[Trevor Holland]

Howdy Everyone
We have the following situation. A car park has been built on a parcel of land to provide parking for the parishioners attending a church that is located across the road. There is no other development on the land.
The church have now applied for an exemption from rates on the car park which is not used for any purpose other than to provide parking.
My question for everyone.
Would you grant an exemption on the car park or not?
I cannot see how it would comply with Section 555(1)(e) of the Act. However I would be interested in hearing the viewpoints of other Revenue Professionals.
Regards
Trevor

[Susan Pardy]

Hi Trevor,
If you could confirm that the car park is owned by the religious group and was only used for the purposes of providing car parking to Church-going parishioners, then yes, I would provide the exemption under 555(1)(e) as it is “used in connection with” the said church.
Cheers,
Susan

[Robert Hay]

Hi Trevor
I agree with Susan on the same basis, I believe it satisfies the requirements of 555(1)(e)(I)
Although not exactly the same if you’re looking for some case law Sydney City Council v University of Technology, Sydney (1992) deals with a car park and there’s also City of Newcastle v. Royal Newcastle Hospital with deals with surrounding land.

Robert

[John Towers]

I agree with Susan & Robert.

Further, Sec 555(1)(f)(i) deals with a playground that belongs to & is used in connection with a school.

I’m sure some much clever than me would pick that up & draw the analogy between that bit of the legislation & the church car park which is across the road.

You may want to talk to Liverpool as I seem to remember a similar situation there, when I was there 20+ years ago – Catholic Church in Casula possibly – although given the development around that area it’s probably been sold off for housing by now.

[Trevor Holland]

Thanks everyone for the responses.Really appreciate the feedback

[John Norris]

Hi Trevor,

I’m afraid I don’t agree with the above responses. Whilst I accept that you could draw a long bow and make the comparison between 555(1)(e) & 555(1)(f) there are specific words in 555(1)(e) that define the land owned by a religious body that is to be exempt from all rates.
Section 555(1) states
(e) land that belongs to a religious body and is occupied and used in connection with:
(i) a church or other building used or occupied for public worship, or
(ii) a building used or occupied solely as the residence of a minister of religion in connection with any such church or building, or
(iii) a building used or occupied for the purpose of religious teaching or training, or
(iv) a building used or occupied solely as the residence of the official head or the assistant official head (or both) of any religious body in the State or in any diocese within the State,

Each sub-section refers to a building as part of what is to be exempt. A church or other building for public worship, building used or occupied solely as the residence of a minister, building occupied or used for religious teaching and building used or occupied solely as the residence of the official head or assistant head in State or diocese etc.

Section 555(1)(e) make no mention of land used for any other purposes in relation to religious organisations than those specified and for that reason I would happily not grant an exemption.

[Author]

Posts