A taxpayer has been successful before the Qld Supreme Court in a land rich duty matter concerning whether, at the relevant time, a corporation’s land-holdings included its interest in mining leases granted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld).
The taxpayer acquired 51% of the issued shares in the subject corporation on 20 December 2010. At that date, the corporation had 2 mining leases with a value of $2.4m. The corporation also then owned $3.4m worth of real property and id=”mce_marker”50,000 in other assets. The decision turned on the proper interpretation of s 167(1) of the Duties Act 2001 (Qld), at the time of the transaction, which defined what constituted a corporation’s land-holdings.
The Supreme Court concluded the subject corporation was not a land rich corporation because its mining leases did not form part of its land-holdings. It said that was because the expression “interest in land” in the then s 167(1)(a) of the Duties Act contained its ordinary meaning. Further, it said the definition of “interest” in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) could not apply to the expression in s 167 because the word “interest” was used in that provision specifically and unambiguously in a way which was qualified by the words “in land”. Furthermore, it added that it would defeat that express qualification to import the wider subject matter of any interest in relation to land. Accordingly, the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed in full.
(Sojitz Coal Resources Pty Ltd v Comr of State Revenue [2015] QSC 9, Qld Supreme Court, McMurdo J, 30 January 2015.)
[LTN 22, 4/2/15]