Page 1413 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Land Tax
MR DE DOMENICO: Madam Speaker, I also ask the Treasurer a question and it relates to the media statement of last week. It took the Treasurer a year to realise that there are clear anomalies in the law. Will she explain how a mother working interstate by economic necessity, whose ACT home is occupied by relatives, not paying rent, could be liable for land tax?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, the members opposite clearly do not understand - I think it is a deliberate lack of understanding - the intention of this extension of land tax. I repeat that it is quite clearly intended that those residential properties pay tax on the same basis as other commercial properties. It is not relevant whether those properties are actually rented out at the time. They still have that potential value as rentable properties.
Mr De Domenico has asked a question about a mother who has made her property available to relatives without rent. Presumably, Madam Speaker, she has done that in the conscious knowledge that she could have charged them, or others, rent. So, she has done that as a deliberate policy. Madam Speaker, we have extended the exemption to the spouses of people who are compulsorily transferred interstate, and I think that does correct an anomaly. Where a spouse has owned a property and the partner is the one who is transferred, we have extended the exemption in those circumstances because, quite clearly, it would not be reasonable to expect one's spouse to stay behind and occupy that house as a principal place of residence.
But, where another family member adopts another principal place of residence, an interstate place of residence, and leaves the Canberra property, a rentable property with the potential to earn income, and makes an arrangement that does not actually capitalise on that income, then that is their choice; that is their decision, and I currently do not contemplate extending the exemption in those circumstances. Quite clearly, people could make all kinds of arrangements, which may or may not make any sort of economic sense, and then claim an exemption. As I have said, the intention of this legislation is that land tax will be levied on residential properties which are not the principal place of residence of the owner. That is the clear intention. Mr De Domenico is dying to leap to his feet with a supplementary question, so perhaps I will give him that opportunity.
MR DE DOMENICO: Madam Speaker, does the Chief Minister agree that the Rates and Land Tax Act does not require absence for work-related reasons to be involuntary? If so, will the Chief Minister immediately instruct the Revenue Office to reverse its decisions in the cases of appeals against land tax on this ground?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I do not know that I agree with either part of Mr De Domenico's proposition; but, quite clearly, the Commissioner for Revenue has some discretion in these matters. He has, indeed, heard a great many cases, where people have claimed hardship or have claimed that there has been a death in the family, or for a variety of circumstances have sought exemption. If Mr De Domenico has such a case, then I suggest that he bring it to the attention of the Commissioner for Revenue and seek a ruling from him.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .