Page 4082 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I thank Mr Stevenson for the question. It is one which has been across my desk as well. The reason why this particular constituent was not granted an exemption from land tax is that this is not his principal place of residence and, despite the fact that he does not have it rented, he could have.
Mr Kaine: So we now have a deemed rental situation; we deem that they could be getting rental.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, that has always been the case. People do not pay land tax on their principal place of residence. All members know that. They cannot pretend to be surprised by it. I presume that this particular person has not stated that the house which he owns is his principal place of residence, and he has not stated that because in fact he lives with his parents.
Members also know, as far as land tax goes, that we do not have a pro rata system; that a property is deemed liable for land tax on a particular date in the calendar year, and if it is liable on that date the taxpayer pays a year's land tax. On the other hand, if the property is not taxable on that date, regardless of whether it becomes subsequently rented or perhaps liable for land tax, the taxpayer gets a whole year's relief. We do not have a pro rata system. This matter was thoroughly discussed in the Assembly on several occasions when the land tax arrangements were changed. The reason why we do not have a pro rata system is simply that the expense of operating such a system and the administrative resources that would be required would have to be recouped in some way. The most obvious way of recouping such expenses is, of course, to increase the tax.
As far as I am aware, the constituent on whose behalf Mr Stevenson is questioning me has been absolutely correctly dealt with by the Revenue Office. I can understand his disappointment and I can understand also that he does not like having to pay this tax. Nobody would. I think that in fairness to the whole community the Revenue Office does have to take an approach that can be implemented across the whole community. I believe that in this particular case that is precisely what they have done.
MR STEVENSON: I have a brief supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister mentioned that the property could have been rented. Can it be rented without a certificate of compliance? If not, of course, it could not have been rented.
MS FOLLETT: I will take that question on notice, Madam Speaker, but I must say that it is not particularly germane to the land tax issue. If it had been the constituent's principal place of residence there would be no question that he is not liable for land tax on it. I think that is the basic test that has been applied in this case.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .