[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Jason

Short answer – yes you need to make changes to any rates made in each base date.

Long answer – Section 14DD refers to ‘alterations to the Register of Land Values’ for any ‘reascertainment …… allowance or apportionment factor’, ‘objection or appeal’ or ‘clerical error or misdescription’. Section 61 says ‘rating or taxing authority shall use any valuation list and any supplementary list so furnished by the Valuer-General as the basis of its rate’.

Importantly you do need to refund any overpayment.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Neil’s funeral will be this Friday, 16 January in St Therese of the little flower, 2 Powell St, West Wollongong at 10am.

Neil Gerard Charge

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Maria

That is an interesting question, the Act describes a dwelling as dwelling, in Division 1 of Part 8 of Chapter 15, means a building or part of a building used as a place of dwelling. and for postponed rates to apply Section 585 says a parcel of land on which there is a single dwelling-house used or occupied as such essentially the same in s585(a) and (b).

From my perspective I would interpret the Act literally and suggest that the term ‘single dwelling-house’ would need to have clear and separate access with a clear boundary around each, similar to what the VG would use in their policy for separate valuations.

Definitely would not apply postponed if there are two new buildings or buildings that are strata, dual occupancy or secondary dwellings. From what you have described I would continue to apply postponed on the basis that the property is a parcel of land on which there is a single dwelling-house. It may be worth approaching the VG to see if they would provide a separate valuation for the studio, because if they do that would change my view.

I hope this is helpful and would be interested if others have sought legal advice on this.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Dale

I agree with you based on the information provided. An exemption for a religious body can be granted on vacant land but only where the land 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,

Essentially, (i) may be a vacant block used for overflow car parking or sunday school activities adjacent to a place of public worship. I would say the other items are probably irrelevant as the land described does not appear to be occupied and used and is simply for financial investment purposes.

Happy to discuss further if necessary.

Regards
Andrew

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Anthony

I understand your interpretation, however the issue is not the use its the application that is the problem. In particular is compliance that has been driven by Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 from the United States that has affected compliance positioning around the world.

Principally, the current legislation is not as clear as it should be and is open to intrepetation. Accordingly the OLG has reformed this under the Local Government Amendment Act to firm up the application process for transfers in ownership and the discontinuance of postponed rates following a transfer or sale as was their initial intention. Unfortunately, the Rating and Revenue Raising Manual has not been updated to make this clearer.

Section 597 leads with ‘a person ceases to be entitled to a postponement of rates under this division….’, the person entitled to postponed is the person that made the initial application, that person would be liable for the accrued postponed to the date of transfer or sale and new owner would need to apply from the next rating year per Section 585 Who may apply, refers to ‘the rateable person for land….’.

Who knew there would be such passionate debate about postponed rates? For the purposes of continuity councils that have a policy around this would in my view be best advised to continue, however as I said earlier the amended legislation has been passed just not commenced and it gives a clearer policy position from the government, just my view.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Nick
The manual does cause an issue due to it being so out of date. I recall during the drafting of new legislation this came up and the OLG was not of that opinion any longer. This is not helpful when trying have a consistent approach to applying postponed rates, I agree.
The legislation that passed through both houses of parliament presents a clearer position, and although the legislation has not been asented to it has been passed.
It is a difficult position to provide a difinitive solution given the conflicting advice in the Rating and Revenue Raising Manual.
The new legislation says:

591 Postponement of rates
(1) A council must, in accordance with this section, postpone the payment of rates for land in a rating year where a change in the zoning or other designation of the land under an environmental planning instrument mentioned in section 585 happens if—

(c) the rateable person making the application—
(i) occupies the land when the application is made, and
(ii) owned the land when the change happened, but did not initiate or request the change, and

The new legislation supports the ending of postponed on sale or transfer. It would be interesting to see how the courts would interpret the current situation should a matter escalate to a precedent decision.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Cherie

I reached out to the OLG as I am aware that they are revising the Pensioner Concession Rebate application forms and there was no mention of the DVA White Card in the review.

The OLG has just been in contact with the Department of Veteran Affairs who have confirmed that the DVA White Card does not allow holders to claim a rebate concession under the Local Government Act 1993.

The new hardcopy, verbal and on-line forms will be avaialble soon.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Michelle
Got to love the auditors. I have just spoken to the OLG (Sarah and Chris) and the advice is for councils to include in their SoC support documents both 2024-25 and 2025-26 Council resolution for the adopted rates and charges. This is better than a GM Certificate and should tie back to the rates (base/min + ad-valorem) and with the valuation reconciliation there does not seem to be any need for the certificate.
Also, the SoC is a special schedule in the Financial Reports and they are signed off by the GM, Mayor, ROA and anyone else, so that too can be taken as sign off.
Unfortunately, no official document, maybe suggest the AO contact the OLG as a formal check.
Hope you are well and keeping safe.
Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Michelle
I dont believe there are still errors in the workpapers, Pete identified the date errors and I was advised that the OLG fixed them.
If you access the latest version from the portal the dates should be ok.
The GM certificate is no longer required. The OLG is happy with the GM signing off on the Statements which inludes the SoC as a special schedule.
I hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

I have been in contact with the VG and been advised that all Valnet portal access issues should, in the first instance be directed to valnet.operations@dpie.nsw.gov.au

Happy to help if you continue to experience issues, please post into the chat to make it easier to manage.

No problem Darryl, things moved a lot quicker than I expected, which is great to see.

Regards,
Andrew

• This reply was modified 10 months ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Rebecca
I dont think the property is available for public worship based on what you have described. If anything they may meet (i) but if its fenced I would seek some more information on services conducted or (iii), again better particulars would be needed.
In these instances I would seek evidence to support the claim, a lot of religious institutions feel just being a religious institution is enough for an exemption and that is not what the legislation says.
Hope you are well and keeping safe.
Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Carmel

We have 6 childcare centres and implemented a process many years ago for all receipts to be received through our core receipting module – Pathway. We did this so they could leverage off all of our payment options such as BPAY, Australia Post OTC, front counter (our office), internet and phone payments. We made sure that the billing information needed was included in all the data received from each channel so we could import into Pathway and income would be applied to the right centres.

Yes, a separate BPAY biller code was created, would highly recommend this unless your system allows integration to debtors and your debtor system has a Biller code already.

Each night we scheduled/automated a receipting data extract file that could be injested into our childcare solution – Hubworks. The file included receipt amount, source, date/time, reference/account number for both receipts and any reversals.

We did not accrue childcare payments as parents were required to pay in advance.

This all worked exceptionally well until our childcare team announced they would be moving wholly to direct debit, which works well aside from all the dishonours.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Gail

Looks like a legacy item that you now have an opportunity to fix. I agree with Robert on the basis that I am not aware of any legislative provisions that allow for this and would avoid it.

It is also important to identify the purely ad-valorem rate in your Statement of Revenue Policy. Depending on how this is applied to each parcel appears problematic as well, there have been recent changes in the way residential sub-categories can be made which may be helpful, unless the parcels are scattered.

Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Jason

Unfortunately the resolution does not allow for the voluntary rebate to extend beyond the limitations in the legislation to Senior Health Cardholders. I would advise against it.

Sorry, dont want this to look like a critisism just think it is important that others are aware that the voluntary rebate or the reduction of a rate or charge can only be performed for an eligible pensioner as defined under Section 136 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021.

Regards,
Andrew

[Andrew Butcher]

Hi Dave

There were changes made in 2005 (1/7/2005 I think) to repeal Section 530 which said:
530 Ad valorem rate for the category “farmland”
If the ad valorem amount is different for different categories or different sub-categories within a category, the ad valorem amount for the category “farmland” (or each sub-category within that category) must be lower than the ad valorem amount in each other category (or each sub-category within those other categories).

This was not replaced with any other requirement for the Farmland rate to be the lowest.

In 2021 the repealed Section 530 was replaced with a new section for special provisions for residential sub-categories.

Hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Andrew

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by Andrew Butcher.

[Author]

Posts