❓ A parliamentary question regarding stamp duty charged to the Ellis' and the Office of State Revenue's handling of the matter, specifically concerning transparency, discretion, and potential legislative amendments. The Treasurer's response cites confidentiality provisions preventing disclosure.
AnsweredQoN 2240Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) is it correct that the Office of State Revenue has, according to the Ellis’ solicitor, declined to give any written reason for the application of two lots of stamp duty other than to merely state that it believed its assessment was the correct one; (c) if ‘yes’ will the Treasurer insist that, on the grounds of accountability and transparency, the Office of Revenue give a full and frank written explanation; (d) is it correct that previous decisions touching on similar matters have been made in favour of the taxpayer, thus indicating that the Commissioner does have discretion in such matters; (e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(c) if ‘yes’ will the Treasurer insist that, on the grounds of accountability and transparency, the Office of Revenue give a full and frank written explanation; (d) is it correct that previous decisions touching on similar matters have been made in favour of the taxpayer, thus indicating that the Commissioner does have discretion in such matters; (e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(d) is it correct that previous decisions touching on similar matters have been made in favour of the taxpayer, thus indicating that the Commissioner does have discretion in such matters; (e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(c) if ‘yes’ will the Treasurer insist that, on the grounds of accountability and transparency, the Office of Revenue give a full and frank written explanation; (d) is it correct that previous decisions touching on similar matters have been made in favour of the taxpayer, thus indicating that the Commissioner does have discretion in such matters; (e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(d) is it correct that previous decisions touching on similar matters have been made in favour of the taxpayer, thus indicating that the Commissioner does have discretion in such matters; (e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(e) if ‘yes’ to (d) will the Treasurer table all such precedents minus identifying data, and advise why the discretion was not used in the Ellis case; and (f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
(f) will the Treasurer consider amendments to the Act to ensure that no taxpayer can in future be charged stamp duty twice for the same transaction, given that the Ellis’ are not seeking to pay less than their obligations, but are resentful of having to pay double?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 December 2003
Response time
16 days
The Commissioner is bound by the confidentiality provisions of Section 114 of the Taxation Administration Act 2003, and is not able to disclose information or material obtained under a taxation Act unless authorised by the person to whose affairs the information or material relates. Such authority has not been received from Mr and Mrs Ellis.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.