[Michael Olthof]

G’day Suzi,

Seems like a very odd ruling on vacant land. I read that the judge looked to the dictionary definition of ‘vacant’ only; no mention of the context to land; and then applied that definition to ‘vacant land’. (Even FESL law recognises that land ain’t vacant if it has any material on it.)

Hopefully the new Act will include a comprehensive list of definitions.

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

Thanks Rob, that’s very informative.

So the Recovery of Imposts Act can’t be relied upon according to this judgment. So does that send us back to section 15 of the Limitation Act 1969, i.e. 6 years is as far back as we should have to go in addressing retrospective rates assessment?

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

Thanks Darryl and Simone – good to get some clarity on declaration dates…! Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day Sue,
Northern Beaches Council (from Pittwater, Warringah & Manly). Ten staff for 101,000 assessments. Still maintaining the 3 databases.
Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day Nicole,

I note the proposed legislation for ESPL is quite specific and clear in regards to quarterly levying.

I am hoping that any new Local Government rating legislation will be equally clear. Until then I plan to continue with annual assessment of rates.

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

I also asked this question of Treasury via the ESPL site and received the following response –

The process that councils will need to follow regarding identifying properties that may qualify for Public Benefit status for the purposes of ESPL is as follows:

1. As a base and first step, look at all land currently exempt from council rates and compare which of these are used for purposes listed under Public Benefit definition (Attachment C in manual), those that are on the list and operated as a not-for-profit can be classified as Public Benefit
2. Next would be to check individual cases of organisations where the council is not sure if they are a not-for-profit, by searching the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission registry (ACNC) at https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/FindCharity/Recentlyregistered/ACNC/OnlineProcessors/Online_register/Recentlyreg.aspx?hkey=632b3837-b4db-495b-818e-48619b7c4737.

However, councils will also need to use their judgement where a an organisation may be listed as a not-for-profit or charity on the ACNC register but are not using the land/property for a purpose listed in the Public Benefit list (Attachment C in manual). An example would be a Vinnies or Salvation Army store. The organisations are not-for-profit but they are not using the land for a purpose listed in the Public Benefit list (a retail store is not on the list). Therefor they would not classify as public benefit.

We are fully aware of the onerous process the individual checking on a case by case basis will be for councils, especially in this short time frame. However hopefully using the properties already non-rateable for council rates will catch most of the properties that could be potentially classified as Public Benefit.

It is important to note that councils can’t simply check if a property use is on the Public Benefit list to classify it. Confirming whether it is operated as a not-for-profit must also be done before a property can be classified Public Benefit.

[Michael Olthof]

Very sorry to hear this Jane. John was a top bloke.

[Michael Olthof]

I wanted to change the council name on our 603 certificates, however our GST accountant says whilst we are waiting on a new ABN (some 2 weeks) we need to retain Pittwater Council (as the name and ABN need to synchronise).

[Michael Olthof]

Good morning – I will not be able to attend, so just wanted to make comment on the issue of UV vs CIV for assessing rates.

From the IPART review document it appears the main reason to move from UV to CIV surrounds the rating of multi-unit dwellings, where the low UV of these leads to inequitable rates assessments. In my view this could still be addressed by retaining UV but expanding the sub-category for Residential to allow a different rate to be applied to units (i.e a higher res rate). This would retain the efficiency and simplicity of UV and avoid the costs of implementing CIV. Additionally, I imagine CIV would require more effort from council to capture and record improvements to properties.

We need to determine how more complex and costly we want to make the administration of council rating, given the relatively low amount of the average annual rates assessment.

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day Melissa,

We treat drainage reserves as exempt from payment of rates.

Section 556(1)(a) provides exemption for land that is a public place.

The LGA Dictionary states ‘Public place means…public land…’, and defines public land as ‘…any land…under the control of the council…’.

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day Simone,

I haven’t had this situation before, but I think I would be investigating the Limitation Act 1969 section 15. I interpret it to mean you need (only) refund 6 years of overpaid rates.

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/la1969133/

Maybe someone else has a definitive answer?

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

So not very long then Ken….. or is this some other, older dude..?! Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day Del,

Vineyards appear to meet the definition of ‘farmland’ in section 515, so as long as the specific property also meets sections 1 (a) & (b), that might be the appropriate category.

Regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

G’day JT – I’ve read the material – thanks for sharing.

Can you clarify what it is about this case that could affect other councils? Is it the owner Fivex Pty Ltd or an LEP change (or something else)?

Thanks and regards, MO.

[Michael Olthof]

I’m unsure if there is case law on s62. Maybe you can be the first Kim – there’d certainly be a lot of interest in the ruling…!

[Author]

Posts