Challenger Listed Investments Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue

[2010] VSC 464

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Taxation
2. › Stamp duty
3. › Land rich provisions
4. › Duties Act 2000 (Vic)
5. › Public float of land rich unit trust
6. › Whether trustee holds 'interest' in landholder
7. › Whether s 89C applies to conversion from private to public unit trust scheme
8. › Duties Act 2000 (Vic), ss 76, 77, 89C
1. Taxation
2. › Stamp duty
3. › Land rich provisions
4. › Agreement or arrangement
5. › Whether transactions occurred 'under an agreement or arrangement'
6. › Meaning of 'under'
7. › Duties Act 2000 (Vic), s 89C(1)(b)
1. Taxation
2. › Stamp duty
3. › Exemptions
4. › Dispensing power
5. › Whether Commissioner applied correct statutory test
6. › Whether 'just and reasonable' test substituted by 'not anomalous or abnormal'
7. › Duties Act 2000 (Vic), s 85(2)
1. Taxation
2. › Penalty tax
3. › Reduction of penalty
4. › Whether taxpayer took reasonable care
5. › Reliance on legal advice
6. › Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic), s 30(3)(a)

Quick Take

A trustee holding units in a land rich unit trust does not hold an 'interest' for the purposes of ss 76 and 77 of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic), following Landrow. The Commissioner cannot narrow the dispensing power under s 85(2) by substituting 'not anomalous or abnormal' for the statutory criterion of 'just and reasonable'. A taxpayer who obtains legal advice on stamp duty implications of a transaction has taken 'reasonable care' for the purposes of penalty tax reduction under s 30(3)(a) of the Taxation Administration Act 1997 (Vic), even where the advice fails to identify the relevant provision.