In Parts 1-4 of this series, we discussed the landholder duty provisions, with a particular focus on Victorian landholder duty. In this part we continue to delve into the complex landholder provisions, with a focus on the principle of an acquisitions of economic entitlement.
This is Part 4 of a series of articles by our State Taxes Team on landholder duty and deconstructs the complex provisions by providing a snapshot on landholder duty and its application with regards to private entities.
This is Part 3 of a series of articles by our State Taxes Team on landholder duty and deconstructs the complex provisions by providing a snapshot on landholder duty and its application with regards to private entities.
In a recent case of Nifuno Pty Ltd atf Stephen Forbes Pension Fund v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue  NSWCATOD 3, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) considered the application of an available duty concession for the transfer of property in connection with persons changing superannuation funds, including self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).
Thousands of businesses across regional Victoria have already taken advantage of the Victorian Government’s regional payroll tax cuts, which have saved businesses more than $31 million in the first financial year it was introduced.
In Nationwide Towing & Transport Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (No 2)  VSC 609, the Victorian Supreme Court has handed down another decision* against the Victorian State Revenue Office by setting aside payroll tax assessments issued in relation to payments to subcontractors.
The Victorian Supreme Court in the decision of MD Commercial Pty Ltd & AJ Commercial Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue  VSC 560 confirmed that certain transfers of land to trustees were not exempt from duty under section 35 of the Duties Act 2000.
The Victorian Court of Appeal in its recent decision of Living and Leisure Australia Pty Ltd vs Commissioner of State Revenue (Living and Leisure) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers and upheld the Victorian Supreme Court’s conclusion that the contended leases in respect of Crown lands within the alpine resorts granted exclusive possession and were leases.