A public ruling, when issued, is the published view of the Commissioner of State Revenue (the Commissioner) on the particular topic to which it relates. It therefore replaces and overrides any existing private rulings, memoranda, manuals and advice provided by the Commissioner in respect of the issue(s) it addresses.
Where a change in legislation or case law (the law) affects the content of a public ruling, the change in the law overrides the public ruling—that is, the Commissioner will determine the tax liability or eligibility for a concession, grant or exemption, as the case may be, in accordance with the law.
Example 1
Lucas previously held an interest in a property in Australia with other people. However, he believes that this should not prevent him from receiving the grant. Lucas applies for the grant and states on his application form that he has never previously owned a property in Australia.
The conditions
Example 2
Jordan is paid the grant in anticipation of compliance with the residence requirements. He commences renovating the property and stays overnight regularly in an attempt to complete the renovations promptly. However, Jordan’s principal place of residence is elsewhere. After 6 months of such occupancy, he completes the renovations and sells the property. Jordan has not satisfied the residence requirements in these circumstances and is required to repay the grant.
Culpability category | Applicant behaviour |
---|---|
1 | Applicant breached their obligations despite acting with reasonable care. |
2 | Applicant negligently or inadvertently breached their obligations. |
3 | Applicant intentionally disregarded their obligations. |
Culpability category 1—Reasonable care
Example 3
Gabrielle is paid the grant in anticipation of compliance with the residence requirements. She occupies the property for 7 months before vacating. Gabrielle believes she has satisfied the residence requirements and does not repay the grant. However, she was unaware that her solicitor was 2 months late in lodging the transfer of title in her name. Accordingly, Gabrielle has not satisfied the residence requirements because she has only occupied the home for 5 months after completion of the eligible transaction. The Commissioner would be satisfied that Gabrielle took reasonable care in the circumstances.
Culpability category 2—Negligence
Example 4
Gabrielle is paid the grant in anticipation of compliance with the residence requirements. On completion of the relevant transaction, Gabrielle occupies the residence for 5 months before vacating due to an unexpected change in circumstances. She discovers that the Commissioner has discretion to exempt applicants from the residence requirement or approve a shorter period. Gabrielle believes that her circumstances would qualify for the discretion, but does not contact the Commissioner to clarify if the discretion would be exercised.
Culpability category 3—Intentional disregard
Example 5
Gabrielle is paid the grant in anticipation of compliance with the residence requirements. She does not comply with the residence requirements and makes attempts to disguise her non-compliance. Gabrielle does not repay the grant because she feels she has disguised her non-compliance with the residence requirements sufficiently enough to not be required to repay the grant.
Mark Jackson
Commissioner of State Revenue
Date of issue: 31 March 2021
Public Ruling | Issued | Dates of effect | |
---|---|---|---|
From | To | ||
FHOGA047.1.6 | 31 March 2021 | 31 March 2021 | Current |
FHOGA047.1.5 | 3 November 2020 | 3 November 2020 | 30 March 2021 |
FHOGA047.1.4 | 29 June 2018 | 1 July 2018 | 2 November 2020 |
FHOGA047.1.3 | 1 July 2016 | 1 July 2016 | 30 June 2018 |
FHOGA047.1.2 | 11 October 2012 | 11 October 2012 | 30 June 2016 |
FHOGA047.1.1 | 1 December 2011 | 1 December 2011 | 10 October 2012 |
Section 47(2) of the Grants Act—Penalty amount for breach of the honesty obligations
Culpability category | Circumstance | Penalty |
---|---|---|
1 | Breach despite applicant taking reasonable care | 0–10% |
2 | Breach result of negligence or inadvertence; for example:
|
10–50% |
3 | Breach result of intentionally and without regard, providing false and misleading information; for example:
|
50–100% |
Section 47(3) of the Grants Act—Penalty amount for breach of the repayment obligations (failure to repay error amount as required by written notice)
Culpability category | Circumstance | Penalty |
---|---|---|
1 | Breach despite applicant taking reasonable care; for example, honest and reasonable mistake | 0–10% |
2 | Breach result of negligence or inadvertence; for example:
|
10–50% |
3 | Breach result of intentionally and without regard failing to repay; for example:
|
50–100% |
Section 47(3) of the Grants Act—Penalty amount for breach of the repayment obligations (failure to repay grant as required by a condition of the grant)
Late repayment but prior to notice of investigation | Repayment after notice of investigation | No repayment before written notice | |
---|---|---|---|
Culpability category 1
Breach despite applicant taking reasonable care; for example, genuine and reasonable belief of compliance with the residence requirements or a condition of the grant |
5% | 10% | 25% |
Culpability category 2
Breach result of negligence or inadvertence, for example:
|
10% | 25% | 60% |
Culpability category 3
Breach result of intentional disregard; for example:
|
25% | 60% | 100% |