Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen version of this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please return to the case for PDF printing options.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue[2025] QCAT 326Member Scott-Mackenzie
Add to List

Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue[2025] QCAT 326

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] QCAT 326
PARTIES:	Stefanie christina dempsey (applicant) v commissioner of state revenue (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	GAR341-24
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	27 August 2025
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Scott-Mackenzie
ORDERS:	The interlocutory application by the Commissioner to strike out the review application is granted. The review application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	General administrative review matters – Application to review a decision land is not exempt land – Application to strike out the review application – Whether the applicant has complied with section 69 of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld) – Non-payment of tax – jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear and decide the application Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 77 Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld), s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 16, s 32, s 36, s 41, schedule 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 61 Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld), s 7, s 11, s 12, s 17, s 21, s 22, s 26, s 30, s 49, s 63, s 69, s 132, schedule 2 Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 612 Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 135 Ford v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] QSC 133 Izard v Cairns Regional Council [2010] QCAT 410 Market Square (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 578 Naswari v Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] QCAT 66 WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue & Anor [2018] QCA 255 Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] QCAT 457
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

[1]
The applicant (‘Ms Dempsey’) has made application to the Tribunal to review a decision of the respondent (‘Commissioner’) the land at 1 Surf Street, Mermaid Beach (‘land’) is not exempt land under sections 36 and 41 of the Land Tax Act 2010 (Qld) on 30 June 2022 and 30 June 2023 (‘review application’).
[2]
On 1 July 2024 the Commissioner made application to the Tribunal to strike out the review application (‘interlocutory application’) on the ground she had not complied with section 69 of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 (Qld).

Background

[3]
On 9 September 2022 Ms Dempsey submitted to the Commissioner an application for exemption from land tax for the land.
[4]
Correspondence in the form of emails passed between the parties. On 6 October 2023 the Commissioner approved the application as an application for home exemption.
[5]
On 17 October 2023 the Commissioner informed Ms Dempsey the claim for home exemption for the land is not applicable for 30 June 2022, annexing a notice of decision and land tax reassessment notices for the financial years 2022 – 2023 and 2023 – 2024 because of her land holdings on 30 June 2022 and 30 June 2023.
[6]
On 13 December 2023 Ms Dempsey objected to the assessments.

Notice of decision and statement of reasons

[7]
The notice of decision and statement of reasons is a lengthy document. It was contained in a letter from the Commissioner to Ms Dempsey’s lawyer dated 18 March 2024. For the purposes of these reasons for decision, the summary set out below is confined to the basis of the assessments, the grounds of objection and the response to grounds.
[8]
Section 17 of the Taxation Administration Act empowers the Commissioner to make a reassessment of a taxpayer’s liability for tax, subject to sections 21 and 22 of the Act. Section 22 provides a reassessment increasing a taxpayer’s liability may be made in the limitation period. The period is defined in schedule 2 of the Act. It means five years after the assessment notice for the original assessment was given.
[9]
Under sections 6 – 10 of the Land Tax Act, land tax is payable by an owner of land on the taxable value of all land owned by the person in Queensland and not exempt from land tax as at midnight on 30 June immediately preceding the financial year to which the tax relates.
[10]
Under section 16(1) of the Land Tax Act, the taxable value of land for a financial year is the lesser of:
1. the Land Valuation Act value of the land for the financial year; or
2. the averaged value of the land for the financial year.
[11]
On 30 June 2022 Ms Dempsey owned the following land:

Property ID	Property address	Property description	Taxable value
41560577	1 Surf Street, Mermaid Beach	19/SP/313680	$7,250,000.00
612737	1332 Tallebudgera Creek Road, Tallebudgera Valley	507/CP/W312068	$733,333.00
612739	1368 Tallebudgera Creek Road, Tallebudgera Valley	1/RP/113810	$175,833.00

[12]
On 30 June 2023 she owned the following land:

Property ID	Property address	Property description	Taxable value
41560577	1 Surf Street, Mermaid Beach	19/SP/313680	$8,750,000.00
612737	1332 Tallebudgera Creek Road, Tallebudgera Valley	507/CP/W312068	$816,666.00
612739	1368 Tallebudgera Creek Road, Tallebudgera Valley	1/RP/113810	$196,666.00

[13]
Ms Dempsey was not eligible for home exemption for the land in either year. The land tax payable in each year was calculated under section 32 of the Land Tax Act, by applying the rates set out in schedule 1 to the Act to the total taxable value of her land holdings, as set out in the assessments.
[14]
Ms Dempsey objected to the assessments, as follows:
1. The property is your principal place of residence (PPR) and is therefore exempt from land tax.
2. You have maintained a continuous association with the property as your PPR.
3. You occupied the property as your PPR prior to commencement of home dwelling works.
4. The construction works carried out on the property was for your residential home.
5. The only reason you did not reside at the property on midnight 30 June 2022 and 30 June 2023 was because of the construction works to the home on the property.
6. You recommenced living at the property in September 2023 after the construction was complete.
7. You have not structured/financed the acquisition and construction of the property for business or investment purposes and therefore, have not gained any taxation benefits, which is consistent with considering the property as your PPR.
8. You continuously represented to the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Qld (TMR) on your driver licence that the property always remained your PPR.
9. Your children declared the property as their PPR in school fee statements.
10. Your inability to physically occupy the property during construction does not invalidate your continued connection with the property as your PPR, citing the cases of Jackman v Commissioner of Land Tax (Jackman) and Harding v Commissioner of Taxation (at [60]) (Harding).
[15]
The Commissioner responded to the grounds of objection. The imposition of land tax in Queensland is provided for in the Land Tax Act. It is a function of the Commissioner to imposed and administer land tax in Queensland in accordance with the requirements of the Parliament. The Commissioner does not have the power to allow an exemption if the statutory requirements are not met.
[16]
The Commissioner was satisfied that, in the relevant years, Ms Dempsey was not entitled to a home exemption for the land.
[17]
The notice of decision and statement of reasons then addresses the reasons for the decision.

Material

Commissioner’s material

[18]
The Commissioner filed submissions in support of the interlocutory application. They set out the background and power to strike out the proceeding. The power is found in section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). It provides:

This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is:

frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or

lacking in substance; or

otherwise an abuse of process.

The tribunal may:

if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out; or

for a part of a proceeding brought before the tribunal by a party other than the applicant for the proceeding:

make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant’s favour; or

order that the party who brought the part before the tribunal be removed from the proceeding; or

make a costs order against the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal to compensate another party for any reasonable costs, expenses, loss, inconvenience and embarrassment resulting from the proceeding or part.

The tribunal may act under subsection (2) on the application of a party to the proceeding or on the tribunal’s own initiative.

The tribunal’s power to act under subsection (2) is exercisable only by:

the tribunal as constituted for the proceeding; or

if the tribunal has not been constituted for the proceeding - a legally qualified member or an adjudicator.

[19]
Ms Dempsey does not object to the matter being decided as a preliminary matter.
[20]
In Izard v Cairns Regional Council^[1], the Tribunal observed:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application under section 47 of the QCAT Act if it is satisfied that the application is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or lacking in substance or otherwise an abuse of process. If the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an application as submitted by the Respondent that would be grounds for striking out the application based on it being misconceived or lacking in substance.

[21]
The Commissioner then addresses the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and decide the proceeding. It submits the Tribunal is without jurisdiction by reason of section 49 of the Taxation Administration Act. The reason for the submission is Ms Dempsey did not pay the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessments to which the decision relates and, within sixty days after notice was given to her of the Commissioner’s decision on the objection apply, as provided under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, to the Tribunal for a review of the Commissioner’s decision.
[22]
The combined effect of the definitions of ‘assessment’, ‘tax’, ‘unpaid tax interest’ and ‘late payment interest’ is the whole of the amount for the purposes of section 69(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act includes each of the following:

primary tax;

penalty tax;

unpaid tax interest recorded on the reassessment; and

unpaid tax interest that has accrued after the reassessment has been issued.

[23]
Ms Dempsey had until 17 May 2024 to pay the whole of the tax and late payment interest under the reassessments before applying for review. The tax assessment notices were issued on 17 October 2023. The amounts, $117,785.40 and $145,858.30, were payable on 15 January 2024. On 25 January 2024 Ms Dempsey paid to the Commissioner $117,785.40 and on 30 January 2024 she paid to the Commissioner $145,858.30. On the date of filing the review application, 16 May 2024, the unpaid amount was $876.74.

Ms Dempsey’s submissions

[24]
Ms Dempsey admits the reassessments. She did not receive the specification of the amount outstanding until she received from the Commissioner the letter dated 20 May 2024. The reassessments, Ms Dempsey submits, are incorrect for the following reasons:
1. Assessed Interest would have accrued on both reassessments.
2. Neither reassessment identifies the accrued Assessed Interest as required by s 54(4) of the [Taxation] Administration Act 2001 (“TAA”).
3. Without the reassessments being correctly formulated, the Applicant (as taxpayer) is unable to verify the amounts the commissioner claims were owed for the 2022-2023 or 2023-2024 financial years.
4. It is impossible to safely determine whether the Whole of the Tax and Late Payment Interest was paid or unpaid as at 16 May 2024 (being the date when the Applicant’s Application to Review the Commissioner’s Objection Decision (the “Applicant’s Application”) was filed).
[25]
Ms Dempsey disputes the manner in which the Commissioner applied the payments. The reassessment paid in full has not been identified. However, as a precaution, the amount in the letter from the Commissioner to Mr Dempsey dated 20 May 2024 has been paid.
[26]
Section 69 of the Taxation Administration Act, Ms Dempsey submits, applies to the review application. On 16 May 2024, the date of the review application:
1. no outstanding Primary Tax or Late Payment Interest owing in relation to either the 2023 or 2024 Reassessment.
2. the commissioner’s submission make it uncertain as to which reassessment was paid in full and therefore the commissioner’s submissions cannot be relied on and should be rejected.
3. the commissioner’s certificate (Attachment 3) incorrectly applies payments received and therefore the amount the commissioner claims is owed (as at 16 May 2024) cannot be taken into account in determining whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to s 69 of the TAA or not.
4. the reassessments are defective and therefore cannot be relied on in determining whether any unpaid Primary Tax and/or Late Payment Interest was outstanding as at 16 May 2024.

Legislation

[27]
Section 7 of the Taxation Administration Act establishes the Office of the Commissioner. Section 8 confers on the Commissioner responsibility for ‘ … the administration and enforcement of tax laws.’
[28]
Section 11 of the Act spells out what happens when the Commissioner makes an assessment. It provides:

The commissioner must make an assessment if:

the commissioner is satisfied a taxpayer has a liability for tax; and

the taxpayer’s liability is not required or permitted, under a revenue law, to be made by self assessment.

Also, the commissioner may make an assessment:

if the taxpayer’s liability for tax is required or permitted to be made by self assessment under the revenue law; or

even if the taxpayer’s liability for tax is nil.

If the commissioner does not make an assessment under subsection (2), the commissioner’s decision not to make the assessment is a non-reviewable decision.

[29]
Section 12 provides for compromise assessments in the following terms:

This section applies if, in assessing a taxpayer’s liability for tax, it is difficult or impracticable for the commissioner to properly determine the amount of the taxpayer’s liability because of a complexity or uncertainty or for another reason.

The commissioner may make an assessment of the taxpayer’s liability under a written agreement with the taxpayer (a compromise assessment).

The compromise assessment is a non-reviewable decision.

Nothing in this part requires the commissioner to make a compromise assessment for a taxpayer.

[30]
Section 17 of the Act confers on the Commissioner a general power to make a reassessment of a taxpayer’s liability for tax. The Commissioner may make an assessment or a reassessment on the available information which the Commissioner considers relevant.^[2]
[31]
An assessment notice, under section 26 of the Act, must be given to a taxpayer. The section provides:

The commissioner must give notice of the making of an assessment (an assessment notice) to the taxpayer.

The assessment notice must state:

the amount of the tax assessed; and

the date by which the tax must be paid; and

the taxpayer’s right to object to the assessment; and

the basis on which unpaid tax interest may accrue; and

if assessed interest or penalty tax is payable under the notice - enough information to enable the taxpayer to ascertain the basis for the assessment of the interest or penalty tax; and

for a compromise or default assessment—it is a compromise or default assessment; and

for a reassessment - the amount of the liability for tax under the previous assessment.

For subsection (2)(c), the assessment notice must state:

that the taxpayer may, within 60 days after the notice is given, object to the assessment; and

how to object.

The assessment notice may include information that does not form part of the assessment, including, for example, information about other amounts payable by the taxpayer.

More than 1 assessment may be included in the assessment notice.

Despite subsection (1), the commissioner need not give an assessment notice for an assessment making a remission under section 60 or a revenue law if, after the remission and the application of payments received by the commissioner for the taxpayer’s assessment liability, the taxpayer has no assessment liability.

[32]
Section 30 of the Act provides that tax payable under a tax law must be paid on certain defined dates. The whole or part of an amount payable under a tax law not paid is a debt payable to the State.^[3] The Commissioner is given power to recover the amount in a court of competent jurisdiction.
[33]
Section 63 of the Taxation Administration Act enables a dissatisfied taxpayer a right to object. The Commissioner must allow the objection, completely or partly, or disallowed it.^[4]
[34]
A right of appeal or review is found in section 69. It provides:

This section applies to a taxpayer if:

the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the commissioner’s decision on the taxpayer’s objection; and

for an objection under section 63 - the taxpayer has paid the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the decision relates.

The taxpayer may, within 60 days after notice is given to the taxpayer of the commissioner’s decision on the objection:

appeal to the Supreme Court; or

apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a review of the commissioner’s decision.

QCAT may not, under the QCAT Act, section 61(1)(a), extend the period under subsection (2) within which the taxpayer may apply to QCAT for the review.

To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1)(b) applies to an objection to an assessment whether or not the taxpayer also makes an objection under section 63A to a royalty valuation decision relating to the assessment.

For royalty payable under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the reference in subsection (1)(b) to payment of the whole of the amount of the tax is a reference to payment of the whole of the amount of the royalty assessed as payable to the State.

[35]
The section is engaged for an objection under section 63 if the taxpayer has paid the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the decision relates. A part payment of the tax or interest is insufficient.
[36]
The application for review of the Commissioner’s decision must be given within sixty days after notice is given to the taxpayer. The Tribunal is not able to extend the time limit fixed for the start of the proceeding under section 61(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
[37]
Section 69(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act applies to an objection to an assessment whether or not the taxpayer also makes an objection under section 63A to a royalty valuation decision relating to the assessment.

Consideration

[38]
The Commissioner cites several decided cases in support of its submissions.
[39]
In Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue^[5] (‘Fleri’), the applicant did not comply with the requirements of section 69 of the Taxation Administration Act prior to making application for review. The review jurisdiction is sourced in the section. It applies in accordance with section 61(1) if a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s decision on the taxpayer’s objection and the taxpayer has paid the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the assessment relates. A right to make an application to review to the Tribunal within 60 days of the notice of decision is found in section 69(2).
[40]
In paragraph [16] of the decision, the Tribunal said:

The Tribunal accepts the Commissioner’s submission that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an application to review a decision of the Commissioner unless section 69(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 has been complied with.

[41]
The Tribunal, in Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue^[6] (‘Cowie’), following Fleri, observed non-compliance cannot be waived by the Tribunal under section 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
[42]
In Naswari v Commissioner of State Revenue^[7] (‘Naswari’), the Tribunal said:

[19] A similar situation was considered in Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 135. In that case, payment of a reassessment had not been paid within the 60 day period. The learned member found at [15] that:

[15] On the other hand the requirement for the payment of the tax and penalty is part of the requirements before the section is said to apply. This then is a substantive provision and jurisdiction is not enlivened until section 69(1) has been complied with.

[20] I agree with the reasoning of the learned member in Flori [sic.].

[21] A similar situation occurred, and similar result was also found in Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue [2012] QCAT 612. In that case the learned member said at [13]:

[13] As the tribunal found in the Fieri decision a right to review a decision of the Commissioner is conditional upon compliance with section 69(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 and so the tribunal jurisdiction is not enlivened unless and until there is compliance with those requirements. Non-compliance cannot be waived by the tribunal under section 61 of the QCAT Act.

[43]
In Market Square (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue^[8] (‘Market Square’), the Tribunal adopted the same view of the jurisdictional requirements of section 69 of the Taxation Administration Act. There, the applicant paid the reassessed tax of $141,855.28 but did not pay the tax interest of $51.00. The Tribunal was satisfied the payments were applied in accordance with section 42 of the Act and the amount outstanding was primary tax.
[44]
The Tribunal, at paragraph [55], said:

The under payment of $51.00 remained outstanding until 15 November 2012 when payment by cheque dated 12 November 2012 was made. The Tribunal is satisfied that the legislative intent is clear. The requirement to pay the whole of the amount of tax and late payment interest in s 69(1) is both substantive and mandatory in character and goes to the jurisdiction of QCAT. The failure to comply with this essential preliminary requirement is a jurisdictional fact sufficient to invalidate any attempt to review proceedings under s 69.

[45]
In Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue^[9], the Tribunal, citing Fleri, Cowie, Naswari and Market Square, concurred. At paragraph [3], it said:

There are numerous decisions of this Tribunal which confirm that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the review of decisions of the Commissioner is subject to the payment of the whole of the amount of the tax and late payment interest payable under the assessment to which the decision relates being made before the right to make the application to review arises. The Tribunal notes that the Commissioner’s notice of decision and statement of reasons dated 30 September 2013 states that “Under the TAA, you are only entitled to appeal or apply for review of this decision if you have paid the reassessment and any further accrued UTI in full”. (Citation omitted)

[46]
The Queensland Court of Appeal in WB Rural Pty Limited v Commissioner of State Revenue & Anor^[10] (‘WB Rural’) (Sofronoff P, Philippides JA and Douglas J agreeing) obliquely considered the issue. The Court, at first instance and on appeal, held section 69(1)(b) of the Taxation Administration Act was within the legislative competence of the Queensland Parliament insofar as it purports to preclude the Supreme Court of Queensland from reviewing a decision on a taxpayer’s objection without the applicant first having paid the amount assessed. The Court at first instance and on appeal dismissed the proceeding.
[47]
Recently, the Supreme Court in Ford v Commissioner of State Revenue^[11] (Burns J) considered an assessment notice for a default assessment given by the respondent to the applicant. He applied to the Tribunal for a review of the respondent’s decision without paying the whole amount of the tax under the assessment to which the decision relates. The application was dismissed on the ground the Tribunal was without jurisdiction to hear and decide the application.
[48]
The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
[49]
The Court identified the following as the limited basis for considering the applicant’s claims:

[8] First, like QCAT, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding the Notice of Assessment because the objections process has not been undertaken, and that is required by s 69 of the Taxation Administration Act. To the point, an appeal to this court will only be available where the Commissioner has issued an objection decision, the taxpayer has appealed that decision within 60 days and the taxpayer has paid the whole of the tax liability (including late payment interest): s 69(1)(b). None of those things have occurred.

[9] Second, even if the Commissioner was wrong in failing to allow an exemption, the Notices of Assessment cannot be challenged in any other way. This is because of s 132 of the Taxation Administration Act which expressly provides that a Notice of Assessment is conclusive evidence of the proper making of the assessment and, further, for a proceeding such as this, is conclusive evidence that the amount and all particulars of the assessment are correct: s 132(1)(b)(ii).

[10] Third, the complaints made by the applicant about a lack of procedural fairness, a lack of opportunity to be heard and the like are classically grounds for judicial review, but a statutory order of review or other relief is not available under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). This is because that statute does not apply to an assessment, a decision or conduct leading up to or forming part of the process of making an assessment or a decision disallowing, in whole or in part, an objection against an assessment: s 77(a), (b) and (c).

[50]
It concluded:

… even if the applicant’s core complaint that the transaction in question attracted an exemption from duty under s 118 of the Duties Act were correct, that could only be an “error within jurisdiction” which will not engage the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. Rather, as the applicant has been repeatedly told, the proper avenue of appeal or review is via the objections process expressly provided for in the Taxation Administration Act.^[12]

[51]
The application was dismissed.
[52]
The gravamen of Ms Dempsey’s challenge to the interlocutory application is she does not know what interest was paid on payment of the tax of $117,785.40 on 25 January 2024 and $145,858.30 on 30 January 2024. The challenge, in my opinion, is without merit.
[53]
The first amount, $117,785.40, was paid ten days late, on 25 January 2024. The sum of $145,858.30 was paid fifteen days late, on 30 January 2024.
[54]
The reassessment notices are endorsed, ‘If you pay late, it will cost to you more.’
[55]
The reader is referred to ‘Your obligations and entitlements’ section of the notices. There, under the heading ‘Late or non-payment’, the notices read:

Unpaid tax interest applies if the amount payable is not received in full by the payment due date. It is calculated daily at the prescribed rate (currently 11.90% per annum and adjusted each year on 1 July) on any unpaid land tax liability.

Interest will continue to accrue each Sunday until payment of the total amount owing is received in full.

If you believe you have unpaid land tax liabilities for previous financial years, please contact us on 1300 300 734.

[56]
In WB Rural, Sofronoff P concluded:

There is no authority for the proposition that a statutory right of appeal from an administrative decision cannot be conditioned upon the fulfilment of the duty created by that decision. What is more, notwithstanding such a condition limiting a general right of appeal, a person’s right to resort to the Supreme Court to challenge a decision made in excess of jurisdiction is preserved in any event. In any case, the equality of treatment that is a characteristic of a State Supreme Court is its equality of treatment of persons in its exercise of judicial power when that power is validly invoked. (Citations omitted)

[57]
The payments made by Ms Dempsey on 25 and 30 January 2024 were the amounts specified in the reassessment notices. In each case, the payments were applied in accordance with section 47 of the Taxation Administration Act leaving a balance, in each case, of primary tax. Late payment interest continued to accrue on each balance of the primary tax.
[58]
The failure of the Commissioner to claim the late payment interest on the balance of the primary tax in each case may well have been a mistake. However, what is clear is Ms Dempsey did not pay the whole of the tax and interest prior to making the review application. The requirement for payment of late payment interest was clearly stated on the reassessment notices if payment of the primary tax was not paid on the dates specified.
[59]
The Tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the review application. The interlocutory application must be granted, and the review application must be dismissed.

Orders

[60]
The orders of the Tribunal are as follows:

The interlocutory application by the Commissioner to strike out the review application is granted.
The review application is dismissed.

[61]
I have not made an order for the costs of the proceeding. If a party is inclined to apply for costs, it should inform the Tribunal within twenty-one days of this decision and the necessary orders will be given.

Footnotes

[1] [2010] QCAT 410.

[2]Taxation Administration Act, s 27.

[3]Taxation Administration Act, s 45(2).

[4]Taxation Administration Act, ss 67 and 68.

[5] [2012] QCAT 135.

[6] [2012] QCAT 612.

[7] [2013] QCAT 66.

[8] [2013] QCAT 578.

[9] [2014] QCAT 457.

[10] [2018] QCA 255.

[11] [2025] QSC 133.

[12] Ibid, at [15].

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue
Shortened Case Name:
Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue
MNC:
[2025] QCAT 326
Court:
QCAT
Judge(s):
Member Scott-Mackenzie
Date:
27 Aug 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Cowie v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2012] QCAT 612	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 612 Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 612 Cite 3 - [2012] QCAT 612
Fleri v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2012] QCAT 135	3 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 135 Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 135 Cite 3 - [2012] QCAT 135
Ford v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2025] QSC 133	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2025] QSC 133 Cite 2 - [2025] QSC 133
Izard v Cairns Regional Council	[2010] QCAT 410	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 410 Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 410
Market Square (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2013] QCAT 578	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 578 Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 578
Naswari v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2013] QCAT 66	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 66 Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 66
Scott v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2014] QCAT 457	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 457 Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 457
WB Rural Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue	[2019] 2 Qd R 517; [2018] QCA 255	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2018] QCA 255 Cite 2 - [2018] QCA 255

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

Dempsey v Commissioner of State Revenue[2025] QCAT 326