
   • As the days got warmer, they would move more things over and she would stay on the weekends with her husband.
   • Later in her evidence, and in in response to a question whether she accepted or disagreed with the benchmarks being used by the Commissioner, Ms Zhu suggested that she had switched off the gas at the Relevant Property and moved to using bottled gas (for cooking), based on a suggestion from a friend in Sydney. She had not raised this before because she did not think of it.
4. The evident inconsistencies between Ms Zhu's evidence and her previous explanations was put to her in cross-examination. She suggested that there was no difference but, rather, her original information was based on her own use (as the Relevant Property was in her own name) but, because a 'professional adviser' had told her that her husband's use of the property was relevant, she was now providing information as to his use and occupation of the property.
5. In another response, Ms Zhu said she had a 'deep resentment' of the Commissioner and his staff, suggesting there was some link between the commencement of his investigation and her husband's cancer diagnosis.

1. Mr Hartley submitted that, at its highest, the 'type of occupation in this case' was that Ms Zhu and her husband slept at the Relevant Property regularly which, as discussed in Afi (see [17]) is not sufficient to be regarded as use and occupation as a principal place of residence. In this regard, he pointed to the 'huge difference' in utility consumption before and after March 2023 which evidences that a 'qualitative change' took place at that time.
2. Even accepting that Ms Zhu and her late husband sought to live frugally, Mr Hartley contended that the utilities usage prior to that time was 'not consistent' with use of the property as their principal place of residence. Further, he suggested Ms Zhu's evidence was 'self-defeating' in the sense that her evidence suggested that she conducted 'nearly all the activities of daily living at her daughter's house'. That she may have brought a small table, small bed and portable gas tanks and burner to the property was also not consistent with such usage.
3. Mr Hartley submitted that the differences between Ms Zhu's evidence before the Tribunal and her earlier written statements (particularly the May 2023 Correspondence) should cause the Tribunal to have 'concerns accepting her evidence' or that she has discharged her onus of proof. Rather, he invited the Tribunal to conclude that Ms Zhu and her husband were 'principally or primarily occupying their daughter's home' at the relevant times as that was what 'an objective person would consider to be the case'.
4. Ms Zhu maintained that her evidence and submissions were 'all true'. She likened the situation of her and her husband to a person who spends their day at work and only returns home at night to sleep. Further, she suggested account needed to be taken of her family's 'special circumstances' and that, imposing land tax or VRLT was 'not in line with the purpose of the provision, to deter wastage of properties'. By contrast, it was 'unfair to impose tax on a marginalised group of low-income people who only have one property'.
5. In his reply, Mr Hartley observed that the answer to the labourer example relied upon by Ms Zhu was the requirement in section 53(2) of the LT Act to have regard to 'every place of residence' of a taxpayer. If a labourer only has one place of residence, then it could readily be accepted as their principal place of residence even if they did not spend much time there. By contrast, Ms Zhu and her late husband 'had two places of residence', i.e. the Relevant Property and their daughter's home.

When did the Relevant Property become Ms Zhu's principal place of residence?

1. In my view, the evidence of utilities usage at the Relevant Property is only consistent with Ms Zhu's initial explanation (i.e. in her May 2023 Correspondence) as to the use of that property prior to March 2023, namely that she and her husband:
   • would visit the property on weekends to garden and conduct other maintenance, but,
   • otherwise spent the majority of their time eating, sleeping and engaging in the other activities of life (e.g. showering) at their daughter's house.
2. For that reason, on the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept Ms Zhu's subsequent explanations (in the Objection and/or Contentions) and in her evidence before the Tribunal that her husband slept at the property on weekdays or that he did so on any regular basis. This is particularly so having regard to the evidence of zero usage of water and gas over significant periods which indicate that he 'cannot have been living in the property' (Afi, see [23]). Ms Zhu's explanation that her husband did not use the toilet or wash his hands at night over an extended period is 'simply not credible' (Carvahlo, see [23]).
3. Ms Zhu's credibility is also impacted by her continued embellishment of her story in an attempt to explain inconsistencies in the utilities usage. For example, the first time that she mentioned turning off the gas at the property and instead using a gas bottle for cooking was in her evidence before VCAT. Similarly, it was only in her evidence before VCAT that she suggested a fall had prevented her from staying at the Relevant Property between March and September 2022. It is notable that:
   • the period she claims to have been unable to stay at the Relevant Property is largely the same as the period of zero water usage identified in the Commissioner's aide memoire (which was only handed up at the hearing); and
   • her evidence is not supported by any medical report(s) (unlike her pericarditis or her husband's lung cancer).
4. Having regard to the authorities on what principal place of residence means in this regard, it is evident - and I find - that any use that Ms Zhu and/or her late husband made of the Relevant Property to sleep (whether on weekdays or weekends) was insufficient for it to become her principal place of residence at any point prior to March 2023 ('Usage Finding').
5. The Usage Finding is fatal to Ms Zhu's claim that the Relevant Property was exempt from land tax under section 54(1)(a) of the LT Act. This is so because it necessarily follows that:
   • in relation to the 2022 land tax year, she and her late husband did not first use and occupy the property as their principal place of residence prior to 31 December 2021 as required by section 54(2)(b) (and cannot satisfy the requirements to rely on sections 55 or 55A).
   • In relation to the 2023 land tax year, she and her late husband did not use and occupy the Relevant Property as their principal place of residence between 1 July and 31 December 2022.
6. The Usage Finding is also fatal to Ms Zhu's claim that the temporary absence rule in section 56 can apply because it necessarily follows that the Relevant Property was:
   • not exempt land immediately before any such absence (as required to rely on section 56(4)(a)); and
   • not used and occupied as her and her late husband's principal place of residence for six consecutive months immediately before any period of absence (as required to rely on section 56(4)(b)).
7. Lastly, the Usage Finding is fatal to Ms Zhu's claim that the Relevant Property was not vacant and so not subject to vacant residential land tax under section 34A. This is because it was not used and occupied as the principal place of residence of Ms Zhu as owner for a period of six or more months in 2022 (as required under section 34C(1)(a)) or of her late husband as a permitted occupant (as required under section 34C(1)(b)).

1. It follows that the Commissioner's decisions to assess Ms Zhu to land tax for the 2022 and 2023 land tax years, and to assess her to vacant residential land tax for the 2023 land tax year, were correct and the Assessments must be confirmed.

[5] From the 2025 land tax year, VRLT applies to all vacant residential land in Victoria.

[6] [2004] NSWADTAP 41; (2004) 57 ATR 170.

[7] Ibid para [42] (references omitted and formatting adjusted to separate out each principle).

[8] Ziino v Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] VCAT 1707 [6] (citing Stoke-On-Trent Borough Council v Cheshire County Council (1915) 3 KB 699, 706).

[9] [2017] VCAT 1894 [64]-[65] (footnote omitted).

[10] An early example is Ward v Commissioner of State Revenue [2016] VCAT 1307.

[11] Burke v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 493 [13].

[12] Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic), s 110.

[13] [2022] WASAT 102.

[16] [2017] VCAT 1894 [80].

[17] Ibid [82] (citing Patel v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] VCAT 913 [13], Woff v Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] VCAT 477 and Alexander v Commissioner of State Revenue [2010] VCAT 868 at [10]).

[18] [2017] VCAT 1295.

[19] Ibid [31] (second bullet point).

[20] [2017] VCAT 1894 [83].

[22] In her oral evidence, she said that home was in China.

[23] TB, 19-20. The original assessments were identical to the Assessments except that they also included penalty tax that was subsequently remitted by the Commissioner.

[33] The Commissioner did not object to these being received and they were marked 'Exhibit A1'.

[34] I admitted these documents as 'Exhibit R1' (as Mr Hartley, counsel for the Commissioner, took Ms Zhu through them in cross-examination).

[40] There is no information as to gas usage for December 2022 to June 2023.