‍The Victorian Supreme Court in its recent decision has refused the taxpayer leave to appeal the VCAT decision of Tao v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] VCAT 637.

This upholds the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that imposed landholder duty on a change of shareholder and director of a trustee company and confirms the drastic widening of the landholder duty change of control provisions which no longer requires the acquisition of units or shares or any rights similar to share or unit ownership.

What happens if I get a land tax assessment or a vacant residential land tax assessment that I do not agree with?  Can I appeal or object a land tax assessment or vacant residential land tax assessment?

The Victorian State Government has announced new taxes to partially fund the Suburban Rail Loop as part of “value capture” arrangements.

The Victorian State Revenue Office has issued a draft revenue ruling “Land transfer duty - Consideration - Assumption of tax liabilities” for comment that seeks to impose a new stamp duty on adjustments at settlement of property transfers.  This is an Australian first tax and will penalise commercial and other property transfers.

The Victorian Supreme Court in Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VSC 709 considered the dutiable value for a transfer of land under paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic) and whether payments required to be made by the vendor under a contract were able to reduce the headline purchase price for stamp duty purposes.

The Victorian Supreme Court has held that acquisitions of units in hybrid unit trusts are potentially subject to landholder duty.

The case has wide impact with potentially absurd outcomes for some taxpayers.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has held that payments made to Uber drivers are deemed to be wages for payroll tax purposes under the relevant contract provisions.

In particular, the drivers provided services to Uber under their driving contracts.  The driving contracts governed or controlled the driver’s performance.  The driving services were not ancillary to the use of the vehicles.  Uber was not successful in challenging the earlier decisions of Optical Superstore and Thomas and Naaz – in particular, the payments made to derivers were “paid or payable” by Uber.

A New South Wales case has opened up a risk of taxpayers to surcharge rates of stamp duty and land tax for residential land held in family trusts where badly drafted foreign person exclusion clauses have been used.  This may require a complete review of all trust deeds to ensure that additional stamp duty and land tax imposts are not incurred.

The State Government has introduced a new bill to State Parliament to implement changes from the 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget.  Despite a promise of no new taxes or increased taxes, a new 50% penalty tax rate allows the State Revenue to impose higher penalties if it considers a taxpayer or their adviser has been “reckless”.

The 2025-2026 Victorian State Budget contains no new taxes or increased taxes, however previously announced changes have been confirmed – including increases to the congestion/car parking levy and the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund levy.

A Victorian foreign purchaser who bought a property in her own name with funding provided by her Australian spouse was unsuccessful in a VCAT request for exemption from foreign purchaser stamp duty surcharge in Sim v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 349.

The decision of Malcolm v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 218 has considered the operation of the joint owners of land provisions for Victorian land tax purposes and confirmed that where two taxpayers own multiple parcels of land together, the joint owned land will be aggregated and the progressive scale of land tax rates will be applied only once.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision that a pipeline was dutiable for the purposes of the New South Wales landholder duty provisions in Conexa Sydney Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCA 20.

The recent NCAT decision of T & A Skills Care Service Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAD 18 demonstrates the importance of a taxpayer discharging its evidentiary burden in claiming the primary production exemption from land tax.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision of Caloutas as trustee for Caloutas Family Trust v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] VCAT 82 has considered the interaction of bare or fixed trusts and the Victorian land tax trust surcharge provisions.

The Victorian Supreme Court decision of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lao Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 800 has considered the ability for a company to recover landholder duty from the shareholders that had made the relevant acquisition.

The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment in ASIC v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd highlights that if a corporation honestly relies on advice from their lawyers that may provide reasonable grounds to defend the making of a representation that concerns the present state of affairs.

The Federal Court found that representations made by Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd (REST) regarding their rules and practice were opinions expressed as to the law based on reasonable grounds due to reliance on advice received from their lawyers and other trusted sources. Therefore, the representations made could not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct.

The New South Wales Supreme Court has that Uber is not liable for payroll tax on payments made to drivers in Uber Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] NSWSC 1124.

A new tax will be imposed on both short stay service platforms and others who offer direct bookings of short stay accommodation. The levy will apply to stays less than 28 days but will exclude a homeowner’s principal place of residence or commercial residential premises (i.e. a hotel, motel etc).

A taxpayer has lost an appeal in New South Wales on the ground that a potential exemption did not apply to agreements to transfer. This has wide implications for other transactions.