Edwards v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 205
The facts and evidence were identical to those in application number 053232, and the reasons in that decision included the reasons for this application; the application was dismissed and the Chief Commissioner's decisions were affirmed.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Review of Revenue Decisions / Principal Matter
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; decisions affirmed.
- Legal Topics
- ['duties Act' 'first Home Plus Scheme' 'first Home Owner Grant' 'stamp Duty Concession' 'residence Requirement']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Revenue Decisions / Principal Matter
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the application for review.' "Whether the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue's decisions requiring repayment of the First Home Owner Grant with a 20% penalty and revoking the First Home Plus stamp duty concession should be affirmed."]
Ratio Decidendi
The facts and evidence were identical to those in application number 053232, and the reasons in that decision included the reasons for this application; the application was dismissed and the Chief Commissioner's decisions were affirmed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; decisions affirmed.
Orders
- ['The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application for review.' 'The application is dismissed. The decisions of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to require repayment of the First Home Owner Grant together with a 20% penalty and to revoke the First Home Plus stamp duty concession are affirmed.' 'The...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment